IR 05000369/1989041
| ML20005E643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1989 |
| From: | Cooper T, Shymlock M, Vandoorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E641 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-89-41, 50-370-89-41, NUDOCS 9001100045 | |
| Download: ML20005E643 (10) | |
Text
l r:
'
,
r.
1 '[a ht?.
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
I k* ;.
' UNITE] STATES -:
?
o-4
.
l[,
[o.
~ REGION 11 :
si'
T
' *j -'
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
'
<
't
/
.....
'
' Report Nos.: 150-3E9/89-41 and 50-370/89-41'
I L
~ Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street
>
'
Charlotte, NC. 28242-
.
.
!
Facility Name:
McGuire Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2
- Docket Nos.:'50-369 and'50"370 License Nos.:
..
Inspection Conducted.
November 21', 1989 - December 19, 1989 Inspectors:
..
L./ -
jf-Jf-F9-P.'%.
anDoprn, Se for Resident inspector Date Signed e
'lW/V b./
/d-El9-79
'
' T. ~Co -
esientfnspector ate Signed
~
e, a'
'
h
D Approved' '
.M. B. Shymlock, Section Chief
' Efate Signed
,
Division of Reactor Projects
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine unannounced inspection involved the areas of operations safety verification, surveillance testing, maintenance activities, facility modifications, followup-on previous inspection findings, followup of event reports, review-of fitness for duty training and operator license verification.
Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
'A weakness was identified in the classification of diesel generator start failures in accordance with Reg Guide 1.108.
(paragraph 4.c)
v.
9001100045 900103 ADOCK0500g9 PDR Q
,
,.
-
-
-
-
=f
.
y;w+
"
.
.
h' 4 e
x
'
REPORT DETAILS
,
Li l12-
-Persons 1 ontacted C
i:
[
Licen see, Employees
,
,
,
m G.1Addis, Superintendent of_ Station Services
,o+
' "
' *D'
Baxter' Support Operations Manager
.
,
.
'
J.-Boyle, Superintendentiof: Integrated Scheduling-
-
,
,
}:
D. BumgardneF,: Unit 1 Operations Manager l
LJL Foster,; Station Health' Physicist
-
'M._Funderburke, Station Chemist L
- *G. Gilbert,gSuperintendent of Technical Services
'
.
C' Hendrix,l Maintenance Engineering Services. Manager
,d
~
t
.
sr T. Mathews, Site' Design Engineering Manager
,,
- *T.McConnell, Plant Manager
'
.D. Murdock, McGuire Design Engineering Division Manager-pf'
- R.'.. Pierce, IAE Engineer-W. Reeside,.0perations Engineer b
- R.. Rider,: Mechanical Maintenance Engineer
M.' Sample', Superintendent of Maintenance
,
- *R. Sharp, Compliance Manager
J. Snyder, Performance. Engineer i
J. Silver, Unit 2 Operations Manager
"
.
- *A. Sipe, McGuire Safety Review Group Chairman
_B. Travis, Superintendent of Operations
'
Other licensee-employees contacted included craftsmen, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and of fice personnel.
- Attended exit interview l
y
'2.
Plant Operations (71707, 71710)
a.
The inspection staff reviewed plant operations _ during the report
'
period to verify conformance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Control room logs, shift supervisors' logs, shift turnover records and equipment removal and restoration records were routinely perused.
Interviews were conducted with plant
,
operations, maintenance, chemistry, health physics, and performance personnel.
,
Activities within the control room were monitored during shifts
,
and at shift changes.
Actions and/or activities observed were I
conducted as prescribed in applicable station administrative directives.
The complement.of licensed personnel on each shift met or exceeded the minimum required by Technical Specifications.
!
l'
l'
t i
,
- --
-
-
-
-
__,
t a (
.
.,,.
p
b.-
Plant; tours taken during the reporting period included, but were
not limited to, the turbine buildings, the auxiliary building, electrical equipment rooms,. cable spreading rooms, and the
station yard zone inside the protected area.
,
During the plant tours, ongoing activities, housekeeping, security, equipment status and radiation control practices were observed.
c, Unit 1 Operations-The unit started the. inspection. period at full power.
