IR 05000327/1980034
| ML20002A640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Allen J, Andrews D, Gibson G, Jenkins G, Perrotti D, Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A630 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-80-34, NUDOCS 8011210093 | |
| Download: ML20002A640 (13) | |
Text
-
.
[pn at vq
,
k UNITED STATES 8"~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
<E REGION 11 g
'[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%
s
.
A*
k.*. ; U
,,,e Report No. 50-327/80-34 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name:
Sequoyah Unit 1 Docket No. 50-327 License No. DPR-77 Inspection at Sequoyah Site near Daisy, Tennessee Inspectors:
.I
<Md 9/29[/d
/
D.
Andrews Date Signed
_. R. Allen
_
_
ate igned ht Y$ubtrJ 9l25l$0
. Gibson Date Signed 4fd 1 Ash D. J Terrotti Date ign d hw 7 Ai O
P. A. Ta
'r '
//
Date Signed Approved by:
_-
tu C/.2 h
'
~
Jenk'ns, Section Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed
/
SUMMARY Inspection on 8/20 - 8/22/80 Areas Inspected This routine announced inspection involved 79 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of: emergency facilities, equipment and procedures; means for determining a release; emergency training for licensee employees and offsite groups; fire brigade organization and tr 'ning; emergency organization; followup on IE Bulletins; emergency tests' and drills
.d emergency plan safety evaluation report.
Results Of the eight areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were j
identified in seven areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency - failure to implement procedures paragraph 10.b.).
B011210
.
._
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Ballentine, Plant Superintendent
- J. Bynum, Assistant Flant Superintendent
- R. Kitts, Health Physics Supervisor
- R. Hamilton, QA Engineer J. Walker, Nuclear Training Supervisor E. Condon, Power Production Test Program Coordinator J. Reynolds, Power Prnduction Test Director F. Wright, Shift Supervisor, Health Physics R. Prince, Assistant Plant Health Physicist B. Patterson, Instrumentation Engineer Othe: licensee employees contacted during this inspection included 3 techni-cians, 3 operaters, and 2 security force members.
Other Licensee Employees D. Ormsby, TVA Division of Nuclear Power
- E.
Sliger, TVA Division of Nuclear Power NRC Resident Inspector
- W.
Cottle
- S.
Butler
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
.
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on 8/22/80 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. above.
The licensee acknowledged the insp,e cto r 's remarks regarding the item of noncompliance pertaining to the training requirements of fire brigade team members.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Emergency Preparedness Safety Evaluation Report Seven items, identified in Appendix E, Sequoyah Safety Evaluation Report (SER) as requiring resolution prior to the issuance of a full power oper-ating license, were inspected to determine the status of each item. These items are discussed in the following paragraphs.
.
._.
..._ -
_
_.
_
.
-2-
.
a.
The SER requires the addition of two staff members for augmentation of the onsite emergency organization within 30 minutes of notification by the Emergency Director.
Resolution: The individuals required for augmentation of the onsite emergency organization within 30 minutes were added to the TVA -
Radiological Emergency Plan, Appendix E, SQN (TVA-REP, SQN) by Revision 5 dated 7/21/80.
b.
The SER requires the establishment of a near site Emergency Operations Facility (E0F) at the TVA training center.
Resolution: As indicated in a TVA letter to NRR, August 1, 1980, a neat site EOF is being established at the TVA training cetner and is to be completely operational by January 1, 1981. The inspector noted that the EOF capability currently exists at the TVA Central Emergency Coordinating Center (CECC) in Chattanooga and t. hat this facility is adequate to perform the EOF functions until the near site facility is completed.
This item will be followed during further inspections (50-327/80-34-01).
c.
The SER requires that more detail concerning instrument readings, parameters and equipment status be included in the Emergency Action Level (EAL) tables used for classifying an Emergency.
Resolution: The EAL's were revised by a change to the TVA-REP, SQN, on August 21, 1980 to include additional information as required by the SER.
d.
The SER requires that the TVA-REP, SQN, be. revised to include a descrip-tion of the near site EOF.
Resolution: TVA has committed to revising the TVA-REP, SQN, when the near site EOF is completed in accordance with the schedule noted in paragraph 5.b. above.
e.
The SER requires that the Operations Support Center be described in the emergency plan and that emergency equipment a:ai supplies be located near the center.
Resolution: The Operations Support Center has been described in the TVA-REP, SQN, by a change dated 7/21/80. The equipment and supplies were inspected and are discussed in paragraph 6.b.(4) below.
f.
The SER requires that models be available to provide initial estimates of offsite releases of radioactivity and detailed dose information.
