IR 05000289/1977037
| ML19256D111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1977 |
| From: | Davis A, Haverkamp D, Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D103 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-77-37, NUDOCS 7910170562 | |
| Download: ML19256D111 (17) | |
Text
_ _
__ _
!.
-
~
.
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
-~)
j Region I Report No. En ?AQ/77-17 i
Docket No. so-psg
'
l License No.DPR-50 Priority Category C
l Licensee:
htrocolitan Edison Company i
'
P. O. Box 542 Readina, Pennsylvania 19603 i
!
Facility NameThree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I i
Inspection at: Middletown and Reading, Pennsylvania i
Inspection conducted-No emb r 7 - December 2,1977 Inspectors:
, #f
/
2c
/
P. M Qipy, Re
'inape dor gate ' signed O
GLL
/
Moh, D.Haverkamp,Reactorpnspector date signed date signed
!
Approved by:
au4a M.
jy
/g l
A. Bjvis,dhief, Reactor' Projects da'te signed l
Section No.1 RO&NS Branch
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 27-December 2,1977 (Report No.50-289/77-37)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee event followup; general plant operations including direct observations in the control room; organization and administration; reviews and audits; followup on IE Bulletin and Circulars; and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved 83 inspectoa-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the six.Treas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (infraction-failure to conspicuously post and barricade a high radiation area-Detail 6b)
_
h
!
7)
71910170 h I
R Apri
!
-.
-
-_
. - - -
..
__
..
.
__
_
__
l
-
,
.
-
- a l
J
_
l DETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted Mr. T. Acker, Shift Foreman
,
l Ms. B. Beck, Generation Review Committee Secretary i
Mr. T. Book, Shift Foreman i
Mr. N. Brown, Shift Foreman l
Mr. J. Chawstyk, Shift Supervisor
~
- Mr. W. Cotter, Supervisor, Quality Control i
- Mr. R. Dubiel, Supervisor Radiation Protection / Chemistry Mr. D. Goodman, Group Supervisor Technical Training
- Mr. C. Hartman, Lead Electric 1 Engineer Mr. G. Hitz, Shift Supervisor Mr. R. Klingaman, Manager Generation Engineering
-
- Mr. G. Kunder, Supervisor of Operations Mr. P. Levin, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer
'
Mr. G. Loignan, Quality A5:surance Engineer Mr. B. Mehler, Shift Foreman Mr. T. Mulleavy, Supervisor of Health Physics O'
- Mr. J. O'Hanlon, Unit Superintendent
"
- Mr. M. Shatto, PORC Secretary
- Mr. H. Shipman, Operatins Engineer Ms. J. Shirls, Technical Assistant-Generation l
Mr. R. Summers, Mechanical Engineer Mr. G. Troffer, Manager Operational Ouality Assurance The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee j
employees, including members of the technical and engineering staffs, contro? room operators and corporate QA personnel.
i
- denotes those attending exit interview.
!
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas
'
(Closed)
Noncompliance (289/77-04-01):
Failure to sample and analyze air particulates.
The inspector reviewed the data sheets for air particulate sampling and observed spare pumps and motors in the electrical and machine shops.
This review verified the licensee's corrective action was adequate to prevent recurrence.
jg46 IN
'
_
_
.
_.
_
_
_ _.
>
,
s
o
.
V
,
t (Closed)
Unresolved Item (289/77-05-06):
Controls over Consumables.
The inspector reviewed operations surveillance procedure (0PS-537),
Consumable / Chemical Inventory. This procedure provides for a weekly inventory of consumables and chemicals for quantity, proper labeling, and cleanliness of location.
l (Closed)
Unresolved Item (289/77-09-11):
Spring hangers piston set-
.
I tings outside normal hot-cold reading range.
The hot-cold markings do not provide for a range of travel. The acceptance criteria for correct position is + 10 percent of the hot hanger setting.
The in-
_
dicated cold setting is utilized for initial construction installation, and after making hanger adjustments to ensure meeting the hot position j
acceptance criteria, has no meaning.
