IR 05000338/1978025
| ML20027A476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1978 |
| From: | Robert Lewis, Webster E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A475 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-338-78-25, NUDOCS 7812060228 | |
| Download: ML20027A476 (6) | |
Text
v.
,
.
UNITED STATES gsA E8*ug'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.
,^
[
REGION 11 n
,5.
'
f ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o303
g
o,
%.'... /
.
.
Report No.: 50-338/78-25 Docket No.: 50-338 License No.: NPF-4 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name: North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: North Anna Power Station, Mineral, Virginia Inspection conducted: August 21-25, 1978 Inspector:
E. H. Webster Approved by:
[. C. [., A
/#/2.J/7f R. C. Lewi(, N ief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Suanary Inspection on August 21-25, 1978: (Report No. 50-338/78-25)
.
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations, housekeeping procedures and system cleanliness program implementation, (
emergency procedures concerning use of safety injection reset, and review of fire safety deficiencies. The inspection involved 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> opsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Within the four areas inspected, no itees of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
781206
~~
l
._
t
-
.
.
,
.
.
.
..
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-338/78-25 I-1
.,/
DETAILS I Prepared by:
.d. -.
"/ic 4.r
-
E. H. Webster, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: August 21-25, 1978 Reviewed by: [. C. [M
//[z.J/pg R. C. Lewis, Chief
'Date
Reactor Projects Section No. 2
-
Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
~
1.
Persons Contacted
,
Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
a.
- J. A. Ahladas, Station Manager
- W. R. Cartwright, Superintendent of Station Operations (Unit 1)
E. R. Smith, Acting Supervisor, Engineering Services D. C. Woods, NRC Coordinator
'
- J. D. Kellams, Operating Supervisor
- D. G. McLain, Engineer S. L. Harvey, Shif t Supervisor A. E. Strong, Shift Supervisor
-
C. G. Meyer, Control Room Operator L. O. Goodrieb, Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance
- W. F. Diehl, QC Engineer
.
F. C. White, Assistant Fire Marshall (
- J. R. Harper, Instrument Supervisor
'
b.
_NRC
- M. S. Kidd, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the Exit Interview.
t l
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
!
!
s l
l
'
<
S
!
l
.--
"
.
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-338/78-25 I-2
3.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were identified during the inspection.
4.
Management Interview A management interview was conducted with J. A. Ahladas and other licensee staff members (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 25, 1978.
The scope and findings of the inspection were sumarized by the inspector.
'
5.
Review of Plant Operations The inspector reviewed the following operations logs and discussed (,
entries and logkeeping requirements with the operating shift.
.
Shif t Supervisors Log (1-log-1)
i a.
b.
Control Room Operators Log (1-log-2)
i Auxiliary Control Room Operators Log (2-log-6A through 1-log-6E)
c.
d.
Action Statement Log (1-log-11)
e.
Jumper Log Book f.
Tagging Log File g.
Standing Order Book h.
Deviation Reports - no comments From the above logs, entries indicating foe 4 reportable occurrences were noted.
Thirty-day reports in accordance with Technical
,
Specification 6.9.1.9 were reported to be in preparation for all of these events and corrective action on each was presented by licensee management. Although several minor administrative errors were found l
by the inspector and corrected by the licensee, all logs and their reviews by supervisors appeared complete and proper. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
The inspector toured the plant prior to the day shift; specifically l
looking at the below listed.i.eas:
J
!
i
.i l
,
'
I
.
..
.
,
RII Rpt. No. 50-338/78-25 I-3
,
a.
Instrument readings-a sampling of readings indicated proper safety-related equipment operation b.
Radiation Controls - no comments c.
Fluid Leaks - of the four small water leaks and one oil leak noted, repair efforts were in progress on all but one. Management
,
was notified of the existence of a leak on boron evaporator 1-BR-EV-1A discharge union and they planned to take corrective action.
d.
