IR 05000454/1990017

Insp Repts 50-454/90-17 & 50-455/90-16 on 900701-0811.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Esf Sys,Onsite Event Follow Up,Reactor Startup,Current Matl Condition,Radiological Controls & Security

ML20059B433
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	08/17/1990
From:	Farber M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059B429	List: IR 05000454/1990017 ML20059B427
References
50-454-90-17, 50-455-90-16, NUDOCS 9008290075
Download: ML20059B433 (17)

Text

.. - _.. _ _...

-

.

w ac p

x, -

C j_.

.

<

f

,

,

s

,

1.

.

.,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

-

l

REGION III

> +

,

.

,

,

.ReportNos.50-454/90017(DRP);50-455/90016(DRP)l

$

,

i

., Docket Nos; 50-454; 50-455 License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66

,

.icensee:

Commonwealth Edison Company

,

. Opus West III

,

-1400 Opus P1 ace

.

'

'

Downers Grove, IL 60515

' '

i Facility'Name:

Byron Station,' Units 1 and 2 h

-

,

Inspction At:

Byron Cite, Byron, Illinois

.

.

Inspection Conductedi-July 1 througli August 11, 1990

' Inspectors:. W. J.;Kropp f

R. N. Sutphiii

'

.

a O. R.;Calhoun

^

f!/7 /d

Approved By:

ar in-J.

ar er, Chief y -

Reactor.

ojectscSection 1A Dat(

d

'

Inspe'ction Summary, I

<-

v

.

• L Inspection from July 1 through August 11, 1990 (Report Nos. 50-454/90017(DRP);

!

50-455/90016(DRP))

' Areas-Inspected:

Routine, u.1 announced safety inspection by the resident.

,

'

?. inspectors.of; action on prevfous inspection findings; engineered safety.

l, feature systems; onsite event follow-up; reactor startup; current material-condition;: radiological controls;. security; safety assessment / quality verification; maintenance activities; surveillance activities; follow-up

.on allegation;' backlog; engineering and technical support; and fuel

handling.,

..

'

.

Results:

Of the 14 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were l

s

,#

"

identified.' Four open items were identified that pertained to

'

(1) methodology used by Westinghouse to determine setpoints; (2) material-

_

s condition of the post accident neutron flux instrumentation (paragraph 3.e.);

f i

(3) ir.stallation of a wrong diaphragm in the pressurizer PORVs (paragraph-5.a); (4) timely calibration ofsa plant installed instrument used for

,.

<

L technical specification surveillance acceptsnce criteria (paragraph 5.b.)

'

. and ;(5) Jan' issue.of undersized welds on the CV and SI punips (paragraph 6.a).

.

o

.l inav N

,.9008290075 900817

~

,

.,

?

,w

.i

.

if

'

hDJR ADOCN 0500o454

,

.

,

rshy PDC

!

,

..

EbI

'f m

h.-.

+

.f

-

khm y

-

-

/ y~jf

- w

,

+

..

QQ 2 : %mfy pp p'

fg a

,

.

.'

"

),[h n,, y~ -

'[

,-

['

'

C

'D

.

a e,

, - y

'

N x

,,

,.

,

,

,,

.

E

<

'

,

Executive Summasyl

,

i fi%?

s W-

1. .

+

%

a' '

a %... <,y Plant Operations!

,

, 4

,

'

' 1The licensee's; activities in this area continua to be considered good.

The materia 1' condition for unit I and Unit 2 components-was considered go '

t

'

ioverall;with increased management. attention needed for the post accident y

.

T. neutron flux instrumentation.. The materialicondition for the Unit 0

,

,

w

' components was considered average with,some improvements noted during the

.

~

,

inspection period.

The communications between, operations personnel on shift J'

1during the-July 17, 1990 reactor startup was considered good. ;The operator's.

. response to the high level in the 2A steam generator during the, startup that

'

n..-"

resulted'in a feedwater isolation was considered good. The operators alsol f'7 lo

" terfaced well with trainees assigned to.startup duties.

The' licensee's,

,

'

s

,

wuservative approach in operations was demonstrated by the shutdown.of Unit 2 "

due to' leakage from Swagelock type fittings even though Technical Specification.

J x^

limits were not exceeded..

>

j

-

o

,

<

• ,

.

,

,

!

The'11censee also chancad the pressurizer low pressure safety injection

>

o

'setpoint from 182F psi to 1850 psi as a. result of an ongoing Westinghouse-study on setpoint methodology.

