IR 05000395/1981007
| ML20004E594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Skolds J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E587 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-81-07, 50-395-81-7, NUDOCS 8106120372 | |
| Download: ML20004E594 (6) | |
Text
,
/
'o UNITED STATES
~,7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
i REGION li
c 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
,
o
.....
O Report No. 50-395/81-07 Licensee: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Columbia, SC 29218 l
Facility Name:
V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-395 i
i License No. CPPR-94 l
Inspection at V. C. Super j
f!/P[P/
Inspector:
,4m H / [
Je u J. L. 9yolds Datt Signed A.oproved by:
-[.
M f/
P. J. Kelfogg, Section Ch ~ ff, Resident and Cite 51gited
{
Reactor Project Inspe fan Division
,
'
SUMMARY Inspection on April 1-30, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspuction involved 153 inspector-hours on site in the areas of IE Circular Followup, Preoperational Test Procedure Results Review, Radiation Emergency Plan Review, Independent Inspection Effort, Maintenarce Procedures and Plant Tour.
Results Of the six areas inspected, ns violations or deviations were identified.
g ! 0 612.0 }?j2.
.
. -.
O
.
l OETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted l
l Licensee Employees
!
i
- 0. S. Bradham, Station Manager i
- J. G. Connelly, Assistai;t Station Manager l
- S. Smith, Maintenance Supervisor i
- B. G. Croley, Technical Support Supervisor
- C. Ligon, Administrative Supervisor
"A. Koon, Technical Services Coordinator l
- P Fant, QC Inspection Coordinator i
"B. Mullinax, Independent Safety Engineering Group
'
'A. A. Smith, Director Surveillance Systems
"J. B. Bone, Emergency Coordinator
- K. Woodward, Assistant Operations Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview l
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 20, 1981 with l
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items. ere not identified during this inspection.
(
5.
IE Circular Followup
,
The following IE Circulars (IEC) were reviewed to ensure the IEC was received and reviewed by the applicant:
!
IEC 80-11 Diesel Generator Coolers IEC 80-09 Internal Communcations Systems i
IEC 79-02 Inverter Static Switch Failure
!
IEC 79-13 Of esel Fire Pump Star +.ing Contacts l
IEC 80-14 Radioactive Contamination of Demineralized Water i
All of the above circulars are considered closed, i
l l
.
.
..
,.
-.
.-.
..
,
-
. -. -
-.
...
. -
-..
..--
'
.
.
.
I 1.
6.
ASLB Prehearing Conference The inspector participated in the ASLS Preharing Conference held on l
April 7-8, 1981 in Columbia, South Carolina. The participation was limited i
to providing information and clarification of previous IE Inspection l
Reports.
,
l 7.
Preoperational Test Procedure Results Review l
The following preoperational test results were reviewed:
l l
FS-01-Fire Hydrant, Diesel Fire Pump and Transformer Manual
Deluge Systems i
FS-02-Diesel Fire Pump Break In l
FS-03-Electric Fire Pump Capacity Test l
FH-03-Fuel Handling Machine and New Fuel Elevator CS-2-Charging Pump Flow Test Findings were acceptable.
8.
Licensee Identified Items
,
l l
a.
(0 pen) 395/81-07-01 Diode Failure - Rosemount 1152 Transmitters. On April 1, 1981 the applicant reported a potential safety hazard i
involving Rosemount 1152 pressure transmitters with "A" and "0" output i-codes.
The applicant is evaluating this problem at present to l
determine if it represents a substantial safety hazard to any l
safety-related systems.
L l
b.
(0 pen) 395/81-07-02 Service Water Pump Motors. On April 6,1981 the l
applicant reported a deficiency concerning the Service Water Pump Motors. In a letter dated April 9,1981 the applicant stated that a leaking bearing cooling 1ine was identified inside the service water pump motor. The leak could result in potential motor failure in either of two ways.
First, an electrical short in the motor windings could occur. Second, if the leakage was excessive, inadequate. cooling could result.
The letter was the final report on this subject. This item will remain open until. The corrective actions are reviewed.
9.
Radiation Emergency Plan I
The inspector reviewed the Radiation Emergency Plan in preparation for the Emergency Exercise held on May 1,1981. The Plan wa: reviewed for tecnnical
,
i
i
l
.
-.
-
. -.
.:.--... - - -.. - -
.-
..
.
.
.
adequacy, enforceability and clarity. Findings were acceptable with the following exceptions:
t a.
Table 4-1-An Emergency Action Level (EAL) for an unusual event is listed as subcooling monitor greater than 50* F.
It should read less than 50* F.
(Page 20)
i i-An initiating condition for an unusual event incorrectly references Technical Specification 3.7.11.1. (page 21)
-It is not clear how much of the Radiation Monitoring System or meteorological equipment or communications equipment must be lost to declare an unusual event. (page21)
-The EAL for initiaing condition 15.e is " Turbine trip and observation of turbine malfunction or failure."
The initiating condition is
" Turbine generator failure." (page 22) using this EAL, it appears that every turbine trip, due to a malfunction of some sort, indicates a turbine generator failure and therefore the declaration of an unusual event.
-The EAL for possible fuel damage states that a total-failed fue; rate l_
of 5% is indicative of fuel damage. This should state a total of 5%
failed fuel. (page 24)
-The EAL for rapid gross failure of one steam generator tube with loss
'
of offsite power lists six different initiating events.
These six events involve ten separate alarms and/or trips. It appears that one could receive much less than the 10 alarms and/or trips and still have the initiating condition.
(page 24)
Other EAL's have similar l
requirements as the one described above.
,
'
-The EAL for sustained high radiation levels is not clear as to whether you need all or any of the RMG readings to declare an alert. (page25)
-An initiating event for a Site Emergency is a known LOCA greater then charging pomp caoabity.
However, an EAL for an alert is pressurizer level continues to decrease with all charging pumps operating.
These two statements appear to be saying the same thing. (pages 25 and 29)
-It appears t:1at the unusual event for release of toxic gasses and the
alert for toxic gasses are in reverse order of severity.
In many
'
cases, concentrations of gasses which threaten personnel are in higher concentrations than those-that exceed toxicity limits. (pages 22 and 28)
b.
Section 5.6.1 incorrectly references 10 CFR 20 instead_ of 10 CFR 50.
I-
-. _._ -
.. -~
.
. -
-
..
_
_
,.,
.
c.
Section 6.5.2 states that EPP-015 " Personnel / Vehicle Decontamination" includes special instructions for radioidine contamination of the skin.
At present EPP-015 does not include these special instructions.
d.
Section 6.5.2 states that the use of potassium iodine is specified in emergency plan procedures. At present emergency plan procedures do not contain this information.
e.
Table 6.2 does not include notification of NRC for an unusual esent.
The above items will remain open (81-07-04) pending future review by the inspector.
10.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector reviewed Section 8.2.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
(NUREG 0717). The SER states that the degraded voltage relays are set at 80 percent with no time delay and 90 percent with a time delay of 10 seconds.
The Technical Specifications, Table 3.3-4, indicate a setpoint of 80% with a
.25 second time delay and 90% with a 3 second time delay. This discrepancy will remain on open item (81-07-03) pending future inspector review.
11. Maintenance Procedures The inspector conducted a partial review of maintenance procedures to confirm that the procedures are prepared to adequately control maintanance of safety-related systems within applicable regulatory requirements.
References used included:
-Admiinstrative Procedure (AP) 400 Conduct of Maintenance Activities, Rev 1-Plant Engineering Procedure (PEP) 104, Review of Vendor Technical Manuals-ANSI 18.7-1976 Findings were acceptable with the following exceptions:
a.
. PEP-104 distinguisnes between Technical Manuals having a "IMS number, Technical Manuals supplied by a QA qualified supplier and those that don' t have "IMS" numbers. In actuality there are only two destinations made. They are "IMS" or "non IMS" (VCS).
b.
PEP-104 states that all changes 'to controlled manuals generated from other than V.
C. Summer Station staff shall be reviewed by the
'
Technical Support Group. This is not being done for "IMS" manuals.
c.
PEP-104 indicates the review of Technical Manuals is documented on Attachment I to the procedure. This attachment is not being used since
Administrative Procedure (AP) 30.1. utilizes a form which is used to document the review.
.-
._.
..
- -. -.
-
-. -
- - - _.
.
.. -. -
- - - - -
-
,.
S
,
.
d.
PEP-104 contradicts itself in places and is not at all clear in its intent. However part of 'the procedure does indicate that technical manuals or portions thereof are reviewed before they are used.
Therefore, even though the procedure is not being followed, the inspector could find no instances of maintenance procedures being
-
approved without the technical manual also being i.pproved. This item will remain open (81-07-05) pending review of PEP-104.
12. Plant Tour The inspector toured the plant at various times to observe construction activities, housekeeping, maintenance, equipment preservation and log books.
Findings were acceptable.
!
.
f
!
!
!
i