IR 05000369/1982012
| ML20053D979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Bemis P, Bryant J, Hopkins P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053D972 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-82-12, 50-370-82-09, NUDOCS 8206070497 | |
| Download: ML20053D979 (6) | |
Text
_ -. - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
%
UNITED STATES 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'*
n g
c.
REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
.....
Report No. 50-369/82-12 and 370/82-09 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: McGuire Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-369 and 50-370 License No. NPF-9 and CPPR-84 Inspection at McGuire site near Charlotte, North Carolina Inspectors:
d h
-/kmo N,
M S[a7 [A2
'/
Datd Sigr(ed P. R. Bemis(/
g fl 0 m A$o h
YC ? 8'L e-P.C.Hopkip
[/
/
Dat'e Signed Approved by:
M _f.
D..
4 7/6'A m,
J. C. BryantVSectionyJ' Chief, Division /of Date SiQned Project and Residerft Programs Sut1 MARY Inspection on March 24 - April 16,1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 120 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of operational safety, maintenance, surveillance, significant event followup, and inspector follow-up items.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
!
!
l i
l l
8206070497 820410 gDRADOCK 05000369 PDR
__
-
.
..
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees H. Tucker, !!anager Nuclear Operations
- ll. ticIntosh, Station fianager J. Moore, Project Manager (Construction)
- G. Cage, Superintendent of Operation
- L. Weaver, IAE Engineer
- G.
Galbreath, Unit 1 Test Coordinator
- D. Lampke, Licensing Engineer
- G. Keener, QA Specialist Other licensee employees contacted included superintendents, operating engineers, shift supervisors, reactor operators, unit coordinators, station group supervisors, planners, technicians, mechanics, specialists, security and office personnel.
Other Organizations D. Puryear, Westinghouse J. Roth, Westinghouse
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 19, 1982 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The station manager acknow-ledged the findings.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
l Not inspected.
!
l 4.
Unresolved Items l
l Unresolved items are matters about which more-information is required to l
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-l tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are. discussed j
in paragraph 7a.
!
5.
Operating History At the beginning of the inspection period the unit was operating at approx-imately 50% power.
In a letter to the NRC dated !! arch 12, 1982, Duke Power t
l requested extension of run time continuance at 50% power. On April 1,1982, NRC issued a letter order extending run time to 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br /> determined from
'
the mid-Itarch startup date, not to exceed 50% power, in which the time frame l
l
t
-.
-
-
.
.
___ - -.
.
.
.
.
j
i i
would end on or_ about May 20, 1982. On April 29, 1982, Duke Power person-nel, Westinghouse personnel, and NRC personnel plan to go over a new opera-tions program which will include the data that was received from the internal instrumentation mounted in Steam Generator "A" on the McGuire Unit i
1.
After the NRC review of the Duke and Westinghouse joint submittal, a decision will be made as to whether or not the McGuire unit may continue to operate beyond the 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br />, and whether or not the unit may operate at a power level above 50% power, but not to exceed 75% power.
'
During the entire inspection period, the unit operated at 50% power except for one minor transient which was caused by the digital electro-hydraulic j
control system on the turbine. The turbine picked up a few extra per cent power, the operators took manual control and power was reduced back down to -
the 50% limit. Also, during the -inspection period the emergency -plan.was implemented when an unusual event was declared due to a fire that lasted longer than 10 minutes on the main feed pump tu 51ne. This is explained in more detail in paragraph 9.
The inspection period ended with the unit at 50% power, awaiting future NRC decision on the amount of operating time and power -level that the unit will
!
be allowed.
6.
Operational Safety Verification
!
Throughout the inspection interval the inspectors observed operational activities in the plant and the control room.
The -following acti tities were.
'
reviewed and/or observed as possible on a daily basis:
shift turnover; control room and shift manning; control room and other vital area access; j
control room and plant operators use of the adherence to approved procedures for ongoing activities; instrumentation and recorder traces important to
,
safety for anomolies; operator understanding of alarmed control room t
annunciators to include initiation of corrective action in a timely manner; operator response to computer alarms; valve and electrical alignment for I
!
emergency safeguards features (ESF) and reactor protection system (RPS)
l inputs in the control room are in compliance with technical specification
!
(TS) requirements; shift supervisor, control operator, tag out, and operator's work request logs; access and egress from the protected area in
,
l compliance with requirements.of the security procedures; and egress from
!
controlled areas in compliane with the health physics plan.
During the inspection period the inspectors also observed, reviewed and/or i'
verified the following:
status of instrument calibration, equipment tags and radiation work pennits; results of selected liquid and gaseous samples; i
and gas and liquid waste discharges and logs. The inspectors toured the i
accessible areas of the plant to make an assessment of the following:
plant L
and equipment conditions; areas which could be fire hazards; interiors of i
selected electrical and control panels; proper personnel monitoring prac-i tices; housekeeping and cleanliness practices; and radiation protection controls.
The inspectors performed a complete walkdown of the containment spray system to insure operability.
l
!
!
-
...
-- - -. - -. - -
-
,-
-
.
-.
--
- _ _ _,,
_ _ _
,
_,
_.
.
Based on this review and observation one unresolved item was identified and is discussed in paragraph 7.
7.
Maintenance Maintenance activities were observed in progress throughout the inspection period. The inspector verified that the following activities were accom-plished by qualified personnel using approved procedures, radiation controls, fire prevention and safety measures, and QA/QC hold points were observed as appropriate; test equipment used was verified to be calibrated, and data recorded was compared to that observed; required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the work; limiting conditions for operation (LC0) were met while maintenance was being perfor-med; replacement parts and materials used were properly certified; and testing and calibration as necessary were completed prior to returning the equipment to service.