Even tho' ugh the final determir-1 for-th'e*

,

setpoint has not beea estaMished, the station initiated the nt change

,

as a conservative mt.angre and to prevent entering 3.0.3 of 6

.xnnical-jb i

,

Specification if tne final determination--of the~setpoint re n is in'a setpoint-

,

above~1829 psi.

'

,

3'.

'

Safety Assessmgnt/Qua'ity Verification.

.

The 1icensee's. performance in the LER process was considered good'.- 'The rooth

)

'

causeLanalysis and planned corrective actions appeared adequate to preclude:

.

~~

y similar^ events in the future.

-

.4 Y

~

.' +

-

.

.

.

,

%

A Haintenance and Surveillance

%-

T g

q

,

-

.

q

,

t.

The licensee'sl performance was mixed during this' inspection perio'., The n 4 +

Q d

.

p jiicensee's' approach to resolve the unidentified RCS' leakage causbd by,leakincj

]

U A;#

L Swagelock type' fittings-was innovative and' demonstrated good communication ~si i

a d ' X

between maintenance, technical, and operations personnel.

Also,._the initiation; L

• .0:/ -of a'Reliabi.lity Centered Maintenance Study;for the Auxiliary Feedwater:'s9 stem' L l

C was considered an' example of-good management involvement.

However, the L,,lu,/{m Q

.

d

,

i

s M Q performance of-maintenance activities on the pressurizer PORVs.!and the

'

h,y surv'eillance to verify the containment spray additive flowrate"was not d 3The ins

r

'

'

e%

'i.

'D considered good.

l<

'

%W CVisystem and considered the backlog:at an acceptable number ><ith no open

,j gjy NWRs affecting immediate operabifity of the CV system.

3 _j

,

o i r;

m g.

% ).~3

~~ Engineering and Technical Support i.[a s

.

I i

-

=>y (

-

i i %* -

The licensee's performance in this area was mixed.

The'Onsite Review.

~

'

j]

3 erformedito determine operability of the pressurizer PORVs was timely and.

3 7.

'

p hi technically" sound.

Also, the support by the station's nuclear ~ engineers and s

l

'?

'a

,s.

g{

.

k

.

.f

'

' *

,

.

,

,

,.

.

.

u-

_

.Q

f h,

f

['/

. -

.

,[

b..;.,

'

>

.

.,

,

m m.-

-

,

<

m-

M q.

My

'

-

,

Q+

.

+

-

,,,3

,

.

,

.,

.;

w; r

.

-

t,

.

g

.

,

.

. I,

-

,.

.

,

i q$ ' ly; _

.

..- -.

,-

.

.

.,,

[

id4

corporate' Nuclear Fuel' Services for,the1 reactor. startup of' Unit 2 on ^ July 17; s

> >

>

s MW 1990,Lwas_ considered excellent. The support resulted in a good approach tos

_

l

,

"

t M

criticality.and control of. the axial delta flux which could have been;a s

'

m; K '

problem for~ the operators since Unit 2 was at the.end of core life (refuel

~

'

s s

d Ml'

outage 3 scheduled' for September

1',1990). _. However, the station's. involvement -, A Q

in the potential (undersire weld issue for the'CVf and'SI pumps wasinot timely.

-

Q,,*

'

~ Until questioned 'by the-resident.. inspectors on July'30,11990,s the welds had

<-

,

M,

'_notLbeen inspected for as-built configuration even though the'stationir,eceihed) ?

,

f l,

,

,

",

_

notification of the' issue by_ l'etter on July 16,1990.

p r;,j

-

"

.j:

g

...

s

-

.

.<

- t 4 p, 1 1 e

.

.

~

j. f (

+..

'

cQ

_-

n

^ "

y[_

j '

~f,'

. hI

'-

g

[g

'

t.f

,

t N',y* '-y'; <y r

o

' ),

'

_,

,

.,.

s

%,

Q

,

,

1. '

O.

lh

'

'

'

.o

,

( v,l ? > ;

,

s.

m-y-

'

.l.

d-e'.

e;._

,f,

, %- ?

.

% 4

+ '

.y

i

}4,,

4-

'

<

n, -

,

I

'

.

y

>

In r

"$,

g

'

'

-

o

~.

j hy :',%n.-

'

4

,, m.

i ija h, / '

,

,

>

'

+

,-

- g<s

. &,

!

