IR 05000358/1980024
| ML19341A966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Daniels F, Gwynn T, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341A962 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-80-24, NUDOCS 8101290563 | |
| Download: ML19341A966 (6) | |
Text
-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _. _
_
U.S.
NUCLEAR Hl.GULAToln Co'D11SS10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND F NF okCDWN1
,
HFGION III Heport No. 50-358/MO-J4 1.ieense No. ClPH-88 Docket No. 50-358 Licensee:
Cinciraiati Gas and Elect ric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Facility Name:
hm. 11. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
hm. 11. Zimmer Site,*toscow, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
November 3-7, IJ-14, 17-J1, 24-26, 28, 1980 RM W
Inspectors:
F. T. Daniels f)c e //,f9 60 R Fo) 6v T. P. Gwynn Dec, /[/, /9ff, R F VJO Approved by:
R. F. harnick, Chief, Reactor See/0,/fgr,,
'
Projects Section 3 Inspection Summary Inspection on November 3-7, 12-14, 17-21, 24-26, 28, 1980 (Report No. 50-358/
80-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine resident inspection of Previously Identified Items, Bulletin and Circular Followup, Fuel Heceipt and Storage, Design Conte:J, Pre-operational Test Program Implementation controls, and Plant Tours.
This inspection involved a total of 118 inspector man-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors including 17 inspector man-hours onsite during off-shifts.
Resultg No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8101290 {
,
.
DETAILS I
1.
Personnel Contacted Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
- J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent
- P. E. King, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- W. W. Schwiers, Quality Assurance Manager
- S.
C. Swain, Construction Manager
- J. J. Wald, Station Quality Engineer
- S.
E. Martin, Startup Coordinator Henry J. Kaiser Company
- C. Schroeder, Turnover Group Supervisor
- Denotes personnel attending monthly exit meeting.
2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 80-19-04, revision to ME. CMP.2.01, to include torque specifications for Battery Seismic Restraints.
The inspector reviewed the latest revision to the procedurt and serified that torque specifications were now incorporated into procedure.
3.
Bulletin / Circular Followup The inspector reviewed the following Bulletins and Circulars for com-pletion. None of those reviewed were complete, therefore further inspection effort will be required in subsequent inspections.
a.
Bulletins - 77-08, 79-08, 79-16, 79-18, 79-21, 80-05, 80-06, 80-09, 80-12, 80-14.
b.
Circulars - 80-05, 80-08, 80-11, 80-12, 80-14, 80-16, 80-;2, 80-23.
4.
Fuel Receipt and Storage The inspector verified the integrity of the security controls exercised, especially the following:
Entrance barrier continuity to the 627 foot elevation of the a.
'
l Reactor Building where the fuel is stored.
b.
Access control into and out of the area.
i c.
Fuel storage area lighting, d.
Security force awareness and knowledge of their procefures.
-2-
[
,
.
The inspector also verified the provisions for control of' the environ-
!
ment cf the fuel storage including dust and debris control, flooding protection, and protection against physical damage.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
5.
Design Control The inspector reviewed Startup Administrative Control Procedure SU.ACP.13, revision 04, " Processing of Engineering Change Request Forms", to verify the proper implementation of the requirements established for Engineering Change Requests (ECR's) initiated by Electric Production Department (EPD)
personnel.
It was found that for some ECR's the required procedural methods and controls for handling and approving were being bypassed. They were being routed to the General Engineering Department (GED) for review prior to For exam-being submitted to the EPD for approval and number assignment.
ple, an ECR written on April 8, 1980 for removing the
"C" 125 VDC battery charger from a room containing an oil-water separator tank and having no drain was found in the GED " Tickler File" for ECR's.
It was properly designated safety related and was given a priority B (ccmplete prior to completion of preoperational test), but action had not been taken on it.
and immediate This was brought to the attention of the licensee management corrective action was taken to ensure procedural requirements would be followed in the future.
The inspector noted that since a traceable number is not assigned to an ECR until after review by EPD supervisors and the Plant Superintendent, there was a potential for the ECR to become lost in the administrative review process.