-
(Closed)
Noncompliance (289/77-11-01):
Failure to follow procedure-Valve LR-V7 shut vice o, en.
The inspector reviewed surveillance Pro-cedure 1303-6.1 (Reactor Building Integrated Leakage Rate Test), Rev.
5 and noted the blanks for initials indicating step completion had been added to the procedure.
~
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (289/77-16-01):
Document current practices q
for dissemination of pertinent LER/ Personnel Error type information, k>-
including recordkeeping, for non-licensed personnel training. The licensee issued Station Administrative Procedure 1032 (Dissemination of Information), Rev. O, on August 29, 1977.
This procedure documents i
the licensee's practices for disseminating information of the LER/
Personnel Error type to non-licensed personnel.
The procedure also
,
contains the record keeping requirements with respect to the training.
'
(Closed)
Unresolvec' Item (289/77-24-02): Acceptance criteria for 0.6La in sccm is too small.
The licensee had recalculated the LLRT acceptance criteria to be 104,846 sccm. This value is in close agree-
'
ment with. the inspectors calcualtion of the acceptance criteria.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (289/77-24-03):
Incorrect flow meter conversion
'
graphs.
The licensee has the proper conversion graphs and utilized them
,
in the determination of the officially recorded leakage values. The licensee does not intend to incorporate these undated graphs in the procedure for obtaining reading in the field.
The calculation of leak-age performed in the field is a rough value utilized to ensure a generic target criteria for the valve type is met.
The small corrections in the flowmeter graphs will not adversely affect this objective.
The corrected flowmeter graphs will be utilized to calcualte the official leakage value.
j44b
<Na
__
-
- -.
--
-
.
.
-
- - - -.
.
i
'
,
,
L)
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (289/77-24-04):
Nonconservative practices in LLRT's. The licensee has recalculated leakage value for the nonconservative cases noted.
Additionally a new calculational data
,
sheet has been issued which contains instructions to preclude the
,
recurrence of these nonconservative practices.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (289/77-24-05):
Temperature and pressure t
corrections to LLRT flowmeters.
The licensee has recalculated
-
i leakage values applying temperature and pressure corrections to the flowmeter graphs.
These calculations indicated a total net change
'
of 136 scem less than the previously determined leakage.
(Closed) Noncompliance (289/77-24-08):
Isolated penetration pres-surization manifolds.
The operations supervisor issued a memorandum l
to all Shift Supervisors, Shift Foremen, and Control Room Operators i
on October 10, 1977. This memorandum reminded those personnel of the importance of documenting the status of locked valve changes.
'
i (Closed)
Unresolv'ed Item (289/77-24-09):
High manifold flows.
A i
subsequent inspection and surveillance of manifolds J and H on September 10, 1977 indicated a flow of OSCFH.
The high flows noted were apparently due to the pressurization of the penetration.
(Closed) Noncompliance (289/77-24-10):
Locked valves found unlocked.
The licensee had revised Operating Procedure (OP 1102-1).
Plant
!
.Heatup to 525', to include a step which requires i verTficatio,n of l
the locked valve list after each refueling.
3.
Organigation and Adminstration
.j
.
I The inspector reviewed the following records:
Plant Operations Review Comittee Minutes 353-367, 77-1
--
through 77-40 General Office Review Board Minutes 24, 24A, 25, 25A, 258, 26,
--
27.
Shift Personnel Schedule.
--
Shift Foreman Log.
--
Control Room Log.
--
Personnel Resumes.
--
7A
}kkb J'
.
-
-
--
...
--
-
,
!
^
.
,L
,
i l
These records were reviewed to verify:
'
!
The licensee's onsite organization structure is as described
--
in the Technical Specifications; j
Personnel qualification levels are in conformance with applicable
--
codes and standards;
,
!
}
Authorities and responsibilities of licensee personnel are as
--
i delinated in the Technical Specifications and applicable standards;
i Minimum shift crew composition and licensed personnel requirements
--
are in compliance with Technical Specifications;
_
The onsite and offsite safety review comittee membership and
--
qualifications are as required by Technical Specifications;
,
I Change in organization and structure have been reported to the
--
NRC as required by Technical Specifications.