Piping Vibrations - the floor support on an auxiliary steam line piping loop had broken loose allowing the entire line to vibrate.
Management was notified and they planned to take corrective action.
e.
Restraints - no comments f.
Valve and Equipment Control Switches - no comments
Caution tags
- of a
sampling checked, there were no administrative or control problems identified h.
Control Room Annunciators - no comments i.
Control Room Manning - no comments The most notable problem identified on the plant tour was cleanliness, specifically where construction work is going on.
This topic is covered in detail in paragraph 6. below.
(
6.
Cleanliness The inspector reviewed the licensees administrative controls on plant and system cleanliness that implemented the provisions contained in ANSI W45.2.3, ANSI N18.7, and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.39. The required direction and guidance appeared to be given in the following documents:
a.
Administrative Procedure 45.0 (ADM 45.0)
b.
ADM 8.0 c.
Mechanical Maintenance Administrative Procedure 6.0
.::
i
!
l
,
.
- -.,
-.
-
, -
-
.
c
.
.
.
..
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-338/78-25 I-4 (MMADM 6.0)
d.
Housekeeping Procedures (KKP's)
e.
Fire Protection Plan Section 6.0 f.
North Anna Standard 407 (NAS 407)
The inspector interviewed two mechanical maintenance personnel and found their knowledge of the licensees cleaning requirements adequate.
The inspector toured the plant to verify compliance with the licensees directives. The following items were noted:
a.
Cleanliness conditions, especially in the auxilia ry building (
where construction work is continuing in an operating space, were considered to be below standard.
Review of administrative requirements and interviews with licensee personnel demonstrated that no routine supervisory inspection program for general cleanliness exists. Licensee management plans to incorporate a routine inspection program for cleanliness to correct this (open item 78-25-01). '
b.
A one gallon can of ethyl alcohol was found unattended in the auxiliary building.
The assistant fire marshall could not identify the responsible person or job for this flammable solvent; although, the Fire Protection Plan, Section 6.2.1 requires fire marshall approval for such use. Later discussion with the fire marshall indicated that verbal permission had been given by his for the alcohol use.
i 1.
Licensee management is reviewing the administrative controls used by the fire marshal in permitting use of flammables in the plant (open item 78-25-02).
2.
Licensee management is investigating coordination of fire
!
prevention controls with Stone and Webster Construction Company (who is still working in the auxiliary building) so that the licensee maintains full cognizance over operatsug
,
'
spaces (open item 78-25-03).
One of seven fire extinguishers checked, chemical extinguishers c.
(E661141 mounted on a mobile welding cart, was not up to date on
.
'
inspections.
The subject extinguisher was inspected last in February, 1978.
A review of Periodic Test (PT) series 105.2 i
l l
t i
!
-
.
.
_. _
_ _ _
-_.
..
.
j
.
..
,
RII Rpt. No. 50-338/78-25 I-5 indicated that this extinguisher was not listed for inspection.
'
Further correspondence with the deputy fire marshall revealed that 10 other mobile extinguishers are n. t presently listed in the o
PT's, but have all been identified and inspected. The licensee plans to incorporate all
fire extinguishers into its inspection plan (open item 78-25-04).
,
7.
Safety Injection Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the licensees procedures specifically regarding use of the " Safety Injection Reset" feature which might disable safety equipment in a subsequent blackout.
The licensees procedures and control circuitry involved in safety injection equipment indicated
,
-(,,
licensee consideration of this problem and thorough control over any practical accident scenario. The inspector had no further questions.
8.
Review of Previous Inspection Tour Findings On July 19, 1978, an inspection tour by W. Bradford of this office revealed fifteen fire safety deficiencies in the Unit 1 facility. A review of these deficiencies with the assistant fire marshall on August 25, 1978, indicated significant improvement or correction of all but three items.
Management plans to correct these last items appear adequate. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(
!
i
!
l i
-,
t
..
,