Resolution: Models for effsite dose assessment are available at the TVA Muscle Shoais Facility and detailed dose information will be provided by that facility.
E
F
.,.
_. -.
-._.
m
-
-
e
-3-
.
Initial estimates of offsite releases may be calculated by the Emergency Director. A procedure for radioactivity release estimates has been prepared and approved as Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure IP-18, August 21, 1980. A correlation procedure for Area Monitor RM-90-2 VS containment activity is being prepared and will-be completed prior to full power operations (50-327/80-34-02).
g.
The SER requires post accident sampling capability to be provided in-accordance with the Lessons Learned Task Force recommendations and NUREG 0578.
Resolution:
TVA is.in the process of constructing a post accident sampling facility to be completed by July 1981.
A post accident sampling procedure (TI-66) has been prepared and was approved on 1-7-80.
The inspector reviewed this procedure, which is to be used until the post accident sampling facility is complete, and found it to be adequate.
6.
Facilities, Equipment,- and Procedures Changes to Facilities, Equipment, and Procedures a.
(1) ~An inspector reviewed established management _ controls and inter-viewed licensee personnel to determine if changes had been made to the emergency plan, emergency implementing procedures, emer-gency facilitien and equipment since the last inspection.
(2) The review of this area, with respect to changes, was conducted to verify that:
.
'(a) Changes did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
.(b) Changes did not alter the requirements set forth in the Emergency Plan.
(c) Changes were reviewed.and approved in accordance with estab-lished plant procedures.
'(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the -
inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) ~ 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.
(b). Technic'al Specifications 6.8.1.e and 6.8.2.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.-
(4) Closed (0 pen Item 50-327/79-69-01). -During a previous inspection it-was noted that TVA was revising the' Emergency Classification System to comply with NUREG 0610. This revision is complete and
- has been incorporated into the TVA-REP, SQN as of 5/1/80.
,
. f
.
.
.
-4-
.
(5) Closed (0 pen Item 50-327/80-03-05). During a previous inspection it was noted that there were inadequate instructions concerning the responsibilities and lines of communication for key personnel in the emergency organization. The Emergency Plan, Section 2 has been revised and two new procedures have been developed, IP-6 and IP-7, which amplify responsibilities and lines of communications during an emergency.
b.
Emergency Kits (1) An inspector reviewed selected calibration, maintenance, and inventory records along with a physical inspection and inventory of emergency kits and equipment located in the main control room, communications room, gatehouse, meterological tower building, operations support center, technical support center, plant emer-gency vehicle, health physics laboratory and service building.
Types of emergency equipment selected for inspection and inventory included self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), respirators, survey meters, air samplers, communication equipment, control center instrumentation, emergency kit supplies, pocket dosimeters, and pocket dosimeter chargers.
(2) The review and inspection of emergency kits and equipment was conducted to verify that:
(a) The required periodic inventory maintenance and calibratioa of emergency equipment and emergency kits was being conducted.
(b) The physical condition and content. of emergency kits and supplies are being maintained in a state of readiness.
(c) The emergency kits, supplies, and portable instrumentation are at various locations as required by the Emergency Plan and emergency implementing procedures.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure IP-17.
(b) Technical Specification 6.8.1.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(4) Closed (0 pen Item 50-327/80-03-07). During a previous inspection it was noted that installation anf availability of emergency equipment in the Operation Support Center and the Technical Support Center was not complete.
The inspector verified that emergency equipment is being maintained and is readily available to the Operations Support Center and that emergency equipment has been installed in the Technical Support Center.
'
.
-
.
.
.
-5-
.
c.
Main Control Room Habitability (1) This area was reviewed with respect to maintaining the main control room habitable. The Emergency Plan defines this area as the center for controlling activities during emergency conditions.
(2) An inspector reviewed surveillance test records, calibration data, and system alignment to verify 6 nat:
(a) The control room emergency ventilation system is properly aligned.
(b) The required operability tests are.being performed on the control room emergency ventilation system at the required
frequency, including system automatic start upon receiving a safety injection signal.
(c) The control room air temperature checks, pressurization test and chlorine monitor channel checks and calibration had been performed at the required intervals and surveillance data was satisfactory.
(4) The inspector verified by observation that readouts or displays for air temperature, air intake chlorine, radiation, smoke detec-tion and control room differential pressure were available to the
operators.
(5) The inspector reviewed the Penetration Release Form Log Book to verify that control room conduit penetration was being maintained.
,
(6) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) Emergency Plan, Appendix E.
(b) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Section 6.4, 9.4.
(c) Technical Specification 3.3.3.6 and 3/4.7.7.