O The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the above items:
Technica1 Specifications 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5.1, 6.5.28.
--
ANSI N18.1-1971 Standard for Selection and training of Personnel
--
for Nuclear Power Flants.
ANSI N18.7-1972 Standard for Administrative Controls for Nuclear
--
Power Plants.
The inspector noted the onsite organization was not structured as shown in Fig. 6.1 of the Technical Specificatifons.
The licensee indicated that a new organization chart had been submitted with Proposed Technical Specificatifon Change Request 82. The inspector verified the onsite organization was structured as shown on Fig. 6-2 of PTSCR 82. This item will remain unresolved pending review by NRR of the proposed
,
change.
(77-37-01)
4.
Review and Audits
,
The inspector reviewed the following records:
Plant operations Review Committee Minutes 353-367,77-1 through
--
77-40.
l
.
4 4 () i J
.
. _ <..
me, e--
+
-
- - =,,
__e
..
-e,
,,em m.+=p,
_ __.
-
-.-
s
.
,
,,V General Office Review Board Minutes 24,24A, 25, 25A, 258, 26,
--
27.
.
Generation Review Committee Minutes.
--
Quality Assurance Audits 75-31 through 77-29.
--
,
The records were reviewed to verify:
'
Onsite and offsite comittee meetings convened during the pre-
--
vious year were held at the frequency required by Technical
-
Specifications; The meeting membership of the onsite and offsite comittees
--
satisfied the quorum requirements of the Technical Specifications.
,
-
i Proposed tests and experiments which affect nuclear safety or
--
whose performance may constitute an unreviewed safety question i
as defined in 10 CFR 50.59 were reviewed as required by Technical t
Specifications.
Violations of Technical Specifications or rules and regulations
--
C,,
were reviewed as required by Technical Specifications.
!
Proposed changes to Technical Specifications were reviewed as
--
!
required by Technical Specifications.
Operations have been reviewed by the onsite committee 'to detect
--
potential safety hazards, as required by Technical Specifications.
i
-
Reportable Occurrences have been reviewed and evaluated as re-
--
quired by Technical Specifications.
The extent of consultant involvement in committee activities as
--
allowed by Technical Specifications.
Audit frequency is in conformance with Technical Specifications.
--
The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the above items:
Technical Specifications 6.5.1, 6.5.2.A, 6.5.2.B.
--
Findings were acceptable.
jq46 i3b
-.
_.
..
-
-
._
-
!
!
,
s ('
,
-
5.
Bulletins and Circulars a.
Licensee actions concerning IE Bulletin 77-02, Potential Failure Mechanism in Certain W AR Relays with Latch Attachments,
,
were reviewed to verify:
_
,
'
Licensee management forwarded a copy of the response to
--
appropriate onsite management; j
Information discussed in the licensee's replyyas accurate;
--
i Corrective action taken was effected as described in the
'
--
i reply; and The licensee's reply was within the required time period.
--
l The review included discussions with licensee personnel.
,
Plant Operations Review Comittee minutes, and W switchgear
'
manuals.
Findings were acceptable.
_
,
~
b.
Licensee actions concerning the following IE Circulars were
.
,m reviewed:
C'
-
77-03, Fire Inside a Motor Control Center.
--
77-05, Liauid Entrapment in Valve Bonnets.
i
--
!
'
77-08, Failure of Feedwater Sample Probe.
--
77-10, Vacuum Conditions Resulting in Damage to Liquid i
--
Process Tanks.
l 77-11, Leakage of Containment Isolation Valves with
--
Resilient Seats.
77-13, Reactor Safety Signals Negated During Testing.
--
I This review included discussion with licensee personnel, Plant Operation Review Committee Minutes, Operating Procedures, surveillance Procedures, Maintenance Procedures, Administrative Procedures and Engineering Drawings.
Findings were acceptable.
) h h h
\\ z,!
~
-
J
.
~ - - _..
. _
.. _...
.
..
.. - -
. - -
- - -.
.
