IR 05000440/1989015
| ML20245B641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1989 |
| From: | Phillips M, Rescheske P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245B637 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-89-15, NUDOCS 8906230266 | |
| Download: ML20245B641 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:gjQ R ' ", , ,
- - - - - , .... - w ' ~ ; ,, 'O
- v i
., y : qc . m
, > :3 --, , y q .U.
S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
' ' ' ' ' REGION III < .
- Report-No~..50-440/89015(DRS)'
' Docket Nd.L50-440 License No. NPF-58 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 10 Center Road-
Perry, OH 44081 ~ Fac111ty-Name: Perry Site- ' - Inspection'At: Perry, - OH 44081' , Inspectio Xo7i cted: y 5 through' June 8, 1989 . Inspector.
egg'y R'. Resc eske' [df .
- -
/ Approved By: Montet P. Phillips, Chief [[#f ' Operational Programs Section Date ' Inspect 1on Summary-If _nspection on May 15 through June 8, 1989 (Report No. 50-440/89015(DRS)) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced, safety inspection of ' efueling activities' during the first refuel outage at the Perry Plant-(IP 60705, 60710, 'l86700). Also, included in this inspection were: general plant tours l(IP 71707),Lfollowup on nonroutine event.s (IP 92700), and a brief review of the procurement program (IP 38703).
'Results: No violations were identified during this inspection. The quality of the.-fuel handling staff and the open lines of communication between them, ~ station personnel, and the inspector, were positive factors in the timely , - completion of.the refueling operation.
l.1 l: e9o623026689061% PDR ADOCK0500hDC Q U . .- -- -
, , . . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
- .- '
~h' , b _' c .%.. . c.
" . DETAILS .l.- Persons Contacted m
- D. K.=Cobb,: Senior Operations Coordinator.
.; W.lE.:Coleman, Manager, Operations Quality'Section
s '*G. R. Dunn, Supervisor, Compliance , '
- V. K. Higaki, Manager,.0utage Planning
. iJ.!Zerucha, Project Manager, Bechtel ~U. S.'NRC ' P. Li Hiland, Senior Resident Inspector, Clinton Plant .
- R.'B. Landsman, Technical Support Staff, DRP, RIII G.'F..0'Dwyer','. Resident Inspector, Perry Plant Other persons were contacted during the course of the inspection, including members of:.the licensee's operations, technical, and radiation protection. staff, and members of the Bechtel refueling staff.
- Denotes persons ~ attending the exit meeting held on June 8, 1989.
2.
Refueling Activities: The first refuel-outage at the Perry plant commenced in February 1989.
- Bechtel was.' contracted;by the licensee to. perform the fuel handling.and other refueling; activities. -The reactor was'defueled in March 1989, with all fuel being off-loaded. Entry into Operational Condition 5 (Mode 5) and.
- refueling began on May 27,'and core reload was completed on June 6,. -1989. The. inspector. performed.a review of'the procedures used by the licensee in preparation for the refueling and during core reload. The procedures. included administrative controls and the requirements of Technical Specifications.(TS)-Section 3/4.9,' Refueling Operations. The
- inspector dire'ctly observed portions offthe refueling operations during regular hours,. shift turnovers, and backshifts, either from the control i
room, the refuel floor in containment, or the spent fuel pool floor in H the fuel handling building. The types of activities monitored included the following: fuel movement.and associated documentation, updating the.
. ' fuel status boards, communications between the refueling stations, housekeeping and material accountability, and radiation protection . practices'. In addition,'many interviews and discussions were held with the fuel handling personnel (Bechtel) and the licensee's operations i.
staff. The following procedures, completed surveillance, and other ~ documentation'n related to-refueling, were reviewed during the course of the inspection, a.
101-9, " Refueling." This procedure provided the instructions for performing refueling operations starting from a Cold Shutdown j l-condition.
i
L .
_.
., - . ... .. b.
FTI-D09,"Use of Fuel Movement Checklist." All fuel movement was documented using the checklists.
i.
c.