(d) Surveillance Instructions 2, 24,143, and 144.
(e) Physical Security Instruction 13, Attachment F.
Within the area inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
Remote Shutdown Panel (1) This area was reviewed with respect to insuring that the required plant parameters and controls as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report -can be used to perform an emergency shutdown of the plant in the event the main control room cannot be manne..
-
-
-
.
.
-6-
.
(2) The inspector reviewed surveillance test records, calibration
- data, channel checks, and performed physical inspections to verify that the specified emergency op,erating procedures, emergency imple-menting procedure, and off-normal operating procedures were at the renote shutdown room and were up to date.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) Technical Specification 3.3.3.5.
(b) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 7.4.
(c) - Station Operating Instruction 30.1.
Within the_ areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e.
Emergency Communications Systems (1) Central. Emergency Control Center (CECC)
An inspector examined the licensee's CECC telephone system. The inspector noted the licensee has the required telephone lines i
specified in the REP, between the Knoxville Emergency Control Center, Muscle Shoals Emergency Control Center, and the various areas within the CECC for the CECC, NRC, State of Tennessee, and.
. TVA Division of Power Emergency Center (DPEC).
(2) Muscle Shoals Emergency Control Center (MSECC)
An inspector discussed with licensee personnel the communications difficulties identified in the IE inspection report 50-327/80-23 between MSECC, the State of Tennessee and other REP organizations.
.
Licensee personnel stated the following actions were being taken:
(a) Direct ringdown lines from the facility TSC to the hSECC were being installed, as part of a new " conference calling" circui.t.
(b) The new circuit would likewise link the te chnical personnel in the MSECC with the Knoxville Operations Evaluation personnel.
(c). - The REP would be strictly followed in future drills, in that the MSECC Director, or his representative, would be at the CECC to directly interface with the State of Tennessee.
The inspector concurred with the corrective actions and these items (50-327/80-23-01 and 50-327/80-23-02) are considered closed.
....w..--_..-.-
_.- - -
7. ;.
7 -.-- 7. - -
- - - --~~--
r
.
.
.
-7-
.
(3) Sequoyah Technical Support Center (TSC)
An inspector examined the licensee's TSC and observed that the licensee has five (5) telephones in the TSC.
The inspector discussed the adequacy of only 5 phones to link a minimum of 25 TSC individuals to SNP inplant areas, MSECC, CECC, KECC, EOF and other emergency organizations such as the NRC and State of Tennessee.
The licensee stated in a telephone communication September 17, 1980, that a review of TSC telecommunications would be made by January 1, 1981 to coincide with the completion of the EOF. This item will be examined during a future inspection (50-327/80-34-04).
f.
Seismic Instrumentation (1) This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's require-ments to have seismic instrumentation on vital piet.c: Of equipment and readout and/or annunciation in the control room as specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
(2) An inspector reviewed surveillance test and operating procedures, calibration data, channel checks, and seismic instrumentation in the control room to verify that seismic instrumentation has been maintained in a state of operability.
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
(a) Technical Specification 3.3.3.3.
(b) FSAR 3.7.4.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
g.
Medical and Decontamination Facilities (1) This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitment to provide emergency first aid and personnel decontamination facilities, including medical supplies and equipment for first aid treatment, which are described in the Emergency Plan and emergency implementing procedures.
(2) An inspector performed a physical inspection of equipment and supplies at the first aid room and decontamination facility, reviewed records of first aid team training, and inspected equip-ment and supplies for personnel decontamination to verify that:
(a) The first aid team had received required training.
(b) That emergency equipment and supplies were in good condition and available in specified areas and required quantities.
_
_ _ _ _ _ __
- _.
-
_.. _ _. _ ~ _. _
_.
.
.-
-
--
.
.. - _.. _.. _
.
.
.
-8-(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection and evaluation of the above areas:
-(a)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.
.(b) TVA-REP, Appendix E, SQN, Section 3.6.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or feviations-were identified.
7.
Means for Determining a Release a.
This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as described in-the Emergency Plan for determining the magnitude of a release of radioactive material and:the criteria for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary.
b.
An inspector performed an inspection of instrumentation in the control room and reviewed records for instrumentation, channel checks, func-tional test and alarm set points to verify that readouts for wind speed, direction and temperature, and area and process monitors were operable and available as required by the Emergency Plan.
. The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the inspection c.
and evaluation of the above areas:
(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.C.
(2) TVA-REP Implementing Procedure IP-18.