In light of the above, the licensee committed to the following; Review the potential problem with ECR traceability; a.
b.
Issue an appropriate revision to SU.ACP.13 to alleviate this poten-tial problem, and; Ensure this revision is written to implement and reflect the c.
requirements of applicable Corporate Directives.
This is considered an unresolved item (50-358/80-24-01) and will be followed up in subsequent inspections.
6.
Preoperational Test Program Implementation Controls The inspector reviewed two turnover packages in various stages of turn-over for preoperational testing to verify that centrols were observed for system turnover, that a schedule for preoperational testing was-3-
\\
.
being maintained and kept current, that procedures and techniques used to collect water samples from and perform maintenance on safety-related
systems were adequate, and that preventative maintenance or calibrations on systems turned over for preoperational testing had been incorporated into a schedule and were accomplished in accordance with that schedule.
The inspector made observations and audits of the Reactor Building Ven-tilation (VR) and Standby Gas Treatment (VG) Systems. These observations and audits are presently incomplete and will be the subject of a future inspection report.
The inspector verified that the collection of a water sample from the reactor vessel via the Liquid Radwaste System was performed in accordance with a schedule, and that analytic results were logged and compared to acceptance values for each analyzed parameter.
The inspector verified that maintenance performed on the local power range monitoring system was performed by qualified personnel in accor-dance with existing procedures, that an equipment history system was being implemented and used, and that the observed maintenance activity was reviewed for generic failure implicatiens.
a.
Documentation Revieted (1)
SA. SAD.06 revision 09, Review, Approval, Issue, Revision, and Useage of Implementing Procedures (2)
SU.ACP.15 revision 03, Tagging of Systems Turned Over for Preoperational Testing.
(3)
SU.PRP.01 revision 13, System Release and Turnover (4)
SU.PPP.07 revision 01, Area Turnover (5)
Piping and Instrument Detail (PCID) Drawings:
M-87 revision Er Standby Gas Treatment System PCID M-92, Reactor Building Ventilation System PCID Sheet 1, revision B Sheet 2, revision G (6) Control and Instrumentation Detail (CCID) Drawings:
M-787, Standby Gas Treatment System CCID Sheet 1, revision C Sheet 2, revision A Sheet 3, revision A Sheet 4, revision A Sheet 5, original sheet 6, revision A
_a-
T
.
Sheet 7, revision A Sheet 8, revision D
'
Sheet 9, ori gi nal sheet 10,. revision A Sheet 11, revision A Sheet 12, revision A Sheet 13, revision A Sheet 14, revision B Sheet 15, revision A (7)
M-792, Reactor Building Ventilation Syster.CCID Sheet 1, revision A Sheet 2, revision B Sheet 3, revision A Sheet 4, revision A Sheet 5, revision A Sheet 6, revision B Sheet 7 revision A Sheet 8, original sheet 9, original Sheet 10, original Sheet 11. original Sheet 12, revision B (8) Sargent and Lundy - Mechanical Department Valve List revision 12 (9) Sargent and Lundy - Instrument Index Issue N.33 (10)
EC. SAD.03 revision 05, Jumper and Lifted Wire Control (11)
EC. SAD.05 revision 03, Work Requests b.
Findings (1) Results of the audit of the Standby Gas Treatment and Reactor Building Ventilation 'vstems are incomplete and will be the subject of a future i. pection report.
(2) At present, there is no approved procedure for obtaining a normal reactor vessel water sample from the reactor water cleanup system. The licensee stated that the required proce-dure is in the draft stage and will be in use prior to fuel load.
7.
Plant Tours The inspectors conducted frequent plant tours throughout this inspection period. No apparent problem areas were identified.
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspectiu.
are discussed in paragraph 5.
-5-
,
\\
.
9.
Monthly Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee representatives (dencted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 21, 1980. The inspec-tors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection, and apprised the licensee of potential problems in the area of system turnover. The licensee agreed to appraise this potential problem area.
This will be followed up in a future inspection.
-6-
.
~ ' " ^ ~ ~
- '
r
~
-,-. - -,
__