.i

,

,

,

,

f

~

m; s

.

s j.

y

,

i9

"

. L3

.,

'

M-i

,

(

.

,

-,

'

' '

'g

+

.

e i

,

i s

.

[:

{

,,,

7 '

• ~

.. W

-

,

.

7g

'f i

j

/

a

,3' Y

. 9

't

'

y

,.

.s

.

l'

1. t 1-.

y

,

i

,

se o.

(~

t 1.

'f

' st

,

i

, -

'

/.

'

t

..t<

. :(

j s

,

.

,

,

,s,

'

'(

,

,

, ^

7,.

s f

l,

_

g*

3%

.l 4 #

'

),e

'~' i'

'

' \\;_

• s

{g

.

,

,

s

+

,

,

I L

'

3 e.

v

)

e

-

,

',

-.

(-

5

tj,

' '

s

. e

,

k e

f4

'

a.

'

<

.

,

+ ; a t...

I

'k. i.

t.

n

,i O

O

)

>3 s

g

? "

r[

,

ty

'

~;

I 9b^.

"

.

,

g

,

2

-: 9.o

,

,

,

E

'.

-i ' '

'

g

'

r3e j; ::

l -L *.

'

.,.

'

- '

<

x

,

'

.

-

'

.

• *.

T

ty

~

'

+

, y

,

,

-

-

,

c.-

-g

'

?

'

e

.

?

'

e -

y;

? _

g rv f

}

,

'

"

^ y;

.

'

'

.,

-,

,

'y y

i 1 j ',

^ ^ ~~

^

- - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. _ _ __ _ _ _ _., _ _

,

5.g h & m%IM Q,~,

~

~

'

.

. -

}'

f }, e n,

Rf

.

r k% m?y M

-

c m

,

"

~- ( ' f '" t %

<

.

.

.

wvu g ;.

-

-

-

>

'

9'

r.

,.

g

'

+

e

_,

[yh?

_&

l.

b ld2

"

y

,

,

p pf j

. DETAILS-1-<

(

'

p t; M 1,;g-

,

l

,f ' ' C N

.,

R W f'.1k* Persons Contacted

' #'

W

y'y-

x

,

_ _

_

.

f l,

Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)-

l

'

,

,

(

w,

.-

l

• Ri'Pleniewicz,StatiodManager

.

'

"

'~

~ i+

J

• K. Schwartz - Production Superintendent-l

'l

• R. Ward. Technical Superintendent

'

• J. Kudalis, Service Director

..

,O D.; Brindle, Operating Engineer,' Administration

,

.T.-lDidier, Operating Engineer, Unit 0-tf y

- "

T. Gierich, Operating Engineer, Unit 2

T.'Higgins,

Assistant Superintendent,-Operating-(-]

J Schrock,;0perating~ Engineer. Unit I

.

• Pc Johnson,-Technical' Staff Supervisor

' '

c

,

y~

• M.? Snow,eRegulatory Assurance Superviso_r.

,

,

. 'D. St. Clair Assistant' Superintendent,.WorkJPlanning:

+d

'

'

L-

• T. Tulon,, Assistant Superintendent,, Maintenance

> s

.

.

.'D.sWinchesterl Quality Assurance. Superintendent <

• D. sozniak, ' ENC. Pr9, ject Manager L '

"

'%

.

,

%

r*E; Zittle, Regulatory Assurance Staff ic

'

-

,

'

'

+

-

.

.

.

,

.

.

i

'* Denotes 1those attending the exit interview conducted on August 10, 1990,

"

~and at other; times throughout the-inspect 1on period.

,

,

,

Thel inspectors also had discussionsiwith other licensee. employees,

,

including members ofi hett'echnical and engineering / staffs, reactor and-t

'

g

,

+> auxiliary operators, shift: engineers and foremen',,and electrical,

~

mechanical-and instrument maintenance personnel, and cont lract security

,'

t

+

personneh

,

$

'{

n

2

1 Action on Previous Inspection Finding (92701 & 92702)

.

_'

~.

~

< ;

.

..

.

_

.

'.

a.

-(Closed) Violation 454/90012-01:

Fhiiure to -identify, an inadequate

.

,

. design: assumption, approver a calculation prior to ase.and perform a' +

,

'

design review prior to using a single cellecharger.

The inspectors

,

,

have reviewed the. licensee's corrective: action'and action to-

-

,

T preclude' recurrence., Based on the review, the; inspectors do not

,

P;;j

.

g sh1

.have any further concerns and this.violatio'nis~ considered closed. ; 3.;

j P

,

..