Except for brief periods of time when the unit was at reduced power for routine activities,.the unit maintained full power throughout the
.
period.
d.
Unit 2 Operations The unit started the inspection period at full power.
Except for brief periods of time when the unit was at reduced power for
routine activities, the. unit maintained full power throughout the period.
During the performance of a Service Water flow balance test on j
December 12, 1989, water was passed through normally dry
'j containment spray heat exchanger service water piping.
l
!
Containment Spray Heat Exchanger "A" Drain Valve, 2RN-17, was open and allowed approximately 6800 gallons of Service Water to enter the floor drain sumps.
The reason the valve was open and the period of time that it was open could not be determined.
'Also, the pipe cap for that section of piping was not installed h3 due to damaged threads on the pipe.
A Problem Investigation Report is being issued to document this event and to evaluate the impact on the operability of the containment spray heat exchangers.
On December 15, 1989, the licensee informed the inspector that during performance of licensee procedure, PT/2/A/4355/01A, Diesel Generator 2A Room Sump Pump Performance Test, the pump reached rated head, but would not deliver any flow.
Investigation revealed that the sump lines from both the Unit 2 sump rooms were isolated in the Turbine Building.
These valves are controlled by
,
the Chemistry department.
Valve position records for these valves are not maintained. The surveillance for the sump pumps is performed quarterly or as needed.
The last time a sump pump was tested was November 27, 1989. At the request of the inspector, the licensee is performing a past operability evaluation on the Unit 2 diesel generators.
No violations or deviations were identifie pn
-
-
in
-
>
.
'
'
-
,e
.
-
.
L
"
,
,
L'
3.
Surveillance-Testing (61726)
a.
- Selected surveillance tests were analyzed and/or witnessed by the
. inspector to ascertain procedural and performance adequacy and c
conformance with applicable Technical Specifications.
,
t Selected tests were witnessed to ascertain that current written l
'
approved p'rocedures were available and in use, that test equipment in use was calibrated, that test prerequisites were-met, that system restoration was completed.and acceptance criteria were met, k
Detailed below'are selected tests which were either reviewed or witnessed:
PROCEDURE EQUIPMENT / TEST PT/0/A/4450/08C Control Area Ventilation Performance Test (Special Tests conducted to evaluate interactions with Auxiliary Building Ventilation)
b.
In a pre'vious report (369,370/89-37) it was noted that the Hydrogen Monitors surveillance procedure was discovered to be inadequate.
The licensee thought that alarms would not function with the power supply breaker open or if the switch was'in the
'<
"off" position.
Further review disclosed that a loss of power alarm would be received in these situations and therefore this issue was not reportable as previously stated. The inspector L
reviewed the documentation associated with this evaluation.
-
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
' Maintenance Observations (62703)
,
a.
Routine maintenance activities were reviewed and/or witnessed by the resident inspection staff to ascertain procedural and performance adequacy and conformance with applicable Technical Specifications.
.
The selected activities witnessed were examined to ascertain that, where applicable, current written approved procedures were available and in use, that prerequisites were met, that equipment restoration was completed and maintenance results were adequate.
Y
g
,
r
.
t:
-
.
.
..
c
'
a
3 i
Work Request Activity 05503A-Preventative Maintenance on Component-Cooling Pump and Motor 2A2
.
.b.
The. licensee was asked whether a Centrifugal Charging Pump Motor -
'
bearing problem identified at another licensee-facility affected the McGuire Station.
The licensee' indicated that engineering personnel had been in contact with the other station and were reviewing the problem.- The licensee later indicated that McGuire has a different motor which uses a different-bearing and has had no motor bearing problems.
,
y c.
The licensee program for diesel generator reliability was reviewed.
The inspector noted that Unit 2 diesel generator.-
testing is' at a weekly frequency due to the number of start
-
failures experienced.
Unit 2 has collectively experienced seven start failures in the last 100 starts and Unit I has collectively experienced five in the last 100 starts.
The licensee has also-experienced failures as a result of equipment failure during this period that were not identified as part of the diesel starts.
Presently, the 2B diesel generator is being operated with a Temporary Modification in place to bypass one of the two 50
. percent speed switches due to problems with that switch and the lack of any replacement switches. The licensee has identified and ordered newer, more reliable switches.
These switches will be installed on all the plant diesel generators, when they are received.
'
As a result of the several failures experienced since the Unit 2 outage (EOC 5), a team has been formed to review areas that could provide reliability improvements on the diesel generators.
Maintenance Engineering Services has assigned a lead individual to work on the diesel generator problems for a six month period.
,
An engine monitoring system is being installed on Unit 2 and will
,
l be installed on Unit I during the next outage.
This system will add many new engine performance data points to help monitor for degraded operation and to assist in trouble shooting problems.
Work is also progressing on an EPRI sponsored project to add enhanced computer capability to diesel generator data collection and evaluation.
L i
-
- - - - -
-+ s a
cv
.
C + i;
-.
.
m
'
>
,
As. a result of a:recent QA Audit of diesel generator logbooks, engine starts that had been classified as invalid failures were
.
-reclassified to' valid failures.
This resulted in a determination-L
.that:the test-frequency should have been changed to weekly instead of monthly and.that several surveillances had been
'
' missed. This item was reported in:LER 370/89-12.
Inspection report 369, 370/89-37 identified the problems associated with the application of -the Diesel Generator Technical Specifications as a
weakness. Weaknesses are also present in the classification of'
&
L start failures in'accordance with Reg Guide 1.108.
,
)
P The. inspectors will continue to monitor diesel-generator problems and.the results-offthe licensee's corrective actions.
<
No violations 1or deviations were identified.
,
5.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup (90712,92700)
The Licensee Event Reports (LER) listed below were reviewed to I
~
'
determine if the information provided met NRC requirements..The determination included:
adequacy of description, verification of compliance with Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements, corrective action taken, existence of potential generic problems, reporting requirements satisfied, and the relative safety significance of each event.
Additional inplant reviews and discussion'with plant
. personnel, as_ appropriate, were conducted for those reports indicated by an (*).
The following LERs are closed:
370/89-03, Rev. 1 Reactor Trip Because of Failure of Positioner for Steam Generator Main Feedwater Regulating Valve.
The-following four LERs were the subject of an NRC Enforcement Conference on October 20, 1989.
Each issue has been evaluated and a violation was issued on November 15, 1989 (see Report No.
369,370/89-24).
- 369/89-15, Rev.1 Control Room Ventilation System Did Not Meet the Required Positive Pressure Because of a Design Oversight.
- 369/89-17 Annulus Ventilation System Inoperable Because Wiring Did Not Meet Environmental Qualifi-cation Requirements as a Result of Manufacturing Deficiency.
.
.. _
.-
.
,
-
I.
s
,
.
E
'
- 369/89-27 Annulus Ventilation System Was Inoperable
Because of a Design Deficiency, Management Deficiency and Inappropriate Actions.
-
- 369/89-30 Control Room Ventilation System Was
..
!
Technically Inoperable Due to an Open Conduit
..
Connection Because of Unknown Reasons.
No violations or deviations were identified.
L 6 '. -
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (92701, 92702)
!.
'
The' following previously. identified items were reviewed to ascertain that the. licensee's responses, where. applicable, and licensee actions p
were in compliance.with regulatory. requirements.and corrective actions have been completed.
Selective verification included record review, observations, and discussions with licensee personnel.
(Closed) Violation 369, 370/89-24-01: Failure to Adequately Document Shift' Staffing - Multiple Examples.
The licensee revised the
.!
inadequate administrative procedure to clarify the requirements for j
the documentation of shift staffing.
Discussions on the topic were j
. held in a subsequent shift supervisors meeting.
The inspector has
verified that proper documentation has been maintained since the
!
corrective actions were implemented.
!
i 7.
Observations of Fitness For Duty Training (TI 2515/104)
j l
^
The inspector observed Fitness For Duty training for supervisors and escorts conducted to implement new NRC requirements contained in 10CFR 26 ef fective January 3,1990.
The inspector verified that the j
following areas were covered in the training:
Licensee policy and procedures, including the methods that will be i
-
used to implement the policy; The personal and public health and safety hazards associated with
!