- -. -
i
-
l
t q
L
.
l 6.
Review of Plant Ooerations a.
Shift Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed the following logs and records; i
Shift Foreman Log, Control Room Log Book, Control Room
--
Operator's Log Sheets, Primary Auxiliary Operator's Log-Tour Readings, Primary Auxiliary Operator's Log-Liquid Waste Disposal Panels, Secondary Auxiliary Operator's Log Sheets, and Auxiliary Operator Log Sheets-Out-Building Tour; dated September 26 - November 27, 1977.
Shift and Daily Checks; dated September 23 - November 22,
--
1977.
Jumper, Lifted Lead, and Mechanical Modifications Log
--
(active and cleared); entries made during September 23 -
November 30, 1977.
Equipment Lockout Tag Log (active and cleared); entries
--
made dur g September 23 - November 30, 1977 for Tags
,
(
1098 1%o6.
Do Not Operate Tag Log; entries made during September
--
23-November 30, 1977.
Station Superintendent's Operating (SS0) Memo #1," Tem-
--
porary Changes to Procedures: Rev.10 to AP 1001," dated October 21, 1977.
SSO Memo #2, " Superintendent's Event Report", dated
--
October 21, 1977.
i SSO Memo #3, " Post Outage Critiques / Reports," dated
--
October 26, 1977.
!
Superintendent's Event Report 77-1-2, "Incore Tilt ~ > 2.66%",
--
!
dated November 14, 1977.
_
!
Superintendent's Event Report 77-1-3,,"B RPS Channel tripped
--
on power / imbalance," dated November 13, 1977.
Superintendent's Event Report 77-1-4, " Reactor trip due to
--
failure of generator MWe a module in the ICS," dated November 14, 1977.
s.
1446 138
._
.
__
_
___
._
_...
...
-..
-
-..
!
i m.b
'
,
,
.
I The logs and records were reviewed to verify the following items.
l Log keeping practices and log book reviews are conducted
--
in accordance with established administrative controls.
!
Log entries involving abnormal conditions are sufficiently
--
j detailed.
,!
Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Speci-
--
fications (TSS).
'
Jumper log and tagging log entries do not conflict with
{
--
l TSS.
l Jumper / lifted lead / mechanical modification and tagging
--
operations are conducted in conformance with established
'
administrative controls.
Problem identification reports confinn compliance with
--
TS reporting and LCO requirements.
b Acceptance criteria for the above review included inspector judgement and requirements of applicable Technical Specifications and the following procedures.
Station Administrative Procedure (SAP)1002, " Rules for the
--
Protection of Employers Working on Electrical and Mechanical Apparatus," Revision 12.
SAP 1010, " Technical Specification Surveillance Program,"
-
--
Revision 11.
SAP 1011, " Controlled Key Locker Control," Revision 13.
--
SAP 1012. " Shift Relief and Log Entries," Revision 8.
--
,
I SAP 1013, " Bypass of Safety Functions and Jumper Control,"
--
Revision 6.
.
SAP 1016,
" Operations Surveillance Program," Revision 12.
--
SAP 1033,
" Operating Memos and Standing Orders," Original.
--
.
g
--.
-
_ _ -
. -. _ -.
_
.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
__ _ __
__
.
'
u The inspector's findings regarding shift logs and operating records were acceptable, unless otherwise noted below.
Shift Foreman Log and Control Room Log Book entries were
--
explicit and complete. The inspector noted that the format of the Shift Foreman Log was particularly useful to plant operators regarding the identification and proper control of Technical Specification required equipment which is out of service.
However, Shift Foreman Log entries generally duplicated information contained in the Control Room Log Bcok.
Licensee personnel will review i.he need to continue the current acceptable practice of maintaining separate Control Room logs or to consolidate the log keeping requirements into only one narrative record of plant opera-tions. The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
The inspector noted that several active temporary jumpers
--
.
i and lifted lead have been in effect for an extended period, i
and seven have been active since 1974.
There is no specific I
regulatory requirement for the maximum allowable period
'
~
l V
of " temporary" jumper / lifted lead control.