PAP-0204, " Housekeeping / Cleanliness Control Program." Material and tool accountability was maintained over the flooded pools during the outage, controlled by this procedure.
d.
PRI-TSR, " Technical Specification Rounds." This instruction provided the operations checklists for documenting the performance of the TS surveillance requirements, such as, water levels, control rod position, SRM count rate, RHR operability, etc. The inspector reviewed a sampling of surveillance completed during Mode 5.
e.
A sampling of " Operations Rounds and Turnovers," and " Plant Logs," completed in Mode 5, were reviewed.
f.
A number of Condition Reports (CRs) were reviewed and discussed with the licensee, including: (1) CR-89-227 (May 23, 1989) regarding , material dropped into the vessel, and (2) CR-89-234 (May 29,1989) regarding an inoperable transmitter which caused a primary and secondary containment isolation channel to _be inoperable during core alterations. This event occurred during a surveillance due to a misunderstanding of the operability requirements. The licensee plans to give training on the requirements and possibly write a clarification to the TS. This event was a TS violation and required an LER to be issued.
Further review and documentation of this event will be performed by the Resident. Inspector Office.
g.
FTI-D01, " Core Verification." The licensee completed videotaping the reloaded core on June 7,1989.
No discrepancies were observed.
h.
SVI-B13-T0005, "Insequence Subcritical Shutdown Margin Demonstration."
At the end of the inspection period, the licensee was preparii.g to perform this open-vessel shutdown' margin test.
Based on observations, discussions, and reviews, the inspector concluded that-the refueling was a successful, organized and controlled operation.
No significant problems were encountered by the licensee, with only minor fuel handling equipment failures.
The quality of the fuel handling staff and the open lines of communication between them, station personnel, and the inspector, were considered to be positive factors in completion of the operation.
Quality Control coverage was evident, as was management , ' involvement.
2.
Additional Inspection Activities Refueling operations were delayed from the original schedule, due to a number of ' outstanding items needing resolution prior to entry into Mode 5.
Therefore, during portions of the on-site inspection, the inspector assisted the Resident Inspector Office and/or provided NRC
- _ _ _ - - - - -_
,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q. uM '~ ' ' ...
.
. yT i, y .y ?, ' < p , l K . , Inspection activities during these periods of
p . coverage at the plant.
'l M time. included reviewing the licensee's preparations for refueling and the- .following items:
? a.
Attendance.at daily plant outage meetings.
b.
. Review of conditions reports'. , y c.
A number of general plant tours and system walkdowns were conducted, R including: daily _ control room tour and discussions with the operations staff,. diesel generator. system, containment, turbine building, warehouses, an'd the protected area outside (fence lines and cooling tower).
~d.
The_ licensee's procuremen_t program, specifically commercial grade dedication, was briefly reviewed and discussed with the procurement quality assurance staff. The program appeared to conform to the guidelines-set forth in EPRI NP-5652. A tour of the licensee's test and analysis-facilities was also conducted.
e.
The licensee made an event notification to the NRC on May 25, 1989, regarding the identification of a design deficiency affecting the Division I.and II Diesel Generators (DG). The licensee had ' determined that a. ground fault detected at the neutral overvoltage relay:would trip the_DG off-line when the DG was responding to a loss of offsite power condition. The trip function of the relay is overridden during a LOCA. The immediate action taken by the licensee was' to' declare the diesel generators inoperable. A temporary modification was subsequently performed which disabled the neutral overload relays. The inspector reviewed the safety evaluation performed for the modification, the condition report (CR-89-228) documenting the design deficiency, and the applicable electrical diagrams.
The inspector also discussed the event with the shift supervisor,.and the DG system and design engineers. An LER will be issued and the event will be'further reviewed and documented by the Resident Inspector Office.
4.. . Exit Interview .__ .-- The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on June 8, 1989. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the statements made by the inspector. The inspector also discussed the likely ' informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
p l l
- - - - __ - _- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ___- _ _-_ __- -_ _ -_-__-__ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ - _ - - - }}