IR 05000277/1980016
| ML19339C735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1980 |
| From: | Blough A, Cowgill C, Greenman E, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339C723 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-80-16, 50-278-80-14, NUDOCS 8011190254 | |
| Download: ML19339C735 (7) | |
Text
.
f~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
- tegion I 50-277/80-16 Report No.
50-278/80-14 50-277 Docket No.
50-278 CPR-44 C
License No.
OPR-56 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Philadelnhia Ela<-d e r em ny 2301 Market Street Philadelchia. Deensylvania 10101 Facility Name:
Peach Bottcm Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Inspection at:
Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:
June 1-30, 1980 Inspectors:
M M
9-/ 2 - F O cu C. J. Cowgill, Residen( Reactor Inspector cate signec f k.h
--
9-12-40 E. G. Greenman, Chief, Nuclear Support date signed Section N}o
'1, RO&NS BraEn h
__
/
9-12-9 0 7 12.
A. R. Bl'ough, Resident R'ea#ctor Inspector
- ate signed
~
Approved by:
8.C. b M.h.
9 l 15'I 8o E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor Projects cate signec Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch Inscection Summary:
Insoection on June 1-30, 1980 (Combined Inscection Recort Number 50-277/80-16: and 50-278/S0-14)
Areas Insoected: Routine, onsite regular and backshift inspections by the resident inspector (17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> Unit 2; 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> Unit 3).
Areas inspected included plant opera-tions, facility tours, control room inspections, review of periodic recorts, housekeeping, radiation protection, reactor chemistry, LER review onsite and followup on prior identified items.
Results: Noncompliances - None in eight areas, one in one area (Deficiency - failure to properly log valve positions as required when an isolation valve is inoperable, Detail 3).
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
@ { } } 9 0 ,
. , CETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted . C. E. Andersen, Operations Engineer
- R. S. Fleischmann, Assistant Station Superintendent N. Gazda, Acting Health Physics Supervisor S. R. Roberts, Results Engineer J. Spencer, Maintenance Engineer S. Q. Tharpe, Security Supervisor
- W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent J. E. Winzenreid, Technical Engineer Other licensee employees were contacted during tne inspection.
These . included engineering personnel, administrative personnel, reactor opera- ' tors, shift supervision, maintenance personnel, contractor personnel, health physics and security personnel.
denotes those present at the exit interview cn site and for semmation
of preliminary inspection findings.
2.
Previous Insoection Item Uodate (Closed) Unresolved Item (277/79-30-01 and 278/79-33-01). The minimum shift manning requirements of the Technical Specifications were found to make no provisions for situations involving personnel emergencies or opera-tor injuries. The inspector reviewed amendments 69 and 68 to Facility Operating Licensee Nos. DPR-44 and CPR-56, issued by the NRC on May 16, 1980. This Technical Specification change clarified the minimum shift crew composition, providing limited flexibility and conforms to Standard Techni-cal Specifications.
In issuing this change, the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation noted that the staff is currently considering an increase to tne minimum shift staffing at cperating reactors, a planned action not associated with the change approved by Amendments 69 and 68.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
3.
Plant Oceratiens Review a.
Logs and Records (1) Occuments Reviewed A sampling review of logs andcrecords was made to: identify significant changes and trends; assure that required entries were being made; to verify that operating and night orders con-form to t - 5nical specification requirements; check correctness of commu:usations concerning equipment operating and lock out status; and to verify conformance to limiting conditions for operations.
Logs and records reviewed were:
_.
N
.
a.
Shift Supervision Log, June 1-30, 1980 b.
Reactor Operators Log Book Unit 2, June 1-30,1980 c.
Reactor Operators Log Book Unit 3, June 1-30,1980 d.
ACO Log Book, June 1-30, 1980 e.
Maintenance Request Forms (MRFs Unit 2 and 3) f.
Plant Record Sheets - Sampling Audit g.
Surveillance Test Results - Selected Sample h.
Radiation Work Permits - various in both Units 2 and 3 1.