However, licensee representatives stated that the normal period of control is L
going to be defined, in response to recent internal audit j
findings. Additionally, the need for existing jumpers and lifted wires will be reviewed and permanent design changes will be considered for those older items which are still deemed necessary. This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (289/77-37-02).
Revision 11 to SAP 1102, dated October 28, 1977 included
--
changes to Enclosure 1, " Application for Apparatus to be Taken Out of Service," and to Enclosure 2 " Clearance Control Document." The inspector noted that the revised forms have not been used for equipment lockout operations; however, tne changes were editorial in nature and use of the older
. forms did not reduce the effectiveness of equipment lockout control.
Licensee representatives stated that the new forms would soon be available for operator usage.
This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (289/77-37-03).
1446 140
.,, n
.
,,.,
.m.
-.4.
+a%we--
-=w=a--
+w-
--'====m--
--"
.
,
m
.
.
"Do Not Operate Tags" are being used by plant personnel
--
to administratively restrict the operation of equipment
'
and components, including valves, breakers and switches, for various operational purposes.
This method of equip-
,
ment control includes a log sheet which describes the purpose of each operational restrictions currently in effect and a numbered plastic tag which is placed on the respective device.
However, there is no administrative i
procedure which formally requires and describes the im-plementation of the "Do Not Operate Tag" system.
Licensee l
representatives stated that this type of equipment control
was being considered for replacement by the use of cautionary j
tags placed on a device, which include the reason for the
'
control being entered on the tag as well as on the log sheet.
j A system of cautionary equipment control will be pro-cedurally implemented prior to completion of the Spring i
1978 refueling outage.
The inspector noted that the cur-
!
rent tag system has not been used to solely restrict the t
operation of safety related components, and stated that licensee implementation of appropriate procedural controls
,
' will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (289/77-37-04).
During review of the Shift Foreman Log, Control Room Log
--
Book and Equipment Lockout Tag Log, the inspector noted that on several occasions safety-related equipment and
,
components were removed from service for maintenance.
The following examples were noted.
,
Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Pump RR-P-LB re-
--
moved from service for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on September 28,
.
1977 to replace an expansion joint.
,
RR-P-LB removed from service for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on Seotember 29,
--
1977 for flexible coupling maintenance, Emergency Diesel Generator EG-Y-1A removed from service
--
for 56 hours6.481481e-4 days <br />0.0156 hours <br />9.259259e-5 weeks <br />2.1308e-5 months <br /> during October 3-5, 1977 to replace its
,
air box.
.
EG-Y-LB removed from service for 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> on October 28,
--
'.977 for mechanical maintenance.
Decay Heat River Pump DR-P-LA removed from service for
--
11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> on November 29, 1977 for repairs, u
.
,,
y e
s eee
- '&
,
i
x, r
'
Decay Heat Pump DH-P-LA removed from service for 13
--
hours on November 29, 1977 for recirculation line orifice removal.
I DH-P-LB removed from service for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on November
--
30, 1977 for recirculation line orifice removal.
'
Technical Specification 6.9.2.B states that the reportable occurrence discussed below shall be the subject of written reports to the Director of the appropriate Regional Office within thirty days of occurrence of the event:
"(2) Conditions leading to operation in a degraded mode permitted by a limiting condition for operation or plant shutdown required by a limiting condition for operation.
Note:
Routine surveillance testing, instrument calibration, or preventative maintenance which require system
.
configurations as described in---6.9.2.B.(2) need
'
!
not be reported except where test results themselves j
reveal a degraded mode as described above.
I Licensee representatives acknowledged that each of the above examples involved operation in a degraded mode permitteo Sy a limiting condition for operation; however, these occurrer.ces were not considered reportable by licensee personnel because the j
respective equipment was considered operable prior being placed j
out of service and the related maintenance was considered pre-i ventative vice corrective in nature.
The inspector stated that l
similar occurrences have been reported by other Region 1 facili-ties, and th'at the reportability exception for" preventative main-i
!