The inspector reviewed portions of outstanding work orders for safety-related systems to insure the licensee is perfonning maintenance in a timely manner and that an excessive backlog is not developing.
The inspector examined the used procedures for technical adequacy and the completion of work orders. The following maintenance activities were observed and reviewed in depth:
a.
Boric Acid Transfer Pump A Replacement On March 22, 1982, while performing preventive maintenance on boric acid transfer pump "A", the pump was found to have a problem with the motor and was declared inoperable. Work request number 007841 was issued to repair or replace the pump. On April 1, 1982, the licensee's maintenance crew decided to replace the boric acid transfer pump "A" with a new pump. After the new pump was installed the licensee per-formed a perionnance functional test on the pump. The pump was found to produce discharge flow and discharge pressure. Af ter the functional test of the pump, the red tags were lifted and the Operations group declared the pump operable. On April 9, while trying to use boric acid transfer pump "A" to add water at a high flow and pressure, it was l
found that the pump would only perform at approximately 70% of capaci ty.
The Operations group had the I&E group look at the pump to find out if there was a problem.
It was found that when the pump was
,
installed on April 1, that the wiring had been hooked up such that the
!
pump was running backwards rather than forwards, thus limiting the flow capacity. The pump was rewired, and a performance test was run on the pump to assure the pump was operable.
l The following documentation was reviewed by the inspector that pertains
,
to the repair / replacement of this boric acid transfer pump:
!
!
.
.
MP/0/A/7300/02 Crane Chem Pump Disassembly and Inspection MP/0/B/7300/01 Pumps Preventive flaintenance PT/1/A/4409/10A Boric Acid Transfer Pump 1A Perfonnance Test IP/0/A/3090/02 Controlling Procedure for Troubleshooting and Corrective Maintenance.
The licensee has also begun to investigate this item and until their report is submitted for NRC review this item will be carried as an Unresolved Item (369/82-12-01).
(b) Excessive Steam Leakoff from Steam Valve.
A steam leak developed on a main steam discharge valve located in the interior doghouse.
The cause of the steam leak appeared to be due to
installation of wrong packing. The following documentation was reviewed:
MP/0/A/7200/09 Main Steam Relief Valve Corrective Maintenance PT/1/A/4855/03 Steam Valve Strokes Timing 8.
Surveillance Surveillance activities were observed throughout the inspection interval.
The inspector reviewed and/or verified that procedures used confonn to the technical specification (TS) requirements and had received proper licensee review and approval; that test instrumentation was properly calibrated; that the systems were removed from service and restored to service per procedure;
test prerequisites and acceptance criteria were met;. test data was accurate and complete; completed tests were properly reviewed and discrepancies were rectified; and tests were performed by qualified individuals. The following -
!
surveillance activities were observed and the paper work reviewed in greater
'
depth.
(a) Changes to Unit 2 Solid State Protection System (SSPS).
The licensee's IAE personnel assisted Westinghouse personnel in making approved changes to the Unit 2 SSPS.
These changes involved adding a
!
reactor trip on turbine trip interlocked with P-8 (Power at 49%).
It also involved changing Reactor trip on turbine trip below 100% power.
The following documentation was reviewed.
'
i IP/0/A/3090/02 FCN-DBPM-10593 (b)
Periodic Test Procedures PT/0/A/4150/02A Core Power Distribution PT/1/A/4150/08 Target Flux Difference Calculation PT/2/A/4550/03A New Fuel Storage Vault Inventory
,
.
.
PT/1/A/4150/04 Peactivity Anomaly Calculation PT/1/A/4550/03A fiew fuel storage Vault Inventory PT/1/A/4208/01A Containment Spray Pump A PT/0/A/4600/04 Incore Instrumentation Detector Calibration Based on this review and observation no violations or deviations were~
identified.
9.
Significant Event Followup On thrch 24,1982 at 2205 hours0.0255 days <br />0.613 hours <br />0.00365 weeks <br />8.390025e-4 months <br /> an unusual event was declared due to a fire lasting longer than 10 minutes.
The fire was of a smoldering type and was located in the insulation on the "1A" feedwater pump turbine. _ The fire brigade was dispatched to the area and most of the time required to extin-guish the fire was spent removing the insulation from the pump. Once the insulation was removed the fire was extinguished in minimal time.
The licensee secured from the unusual event at 2301 hours0.0266 days <br />0.639 hours <br />0.0038 weeks <br />8.755305e-4 months <br /> on liarch 24, 1982.
Based on the review of the event no violations or deviations were identi-fied.
10.
Independent Inspection During this inspection interval the inspector witnessed receipt of Oconee spent fuel.
The inspector verified personnal involved had a thorough understanding of the jobs they were performing and the procedure used.
The inspector reviewed the adequacy of procedure number OP/0/A/6550/13 "B&W Spent Fuel Receipt, Storage and Shipping with NLI Cask."
Based an this review and observation no violations or deviations were identified.
11.
Inspector Follow-up Items i
(a)
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (369/81-39-06):
Interpretation of AFD T.S. 3.2.1.
At the time this item was identified the licensee mis-interpreted the T/S involved, but since the T/S had not been exceeded then there was not a problem.
Since that time an official interpreta-tion of the action statement involved has been received and the licensee now has the correct understanding of the TS requirement.
,
(B)
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (369/81-31-01):
Replacement or repair of ESF manual-initiation and reset push-buttons. This iten is closed in which the details were addressed in inspection report 50-369/82-10, paragraph 12.b.
.)