'

i

'

b.

(Closed) Open Item 454/90012-02; 455/90011-01f JConcerns: relative to

.use of; proper calibration-of instruments when performing specific

Li

'e a gravity measurement me on.the frequency.of: equalize charges.

The y '4 T Q<p

,

. A' $

inspectors have revivded the-. licensee's response in a letterito the#

{'.

g-

',

NRC Regional Administrator (Region.III),3 dated June 29, 1990 and c

s tw i o, have no further' concerns in this area.

.

,

'

J

}j y -,r.

'3 1;*

m, i-

,

f g * ' < %j ' s ' i'

t y;> .

, r (%:c (e ( - ' . , , -c. p . .t '.

'

' , ~ , o , , N . i ' , k i * '. ( #( ' j .f s .p

L )(' ! < ti ' . , , .S.

' ,% %, ji; J .,. y.

." < ' ' ,. m u , ,

.T , i* , . f < . s; g.

e% . , m.

mayg y s ;x

n' / , "

• ,,

- K t, - ,- y

• w s

.

• .LQ[m

., c '* -

4 (,s " ' .

i > ,, .,. - , ; , i 'j{ j k

'* e ( . ,

,' q .q.- . ( 3.

i _ -

. . [M I

1)

7' ' ' 4 l s .

.:, tw , Plant Operations . . n a3 : . .., , !

, W' R 't , , ., , ., _ s < , , [Q= l Unit,1 operated at" power levelslup to 100hthe lhad following modef F ' '[. l , . sinca July l,:1990. ~ L; p a y,;p,, " ' + , - 3' - - , , , Unit l2 o p rated at power levels commensurate with'coastdown: limits . > w.

_ , l k (refueling outage scheduled to. commence September 1,1 1090)until, July 14.,N,e u

Y 1990 when the# unit was shutdown for. primary leakage from Swagelockl type.

i 'o d .-

- i[?m fittings'on the. primary sample lines.

The fittings were repaired,;the % vJ , L.

.% ^ se, unit was return 6d to service on July.17, 1990,'and has sin _ce operated'at nM qu . -@+ + h17 power levels commensurate with coastdown',11mits.

' ' - ] . .a .y y 9SW . [y3 L,; . ., . s

. . , k i : l' f ) a. ' Operational Safety'(71707) Y ,, t << t, . g ni f, p,: , 40-During'the. inspection' period, the inspectors verifiedithati.

1> Tp))3 ' f y ' @T .V the facility'was being operatedrin conformance with the " +; 's 'p < 711 censes and ~ regulatory requirements and-the. licensee's' N >

a y , 4s management responsibilities were effectively carried outLfori >f ] @T 4. T.

' safe operation.. Verification was based.on. routine. direct, t ' " N W,af& f T - l ~c . ?1 . , W"t .. i observation ~of' activities-and equipment performance,- tours of'the' ~'l 4

• ,'+%

facility, interviews--and discussions with licensee personnel,; N < independent: verification of safety system status and limiting "~ conditions for operation action requirements (LC0ARs),~ corrective t > - " - action',"and. review of facility records'. . a Onla;samplingbasiskheinspectors.dailyverifiedpropercont'rol, " i , room staffing and' access, operator: behavior, and coordination of . plant ^ activities with ongoing control' roca operations; verified ~ ' operator adherenceswith-the latest-revisions of. procedures for - ' ongoing. activities; verified operation.as required by Technical i ' Specifications _(TS); including compliance with LC0ARs,1with emphasis on engineered safety features l(ESF).and ESF electr.ical.. '

alignment:and' valve positions;. monitored instrumentation recorder

.

,' -traces-and duplicate channels for' abnormalities;: veri.fied status 'l p_,' of various ? lit annunciators. for, operator:' understanding,yof f-normal y , l condition,: and compensatory actions;1 examined nuclear'instrumenta- ~ l' tion (NI) and other-protection channels for proper operability: ' v'. m4 reviewed radiation. monitors and' stack monitors for' abnormal - ' ' conditions;!verifiedthat'onsiteand.offsite-powerwasavailable ' ,' as required;7observedithe frequency.of plant / control ~ room visits [M by the station * manager,? superintendents, assistant, operations

superintendent,.and other managers; and observed the Safety - , Parameter Display System (SPDS) for. operability.