Ignition source control check sheets - various Unit 2 and
j.
Fire system status sheets (sampling) June 1980 The control room logs were reviewed against requirements of procedure A-7, Revision 14, dated December 20,1979 " Shift Ocera tions".
Frequent initialing of entries by licensed opera-tors, shift supervision and licensee onsite management consti-tuted evidence of licensee review.
l Logs were also reviewed to assure that plant conditions including ] abnormalities and significant operations were accurately and com-
pletely recorded.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
' (2) Facility Tours , During the course of this inspection, which also includad back-shifts, the inspector conducted daily tours of accessible areas and made observations of: Con';rol room (daily) -- Turbine building -- Reactor building -- Diesel Generator building -- Yard area and perimeter exterior to the power block -- Security building includincj SAS -- Auxiliary SAS and control points to the power block -- Security fencing -- Vehicular Control -- Badging and Escorting -- Portal monitoring -- Control of Radiation and High Radiation Areas -- Personnel -- The following observations were made by the inspector: _ _
. . .. ,
Monitoring Instrumentation.
The inspector frequently -- confirmed that selected instruments were operational and indicated values were within technical specification limits.
On a daily basis when the inspector was on site ECCS switch position and valve lineups based upon control room indica-tors were verified.
In plant instrumentation was also fre-quently examined.
Examples of instrumentation observed in-cluded ficw setpoints, breaker positions, PCIS status, dry-well temperatures and nuclear instrumentation.
While performing an inspection of the control room on June 20, 1980, the inspector discussed with the Unit 3 operator ' requirements associated with inoperable primary containment isolation valve A0-3520. This drywell purge inlet isolation valve is listed as a primary containment isolation valve in Table 3.7.1 of Technical Specifications and had been inoperable since May 24, 1980. Technical Specification 4.7.0.2 states that whenever as isolation valve listed in Table 3.7.1 is inoperable, the position of at least one other valve in each line having an inoperable valve shall be recorded daily.
Although the position of drywell purge supply valve A0-3505 was being logged daily on Surveillance Test ST 5.3, the position of drywell nitrogen supply valve A0-3519 a valve parallel to and in line with A0-3505, and also in line with inoperable valve, was not being logged.
Addi tionally, Suppression Chamber Supply Valves A0-3521A and A0-3521B, each of which should also have been logged, were not being logged.
This failure to log valve positions did not present the potential for an abnormal occurrence because each of the three valves of concern was included in the closed panel checks conducted by the operator each shif t.
The checks would have revealed any abnomal positioning of these valves and administrative controls were in effect restricting the opening of containment ventilation valves during operation.
When notified of this condition by the inspector, the licensee commenced daily logging of the additional valve positions en June 20, 1980.
This failure to properly log valve position during the period of May 24 to June 19 is contrary to tne Technical Specifications and constitutes an item of noncompliance (278/80-14-01).
Valve positioning.
The inspector independently verified -- that selected valves in safety systems were properly positioned.
System status of the Standby Liquid Control was checked.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
Plant Housekeeping and Fire Protection.
The inspector ob- -- served housekeeping conditions, fire hose stations and equipment status and observed the licensee's fire protection
.
practices and procedures as well as the usage of fire watches.
i The licensee's adherence to no smoking areas was also examined.
The Unit 2 refueling outage currently in progress, was im-pacting negatively on housekeeping.
The inspector identified no specific unacceptable conditions.
Fluid Leaks. No significant fluid leaks were observed which -- had not been identified by the licensee nor for which necessary corrective action had not been initiated. The inspector also observed sump status pump out rates and held discussiens with licensed personnel.
No unacceptable conditions were identfied.
Piping Vibration.
No significant piping vibration or unusual -- conditions were observed.
Anchor plates, bolts and seismic restraints were cbserved.
-- No unusual conditions were observed.
Off Normal Alarms.
Selected annunciators were discussed -- i with control rocm operators to verify that operators and i shift supervisors were knowledgeable of plant conditions and that correctiva action, if required, was being taken.