.tenance" was intended to only include pre-scheduled type pre-ventive maintenance and certain expected maintenance activities conducted to prevent incipient equipment failure, i.e. repair of minor seal, packing or gasket leaks.
This is considered an Un-resolved Item (289/77-37-05) pending a formal determination of what categories of preventative maintenance need not be re-ported.
b.
Plant Tour At various times during November 29 - December 2,1977, the in-spector conducted tours of the following accessible plant areas.
s 1446 142
&
.w.-,,
--ewee**
-*esa-e+--Ja-
"*-
.-.
--.
--
... - -
--
- - _
.
.
_
- G
-
,
Auxiliary Building
--
,
Turbine Building
--
j Fuel Handling Building
--
Contro' Room
--
~
Switchgear Rooms
--
-
i Inverter and Battery Rooms
--
!
Diesel Rooms
--
'
Sample Room
--
!
Chemical Addition Room
--
Make-up Pump Rooms
--
j Building Spray Pump and Decay Heat Pump Vaults
'
--
l
!'
V Diesel Rooms
--
I l
The following observations /disscussion/ determinations were made.
Control Room and local monitoring instrumentation for various
--
i components and parameters was observed, including reactor power level, reactor coolant flow, core flood tank level and pressure, bor.ic acid mix tank level and temperature.
.
Radiation controls established by the licensee, including
!
--
!
the posting of radiation and high radiation areas, the con-dition of step-off pads and the disposal of protective
clothing, were observed.
Radiation work permits used for entry to radiation and controlled areas were reviewed.
Actual radiation level measurements were taken and compared with posted values throughout the plant.
Plant housekeeping, including general cleanliness conditions
--
and storage of materials and components to prevent safety and fire hazards, were observed.
.
.
1446 143 e
-
...
. - _ _.
...
.
.. -._
.-
---
-
--
-_
-
.
.-
.
.
'
.
Systems and equipment in all areas toured were observed
--
for the existence of fluid leaks and abnormal piping vibrations.
Selected DH, MS and FW system piping snubbers / restraints
--
were observed for proper fluid level and condition / proper hanger settings.
.
The indicated positions of electrical power supply breakers,
--
control board equipment start switches and control board remote-operated valves and the actual positions of selected DH, WDL, MU, and SF manual-operated valves were observed.
,
Selected equipment lockout tags were observed for proper
--
posting and the tagged equipment was observed for proper positioning. The items observed included tags and equip-
-
ment associated with clearances 1223,1288 and 1289.
'
l The Control Board was observed for annunciatiors that
--
normally should not be lighted during the existing plant
conditions. The reasons for the annunciators were discussed l
with control room operators.
,
a l
' The licensee's policy and practice regarding plant tours
--
!
was reviewed.
i Control Room manning was observed on several occassions
--
during the inspection.
I Acce~ tance criteria for the above items included inspector p
judgement and requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k), Regulatory Guide 1.114, applicable Technical Specifications and the following procedures.
SAP 1002, " Rules for the Protection of Employees Working
<
--
on Electrical and Mechanical Apparatus," Revision 12.
SAP 1003, " Radiation Protection Manual," Revision 11.
--
SAP 1008, " Good Housekeeping," Revision 2.
--
SAP 1009, " Station Organization and Chain of Command," Re-
--
vision 3.
,
SAP 1020, " Cleanliness Requirement", Revision 3.
--
SAP 1028, " Operator at the Controls," Original.
--
}d4b bk
__
_
_
_
.-
-
- _
.
-
--
.-
.
'
'
.
t l
The inspector's findings regarding the plant tours were acceptable, unless otherwise noted below.
Technical Specification 6.13.1.a requires that each high
--
radiation area (100 mrem /hr or greater) in which the intensity of radiation is 1000 mrem /h or less shall be barricaded and conspicuously posted as a high radiation area.
During a tour of the auxiliary building on December 1,1977, the inspector observed that the door to the R.C.
Evaporator Room was opened.
Licensee personnel than
!
performed a radiation surysy of the rocom which indicated
- l that the maximum intensity of radiation was 165 mrem /hr.
l adjacent to hot spots and that the general area intensity of radiation was 35 mrem /hr. A Radiation Work Permit
'
posted by the door contained the results of a survey l
performed the previous week, which had indicated hot spot i
and general area radiation intensities of 160 mrem /h and
!
30 mrem /h, respectively. The inspector noted that a High
!
Radiation Area sign was on the door; however, the sign j
was not conspicuous when approaching the room from all
'
directions with the door opened, and the entry to the f
R.C. Evaporator Room was not barricaded.
During another
!
s.;
tour of the auxiliary building on December 2,1977, the l
R.C. Evaporator Room door was again observed to be l
opened.
On this occasion the High Radiation Area sign was relocated to a consp.icuous position adjacent to the
.
.
door, but the room entry was still not barricaded.
Failure to barricade and conspicuously post the R.C.
,
Evaporator Room as a high radiation area is considered
-
i an Item of Noncompliance (289/77-37-06), Infraction level of severity.
'
Excessive amounts of crystallized boric acid were observed
--
on piping and components in the vicinity of chemical addition pump CA-P-1B and in the borated spray pump vaults.
The inspector noted that the boric acid leakage did not appear to be a significant problem now, but if left un-attended could cause degradation of components which are not designed for contact with an acidic material.
The licensee's actions to correct boric acid system leakage will be reviewed during a sut sequent inspection.
(289/77-37-07)
-
i i
,
..
.
_.
_
__ _. _ _ _. _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _
_
_
._
.. _... _. _ _
_.
.
.
.
_
.
The inspector observed that overall cleanliness conditions
--
in the auxiliary building and turbine building were good.
A few exceptions to this were brought to the licensee's attention and were corrected prior to completion of the inspection. The inspector had no further questions con-cerning this matter.
7.
_ Review of Licensee Event Report (LER)
The LER listed below was reviewed in the Region 1 office promptly following receipt to verify that details of the event were clearly reported including the accuracy of the description of cause and the
adequacy of corrective action. The LER was also reviewed to deter-mine whether further information was required from the licensee,
whether generic implications were involved, and whether the event warranted on site followup.
,
'
The following LER was reviewed.
.
77-24/3L dated November 15, 1977; Valve MU-V-148 failed to
--
open in response to an Engineering Safeguards test signal.
I i
V The findings regarding the review of this LER in the Region 1 j
office were acceptable.
!
LER 77-24/3L was selected for on site followup.
The inspector verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifi-cations and Gp 4703 (Original) had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the licensee asrequired by Technical Specifications, and that continued operation of the facility was conducted in conformance with Technical Specification limits.
The findings regarding the on site review of this LER were acceptable as noted below.
LER 77-24/3L described the failure of valve MU-V-14B to open
--
during quarterly E.S. testing. The valve failure was attributed to the motor tripping on thermal overload due to finding as a result of broken motor support bolts.
The bolts broke due to line vibration, which was previously identified and corrected, but the bolts were not then checked. The valve motor was re-placed, and the valve was satisfactorily tested.
Although the motor bolts on the redundant valve, MU-V-14A, have been deter-mined to be satisfactory by visual inspection, the licensee plans to replace these bolts to assure continued proper valve operation.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this event.
-
-.. -
-
-
..
..
-
.
_.
. - -... -.
-....-
-.
'-
i
.
.
,
.
,
.
8.
Back Shift Inspection This inspection began at 11:15 p.m., November 27, 1977.
During this shift, the inspector observed operations in the control room and moni-l tored other activities. Activities observed included:
I Control Room indications for reactor power, RCS temperature and
--
l
,
pressure, and control rod positions.
-
Control room manning.
--
Valve position / equipment start _ switch positions of selected
--
ESF equipment.
Incore detector flex level.
--
.I Findings were acceptable.
9.
Unresolved Items
,
!
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
,'
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of (_
noncompliance or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3.
>
10.
Exit Interview i
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in para.1)
,
at the conclusion of the inspection on December 2, 1977.
The in-l spectors summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
I t
!
)hh
<
%
_
-... -
- - -. -. -
. -. _ -.
..
.
..