No. problems'were- , 'o~ -noted.

i ' p4 , < - ! > y . On August 6 - 7, 1990, the_' station changed the pressurizer low - %, -pressure safety. injection'setpoint,from,1829 psi to:1850 psi for- ~ ~ A-Unit 1]and: Unit 2.

As a' result of. an ongoing Westinghouse studyi-of setpoint ' methodology, a preliminary conclusion was. drawn that thes

gr 1829' psi might not be conservative.

A final determination'has ncte

,

.' - , , y je < s ,. $ ' > i f.s.'? , " 'g z ~ ~ F . y & gP ,

' _ ,; 3> - q 4.

,, e , b* - s

• \\

. e - ,,

TT a . C <+ ~

,, ,c vy n

, . qj

h --.

. ' Q l g, -. t,v' '

at _ > - . - n ( .g , .. ,y , s.-

.} ( i+ . , , , l - - > -. . . . . ~ yetbeenre'chedbetweenWestingh'ouse'andLthe'Ncensee'sl corporate.

Y? i a (4 .S

engineering onithe'setpoint. LIn the; interim,.the station' elected? '-

to implement aJconservative approach and raised the setpoint to' ' , ,' J1850 psi.

A' set' oint change record:and 10 CFR:50.59 review'were: ' ' p ' performed prior to the-setpoint change.. Since the Westinghouse study of setpoint methodology could also-affect other setpoints.'- This matter is considered an Open Item pending further NRC-review e ' " (454/900017-01;,455/90016-01).. .! . ' . I .b._ Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Systems (71710) ' ' , ' c,

.During the inspection, the inspectors selec m Lessible portions d > < 'f an ESF system to verify status.

Consideration was.given to the <y o .;4 plant mode, dpplicable Technical Specifications, Limiting Conditions ! & for OperationfAction Requirements (LC0ARs), and other applicable ~ ' j , . requirements.

'

e , . a ., m Various observationsT where applicab'e,= were.made of hangers and- ! ' ' ' supports; housekeeping; whether valve position locking, -if required,- ' was: installed and proper;'- -valve aosition and conditions;' potential n - > ',

ignition. sources; major component labeling, lubrication, cooling',71 (7'

^ / etc.;'whetherinstrumentationwasoroperlyinstalledandfunctioning~14 . and significant process parameter values were consistent with.

~. ' expected values; whether instrumenta';An was calibrated;' whethergi: p necessary support systems were operational; andiwheth'eplo'cally and, fb i j(,3

% Q7 remotely indicated breaker and valve positi(ns. agreed! y ' { aQ v. ^During the i.nspection, several; accessible'portdns.of[thesfollonirig' j q 1 %

% y

m A , fi n U Q(/g ' 'ESF systems were walked down, for each unit: WPf 3~ 1,yd - $j ' , s 493 ' (,; ;j ' %g'- ' ' '

4 y4 f UnitEl-i { , r , .L a , . ,, + !h.

i,' ' Containment Spray, Trains A and B E ' \\n d y - .

• \\

High Pres'ure Safety Injection, Trains A and B 1#

' J ~,. l ' ~ s ,, Q,3A( Chemical and Volume Control, Trains A and B _ -[~.,: 6 4i ., Auxiliary Feedwater, Trains A -and B / 'i 'I' V! - '~ 3; J w y ~; .' ,j . 7%3 A Unit:2-g .~ y% ; ., - - .d' Containment Spray,. Trains'A and-B / ' ' ' M High Pressure Safety Injection, Trains A 'and B i4 F d . Chemical and Volume Control,. Trains A and B 'i . - ' ,'. Auxiliary Feedwater, Trains A and B q . ' Onsite Event Follow-up-(93702)

, ' (1).On July 14,-1990, Unit 2 was shutdown due to leaks on Swagelock ! type fittings ~on process sample lines for'the reactor coolant ! ' syst'em (RCS); 'The leakage (.8:gpm) was below the Technical . d' Specification limits of 1 gpm.for unidentified and 10 gpm for 'j , a r $Y

.; '{ "Q.

,' ' ' l,. L,

' ' , i ' , , u

• '

t

s ., - c,,. , , - x . g< g.

m.

.. /'y,,Y' . - ns : . w?jQ' M ' J h& f. & %~ ' ; 'T,

- , I2

1. M[1%. " l

'l %: 'e

< q' J

4 - , , -

s . o , 2m ~jf ,, . -

, ' 1, y _ y 7 f, _ m.