Examples of alarms discussed included: condensate storage tank high level; standby liquid high flow temperature and reactor water conductivity. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
Control Rocm Manning. On frequent occasions during this in- -- spection the inspector confirmed that requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k) and Technical Specifications for minimum staffing re-quirements were satisfied. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
- b.
Reactor Water Chemistry The following surveillance tests for the periods indicated were re-viewed by the inspector to assure that Technical Specification Limits were satisfied.
(1) Conductivity and Chloride Ion Content in Primary Coolant Curino Normal Operation and Time Conductivity and Chloride are Above ' Specified Limi ts Surveillance Tests 7.2.3. A and 7.2.3.C and Peach Ecttom Daily BWR Chemistry Analysis - June 1-15, 1980.
Technical Specification 3.6.B requires prior to startup and when operating at rated pressure, reactor water conductivity at 25 de-grees C of less than or equal to 5.0 unho/cm and chloride concen-tration less than or equal to 0.2 ppm.
Reactor water quality may i
. . ,
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 June 1-15, indicated that conductivity was maintained within limits throughouc all periods of operation during the month with a maximum value of 3.0 umho/ cm.
Chloride concentration remained within limits except for a 32 hour period during which a maximum of 0.33 ppm was reached.
Through June 15, cumulative times above "two weeks per year" were 32 hours for chloride concentration and zero hours for conductivity.
Unit 2 remained shut down during the period reviewed.
(2) Determination of Dose Ecuivalent Microcuries/ Gram I-131 in the Primary Coolant Surveillance Test 7.2.1. A for the period 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 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.recresenta-tive sample for Unit 3 analyzed on June 12, 1980, indicated a dose equivalent I-131, concentration of 1.77 x 10-3 microcuries per gram.
Unit 2 remained shutdown with the core off-loaded and reactor cavity drained--a sample was not obtainable throughout the period.
No un-acceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Nonroutine Event Review The inspector reviewed the following nonroutine event onsite and in the NRC site office for safety significance, circumstances and relationship to techni-cal specifications protective limits. The licensee's PORC review, evaluation and corrective action was also verified.
LER Number Ti tle 3-80-03/3L RHR ' A' Loop LPCI Injection Valve Failed to Open During Surveillance Testing While performing surveillance testing with the unit at pcwer, LPCI injection valve M0-3-10-25A failed to open. The inspector verified that the licensee had declared the ' A' LPCI loop inoperable and had conducted surveillance testing of LPCI 'B' and both core spray systems as required by Technical Speci-fications. The unit was subsequently shutdown and the valve was repaired and tested prior to startup. The inspector reviewed a Balance Group Valve Report dated March 10, 1980, which indicated that galling between the disc (wecge) , . _ -
. ..
and guide had been found and repaired.
Impropar clearances, believed to have existed since original installation, were cited as the probable cause of the galling and valve binding.
The valve manufacturer was consulted regarding the required clearances.
The licensee subsequently checked clearances on similar valves.
The inspector had no further questions re-garding this matter.
5.
Radiation Protection During this report period, the inspector examined work in progress in ac-cessible areas of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 facilities. Areas examined included: a.
Health Physics (HP) controls b.
Badging c.
Usage of protective clothing d.
Personnel adherence to RWP requirements e.
Surveys f.
Handling of potentially contaminated equipment and materials Additionally, inspections were conducted of employee usage of fristers and portal monitors by personnel exiting various RWP areas, the power block, and the licensee's final exit point.
In excess of 25 people were observed to meet frisking requirements of Health Phvsics procedures during the month.
No unacceptable conditions were identi~ied.
6.
In-Offie Review of Monthly Ooeratinc Recorts The follcwing licensee reports have been reviewed in-office on site: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Monthly Operating report for May,1980 dated June 10,1980.
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.
Management Meeting During the period of the inspection, licensee management was periodically notified of the prelimin&ry 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 the exit interview conducted at the conclusion of the Health Physics Appraisal in-spection on June 27, 1980. }}