-
abuse of drugs and misuse of alcohol;
The effect of prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs and
-
dietary conditions on job performance and chemical test results,
,
and the role of the Medical Review Officer; L
Employee assistance programs provided by the licensee;
-
a
pyg
,
L Q 41
'
.
r
, ~
_.
e
.
'
pL
VI4
= What~is expected of employees and what consequences may result from lack of adherence to-the policy.
y
.
,
'
- Role and responsibilities in implementing the program-(
.
.
!
The~rolesLand responsibilities of others, such as the personnel,
-
-
medical, and employee assistance program staffs;.
f Techniques-for recognizing _ drugs and indications of th'o use, sale,
-
{
or possession of drugs;
'
Behavioral observation techniques for detecting degradation in
-
performance, impairment, or changes in employee behavior;
Procedures for initiating appropriate corrective action, including
-
reporting of problems and referral to the Employee Assistance Program.
.j No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Rea'ctor Operator License Verification (41701, 71707)
i The inspector reviewed the licensee program for maintaining a
.
i qualified licensed staff on shift. Administrative procedures were reviewed to determine the process by which assurance is maintained that the personnel on shift are qualified'to be in that position.
Licensee procedure OMP 1-10, Maintenance of an Active NRC License, j
discusses the maintenance of the required shift experience to maintain
!
a license and restoring a person to active status.
This procedure H
does not address the maintenance of' qualifications based on
'
requalification examination results or disqualifying medical conditions.
!
Licensee procedure, MC-OP-TG-10, Requalification Guidelines, states that when a licensed operator receives less than 70 percent on a
,
requalification examination, the individual will be removed from
!
licensed duties within one day of exam failure notification.
There are no time requirements established to notify Operations that a i
'
person has failed the requalification examination The guidelines state that the Superintendent of Operations will be notified "as soon as possible".
The practice of the Training department is to verbally notify the Superintendent of Operations, or his designated alternate immediately upon determining that a person has failed the examination.
This verbal notification is followed by a written notification to the Superintendent of Operations, with a copy to the Shift Supervisor.
l
.
y
-
-.
[,
-
p:
c
,1 f. ;i;
^
f n
'
j, '
u
- After the Operations department has been notified by the Training department of a requalification examination failure, they normally remove the person from licensed duties until. remedial training is completed. There are no procedural. requirements.for the Operation's b
department to to remove a licensod operator from shift for failure to
~
pass a requalification examination.
The inspector interviewed
p-Operations management, from the shift supervisor level to the
Superintendent of Operations leve's and they were all in agreement with the actions to take following notification of failure from the
'
Training department. Personnel who have failed the requalification examination are immediately removed from shift until-they have e
successfully completed remedial training.
During the poriod, the inspector was notified by the licensee that a licensed shift supervisor had undergone corrective surgery on his knee and would be in a light-weight walking cast for several months, and would be able to continue to function as the control room senior reactor operator during that time.
This decision was made by the Operation's management and not by the company medical department.
The inspector met with licensee medical personnel, Compliance, and Ope' rations management and it was determined that in the future, all medical decisions pertaining to licensed plant operators will be made by the company doctors.- The doctors examined the shift supervisor and have. allowed him to resume licensed duties, but have restricted him from: serving on the Fire Brigade.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Licensee Presentation
-
On November 29, 1989, Regional and NRR management personnel met with site management-to discuss station performance.
The licensee presented what it considered strengths and weaknesses in their performance and outlined plans to improve the weak areas.
Following the presentations, the licensee conducted a tour of.the controlled area-for the NRC management personnel.
10.
Ex1t Interview (30703)-
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 19, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The following items were discussed in detail:
The need for past operability determinations on the containment spray
.g heat exchangers and Diesel Generators (in reference to the sump isolations).
The need to strictly control and document licensed operators medical and training qualifications.
- --
-
-
-
- -
p.
-
-
.
.
,.r,..
.y.,
,
,
X. y,,
'
-
- ,3>
+
.9
.
.
.The need'~to improve understanding.of regulations on Diesel' Generators,
-
- . The-licenseefrepresentatives present offered no' dissenting-comments, nor did.they identify as proprietary'any of-the information reviewed by th~e inspectors during t.he course of their~ inspection.
.
)
P A
i O
i-
.
't