- c <

s y, % ; 4 N licie^ntified.v To. ascertain the" location of the _1[eaks,< the 'i C:: 3-M$,-Q+ f ' station modified theLfue1< pool < scavenger with'a* video camera &,3 ~; s i ey and: radiation monitor.?!The; remote controlled scavengerLwas-w r

N4 hw [t U W 4 a ' fthen sent inside thetinner," missile' shield wall 4in' containmentif J

,. , The exact' source of the leak could not beidetermined due to i s N b Howeverl the 11censee' ascertained f * "4 ' '. WN. ~ s accessibilityofLthe' area.

y [ y.

'W - the. leak (s) waslocated in the.arca of;the process 1 sample

- ' 3. V ~ = il l nes. ' Since the exact sourc'e of ~ the' 1eak(s)Tcould n"ot be Mhe

l !( i' 4 identified and the leak rate was slowly trending.u'p, the-f3 3 y

d licensee' decided to? shutdown the unit'.

Aft'er theishutdbwn the.

' '

.a _ ; N 'f. licensee determined that 3 out of 6 Swagelock type 2 fittings y ,f q.

. e M J were11eaking on the. process sample. lines from the RCS, 'The V &4

• 1

, - - & ' licensee repaired / replaced all the? fittings 'on the process ( $r dJ , s W :; sample lines andJreturned the unit'to service onl July 17. 1990.

- '% , % The inspectors will review:the Deviatioh Report issued for the- ,% , event lfor proper root cause"and corrective action, p o-3;

, . +

g, +1 ' _ s '(2)L.On July 14, 1990 at 9:22=p.m.^a'n unexpected Unit 2 feedwater

<

, i '~ isolation (FW) from the train "B" reactor. trip breakers (RTB)

-

a was initiated when the RTBs-were closed in order to 1atch the. ~ ' ' ,, turbine.

Attempts to repert the FW-isolation signal could.not-o 1,s sbeLacc>mplished by'the licensee.

However, a subsequent ~, -e ' Linspection.of the RTB "B" breaker and breaker cubicle did ' ' _ .1 identify a potential cause of the FW: isolation signal.

Scme - ' wirint associated with the "33" contcctor-(used in the control '" ' circuit to determine if breaker was racked "in" or "out") was found bent at'the lug and could have caused an inadvertent grotmd.

'A ground could cause a spurious FW i' solation signal ' '

7 when the breaker was closed.

The. inspectors will1 review the

' - associated LER for final cause determination.3 ' s,u , , % d.

Reactor Startup-(71707) ' &y = ' ' , ,1 On July'17, 1990, after the completion of) repairs _on Swagelock type' ] 3 fittingsi the licensee commenced a' Unit 2Jreactor startup:at 10:42'a.m.- t ~; . ,_ g, l T-The. inspectors were in the control, room.to, monitor?the < startup.

A JSome of the startup activities were performed by trainees under-M close supervision.by the licessed~ operators.

The startup was- - performed in a! professional manner with good communicat!ons'between

, [%

' shift personnel.

There was a feedwaterfisolation'that* occurred dueJ ' u . t

'to a'high level in the 2A Steam Generator-(SG) at,6% reactor power.

j ~ "' I mThe high levelioccurred as a result of. difficulty In/ controlling SG.

! , < o m$ xlevels in manual at low power levels.

All_ equipment responded as~ , ! , , , is expecteo.

The operators respondedfto;the, event properly'and were ' , . t J4 able_to stabilize the plant to allow continue,d plant startup.

' - ,y The inspec' tors di.d observe very good i_nterface between theitechnical i' .

• ~ > '

staff nuclear engineers-and the operators during the startup. 'The

, nuclear enginears of Corporate Nuclear Fuel Services provided !> .. _ excellent support to the operating shi.ft in not only the approach to;

~

> >> !w-- a , ,

p

_

< gp i

n ,,. s ' ' * * y a ' W

,, ' k;f

.' y lygg ~ < ey - , , , , , - j 'I f .}' i-LNN, - , , , p m , ... ~

g x W

f; gw

. v.. j <- > a , , p __ , _ > ,m a.

, .g 3, , , a

..

.~

,- ' yx . n , DU }., _ !x '

i > , ' ' __ ' , . s

1^ critical'ity but'also'during power ascens' ion to maintain axial. del'-

" ,nY'~, flux within' limits. TThis support was criticall since Unit'2 wass at' " !

end,offcore life'andithe delta flux.would'be difficult to contro11 ~..

within' limits.