(3) Technical Specifications 3.3.3.1, Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Emergency Plan Training This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitments as
- .
described in Appendix E, Section 6 in the Site Radiological Emergency Plan'(SQN, TVA-REP) and Sections II.E.4(k) and II.G.5.2 of Administra-tive Instruction AI-14, Plant Training Program, to conduct training
~for key members of the emergency organization. The inspector reviewed-
personnel training records, plant staff call lists from Implementing Procedure (IP) 13, and discussed Emergency Director training with members - of - the licensee's training function.-(licensed operators by Nuclear Training and non-licensed individuals by Health Physics).
b.
.Within the areas-inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
'
were identified.
The inspector identified two areas of' concern Lich were discussed with licensee representatives and are described in Paragraph c. below.
w._
i
-
'.
.
.
-9-
.
c.
During examination of training records the inspector noted that not all key members of the emergency organization had received training on the new Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) and Implementing Procedure Document-(IPD). The inspector requested a schedule for the retraining of the remaining members. The inspector was informed that all retraining for key members would be completed prior to September 1,1980. This commitment was reiterated during the_ exit interview on August 22. The licensee _ was informed that this matter would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (50-327/80-34-05).
d.
During the review of Section II.G.5.2 of AI-14, the inspector noted that the course content for Emergency Director training did not include training covering the IPD. The inspector asked the training supervisor if implementing procedures were covered in this training. Ths inspector was informed that Emergency Director training (Training Code
_ REP)
covered both the REP and IPD. The inspector stated that AI-14 does not clearly state this, and it should be revised to reflect actual trair.ing to be conducted.
The licensee repre.cantative stated that AI-14 would be revised. The inspector stated th i this matter would be an inspection follow-up item (50-327/ 80-34-06).
9.
Emergency Implementing Procedures Muscle Shoals FacilitJ a.
The inspector reviewed the MSECC procedures (REP-IPD-MSECC-1-12) to be
' implemented in support of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The inspector verified that the licensee has current implementing procedures regarding:
the inventory of equipment; training of personnel; updating and distri-bution of the REP; and emergency dose assessment for releases of radioactive material.
The inspector determined that. the procedures implement appropriate sections of the emergency plan (REP) and provide assurance for con-formance with requirements in the REP. The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
b.
- Central Emergency Control Center (CECC)
The inspector reviewed CECC procedures (REP-IPD-CECC-1-7) to be implemented in support of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The inspector verified that the licensee has. current. implementing procedures regarding: training; testing; communication;.and organization. The inspector noted that there are no procedural requirements -for testing the CECC radio system to SNP at this time. Licensee personnel stated that the radio system, currently in use to the TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant would be expanded to include Sequo-yah upon issuance of the operating license, for backup communications.
-
- The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
. -
- - - -.
.
..
--
.
-
.
... - -, -
.
-'e i
.,
}
., --
-10-t c.
Emergency Dose Assessment Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's MSECC-REP-IPD-IP-11 and IP-12 (5/1/80), "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Emergency Dose Assessment Procedures for Atmospheric Releases of Radioactivity" and "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Emergency Dose ' Assessment Procedures for Liquid Releases-of Radioac-tivity",.respectively. -These procedures will be utilized -by the licensee to analyze the effects of any releases and will be the basis upon which - protective actions will be taken. The inspector discussed with licensee personnel the time requirements to complete these calcula-tions. The inspector was informed by licensee perscanel that computer terminals swill - assist in these calculations.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's. ongoing installation of computer terminals which will perform these calculations (i.e., RADACC TVA computer dose
. projection code).
-- d.
CECC Emerg'ency Equipment As identified in IE Report 50-259, 260, 296/77-23 and 50-327/77-33,
.
some CECC. equipment was not maintained as per the REP. The inspector reviewed the Division of Power-Production (DPP) REP requirements for emergency equipment to be available at the CECC. The inspector observed
~
the licensee in'the process of conducting a routine audit of emergency
supplies,. and general replenishment of supplies af,ter the - recent response exercise.. The inspector noted that the required number of
- REPS were available with associated reference material in special equipment / file cabinets.
This item, 50-327/77-33-02, is - considered closed.
10.
Fire Brigade Staffing a.
-An inspector' selected three of the five Sequoyah operations shifts and determined, - for the period May 1, 1980 - August 19, 1980, the daily number 'of persons selected for fire brigade duty, the status of their individual fire brigade training, and the certification of the Individual by Sequoyah Health Physics under the respiratory protection program.
The inspector noted that the licensee had met the requirement of SQNP-PHYSI-13.2.1.1 for designating, for each shif t, a Fire Brigade Leader.
Land five designated operations employees, b.
- The inspector examined Ltraining ' records for each individual on the three shifts selected. The inspector noted the annual requalification
.
equirement of.SQNP-PHYSI-13-3.1 was not met for two persons selected r
for. fire brigade duty ' on August 15 and August.18-19, respectively.
The inspector reviewed past staffing logs and noted several instances where the two individuals had served on the fire brigade. The indivi--
~
duals were due'for retraining'in January 1940.
'
PHYSI-13.1.0 states "The safety'section shall verify. that the training c.
records for the. employees designated as members of the NUC-PR Fire
. Brigade,; Fire' Brigade Support Group, and fire watches are. current and
-that Leach member' has. received sufficient training (Section 3.0) 1to
~
1-
,
-
,
_,
.
.
-
.
. _,
_
_
_
_ _..
p.
_
w w
-
.
.
.
-11-
.
qualify as a: member of the group".- Technical Specification 6.8.1.d that states the licensee shall implement the SNP physical.ecurity plan and implementing procedures (PIIYSI-i3). Therefore, failu re 3 properly monitor assignments to.the Fire Brigade constitutes an i tem of noncom-pliance with the referenced Technical Specification (50-327/80-34-07).
d.
The inspector. reviewed each instance when the two individuals served on.the fire brigade. The inspector determined that of the remaining shift operations. staff, other personnel with "up to date" fire brigade training, were available. The licensee stated further concompliance would be avoided by proper selection of the fire brigade members, and i
by increasing the training program to assure proper requalification inte rvals.
e.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's IIealth Physids respiratory
'
protection program certification records for the persons identified in Section.4.a.
PIIYSI-13.3.1 and PilSI-13.3.2 specify that personnel shall " receive additional self-contained breathing apparatus training per Radiological Control Instruction RCI-4".
The inspector verified each member of the three shifts selected had received such training.
11.
Emergency Organization a.
- This area was reviewed with respect to the licensee's commitment as
- described in the Emergency Plan, for maintaining the organizations for coping with radiation emergencies.
,
b.
An inspector reviewed licensee's organization charts, emergency rosters,
,
'
emergency implementing procedures and interviewed licensee management representatives to verify that:
l (1) Specific authority, responsibilities and duties have been defined l~
and. assigned for the onsite emergency organization, offsite emergency organization, and specified outside support agencies.
(2) The individuals assigned on the emergency call list is current as to names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
The inspector used the following acceptance. criteria for the inspection
~
and evaluation of this area:
2-(1)
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.E.
(2)
TVA-REP,- Appendix E, SQN, Section 2.0 and Attachment 1.
(3) Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures IP-5 and IP-6.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
,
were identified.
-
er A--.
,e n _, o g - Si m W guw ed"p.4-
-e
- NP. nee.ms ao
+ W WM h^**""*'hMMP O1"**1
-
M'"f4"*N
+-N*dw'N'
- ?N
?M9" #
=PN M **
~ *
.
..
.
-12-
.
12.
Follow-up on IE Bulletin 79-18, " Audibility Problems on Evacuation Alarms From High Noise Areas" a.
At the time of issuance IEB 79-18 applied only to operating reactors, and as such, did not pertain to Sequoyah 1.
However, this area was reviewed to ensure that the problem areas identified by the Bulletin were addressed and any deficiencies were corrected or were scheduled for correction.
Additionally, Section 3.9 of Appendix E to SQN, TVA-REP states that undulating sirens are provided in strategic areas of the plant for indicating the assembly of all personnel.
Care is exercised in locating the sirens so they are audible in all plant areas, b.
Preoperational Test TVA-11B on the plant communication - emergency evacuation signal identified six deficiencies and two exceptions, EN-1 and EN-2 which pertain to Unit 2 containment. Deficiencies DN-1 thru DN-5, pertained mainly to wiring problems and had been corrected at the time of this inspection. DN-6 identified 6 areas in the plant where the evacuation alarm could not be heard, and a pre-op test deficiency report, ' number PT-311 was initiated on August 28, 1979, with an estimated completion date of September 1, 1980. Of the six areas identified, PT-311 indicated that three may have already been resolved, in that contactor problems in Unit 2 reactor building and associated sirens had been fixed. On August 21 the inspector contacted the Power Production Test Director to inquire as to the status of PT-311. The_ inspector was informed that due to recent personnel changes, the information requested was not on hand, but that the matter would be looked into right away. Additionally, the Test Program coordinator informed the inspector that one new area, the Emergency Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) Pump Area, was to be checked for evacuation signal inau-dibility as soon as the pumps were installed and operable. No date was given for installation of the ERCW equipment.
c.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that this matter would be reviewed during subsequent inspections under the Bulletin follow-up program (79-Bu-18).
.~
_
,_ _
,
..