- ' ' , V@ _ _ ,

- < , ' ..*i' et current Material Condition (71707) j l' - c ( < , , l.

,f The inspe: tors performed general plant as well as-selected system -

.f L ,and component walkdowns _ to-assess the general and. specific' material ,, , jf+ b conditiog of the plant, to verify.that Nuclear.. Work-Requests (NWRs) 3.

" had b % n initiated forridentified equipment p'roblems,'and to.

?4 - j - " O ev'aluate-housekeeping.

Walkdowns -included an assessment of the , b f' . buildings,- components, tand systems for proper.. identification a~nd ', . "W~ t'agging, accessibility, fire and security-door integrity, - % ' ' X scaffolding, radiological controls, and any unusual. conditions.- ' Unusual conditions included but were' not limited to water, oil, or

& ' r ' . o other liquids on:the floor or equipment; indications'of. leakage ~ ' ' n through ceiling, walls or floors; loose insulation; corrosion; 's a ' , excessive noise;; unusual temperatures; and abnobmalDventilationiand lighting, ' '

. , " The material condition.of' Unit 1 andLunit 2 was: overall'~considere' - d _.

,above average.. However, a conce'rn was identified with the material M ~ ' condition'of the, neutron flux post accident instrumentation,ywhich y '

' 0- . was identified (in Regulatory Guidel(RG).1.97 as'part of the post . O - accident instrumentation.

During a region based inspection:of: < u , components in the, scope:ofLthe environmental qualification program.

3 f' and RG L 97, the inspectors noted that the Unit 1 post accident i. i

L neutron flux instrumentation did not; agree with the actual power L i' W l

< ' level of the unit. zThe Unit 1 post accident neutron flux j ' h[,9.

- -Instruments indicated:approximately 35%l reactor' power even though - % ~ j the unit was at"98% power.

Also, one train of the Unit:2tpost.. p'N e j <+ . ' '~ _ p/ accident' neutron flux ^ monitoring was out-of-service with thelothern.

- O,1 . train operable with~the indicated: power commensurate with the'actuale L +2 !6 6{1' h

reactor power level of the unit. -Based on these"obsoivations,sthe @d Q ~ O inspectors considered the overall: material condition ~of;the{ post 4,

. hf $, accident neutron _ flux instruments as poor.

Further investigation; 4 o W - i % ' im - N, N 4 y~ hK by-the inspectors determined that the post accident. neutron? flux!W L ' 'lt j , 'y','; Therefore, any survbill'ance.activitie!E, ;j.. es5 ' ' -instruments were not in Technical Specifications as other pc::t M V-accident instruments.

' i ti i associated with post accident neutron flux instruments 9as performedi J ,g6 v ;. l" ';to:a non-technical specification procedure that-did'not 9pecify;af f /@<, - l NAM frequency for the performance. of the sur(eillance.. The(inspectors,

h e.Br expressed concern to the plant management that sufficient contrcls.

'" '! LQ%8% L' ' did nat exist to ensure the. material condition of theJpost:accidentf L i neutren flux instruments was maintained at a level co'mmensurate' with i

if other post. accident instruments identified in RG ol.97.

This matter U , a.

&,~ is considered an open item pending further review by the NRC and.

, ~ ~ licensee (454/90017-02(DRP); 455/90016-02(DRP)); ~ ~ ' j Mr ] ' , g

i , . m

< I.

g ,, l ::

,y y !..

' t . ' , r ,

_ _ ,

- Q M N ' 3~ , '* ~ 1, I'h N i, l[O " l l'. - e < > ', l'O ~ ,J & , p3b b

. fyn " ^,,

e

- ye 4$U *.

w < . ,1 . ,,. , 3' , %m L+ -, \\ Y W< %.

. J > f ',I ' h..

_ $/1b i ) 'I '~) .[%; > 'i g%{W> y + j { ;)_ .. , . , . . .. . q ' ' ( { f, i [;7 . w a .. . , , , , M k(fh "

' '

> - g g & y%

The mat'erial: condition of Unit _0" equipment was= considered: average. N hi;jkl$$f

' overall with" continued ef fort-by,' management. tot strjve, for above' ','f '(Q ~ " " ygw pe average. status.

g

' V (p4 . ,. g1

_ .. - > + u~ . _q' [q[pj f.

Radiological Controls -(71707)f f! -g;

? ~ 3* , V ./ q&* .. = The inspectors' verified that, personnel were followhg health lphysk:s # ^w > 'j i + > y %,; A __ . w . _ ,., , .. 4L %NQi D = , : procedures for dosimetry, protective cloth' ig, frisking'3 posting lg T ~*'l ' , %, x NS etc.]and randomly examined radiation' protection"i'dtrument'ation~,*ri i use,<operabili_ty, and calibration.. ~ ' ' ' f.. , ~ . , -b - t M f.

q3; . g. : Security (81064): > < Each week during. routine activities or tours, Ethednspectors : ' A me m

. . , , ' ~ 0-monitored the licensee'stsecurity program to ensure:that}observedi~ _ y% 7e .. _. " " ^ ' ~ IM b actions were:.being implemented according;to ;the _ approved security! .. fn '

plan.' ;The inspectors noted that persons within the protected area. '

- displayed proper ph_oto.-identification badges; and those individuals , ' requiring escorts,were' properly-escorted.

The inspectors also.. m verified that checked.vitalJareas were locked and alarmed.

'f. y(j% - y ' Additional,1y,Lthe. inspectors also' verified that observed. personnel- _ q ,. and packages entering the protected area were searched by-7-

, appropriate equipment:or by hand,

a x

s i <n . j ' ^ h.

0SHA- "

'

,

, ~

, The Byron' Station exceeded 5 million hours without a lost 1.ime 'T accident on August 7,1990. iByron' was the first Commowealth Edisons 'l ' ' <" . %j i station to exceed-5'million tours, sThe inspections d ying-tours;did- . . s _not-. identify any personnel safety issues.

' , ! -

d No violations orideviation's were id'entified, h

J - s.

. . v , ,w ~ t-

<< 4;

Safety Assessment / Quality Verification (40500, 90712, 92700)

( U ..g y . , , Licensee Event Report (LER) Fo',10w-upi(90712, 92700) ',

- j , >s , STnrough direct observations, discussions with'licenseeipersonnel, Jand' ; m. p ' ' review of records, the followipg event reports were reviewed to determine h , that"reportability requirements were fulfilled, that immediate corrective J ~ ' action was accomplished,7and that corrective action:to prevent. recurrence ~ , had been or would be: accomplished in accordance with' Technical'

& Specifications (TS): b" p e

. ,

a.

(Closed) 454/90002-LL: Reactor trip when'2 out if14 coincidence.was) % ' '

y, satisfied on Overtemperature-(OT)Jdelta Temperature (^T).

This;esent i B ' was discussed in Inspection Reports 50-454/90010; 50-455/90009, ' ' *

, . paragraph 2.c.

< js , (.

f * **Q y ( ] jf %c ( d ,y r

, l

=% q, o ,.

a> . ,, , ~R ~% i je g

• *

y ihi (Y g " j[, .'g y e p ;- 1 ' , - , ~' y s wu # , , , _ Q.k }

, O g 4- {:,

- , , , .2

, ._

,p 3: - -- ^' , _ _ __ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - . -- ._. _ - _. -- _ , , . q,. <r c , ,[! l ~ I'~

v, . , ... < > . . t a ., . . , , s - .# ,ga y -, , ny. + , , _, ' Q; ,; x , _ _ - - 'M ib.

-~(Closed) 454/90007-LL:- Failure,toxtest-the steam line isolation ' y handswitch on main control = board panel,s1(2)PM06J during the past " , i 4%

refueling:; outages forfboth ' units...Technicalyspecificationt3.3/2:

, < C?

Table 4.3-2,Jitem 4.a.2 required the' tests on the main:stepm

, isolation handswitch,on a refueling-outage-interval.

For.further-e , t _- . ., , 'f;' ~ ' details _seeilnspection' Report 50-454/90014[ 50-455/90013,

- ' y a paragraph 4 b.

> . - ,n

..

. .. h..;'. j - .. f f ; * ::c. '. W1osed)L 454/90008-LLi. Unit l'was: shutdowa duelto containmentja'ir: , temperature /was above the technical specification limit.

TheicauseE f ' l

hy . l 'f' " of the'nighLtemperature was both Unit 1 ca tainment chillers out of? " , , L <o '

services For further details see Inspecti9n Reports 50,454/90014; J W " y , ' 50-455/90013,. paragraph 2c.

'(I? ~" i - ,:s.,, ., y ,.a -, y y n,. + . . +, - n .y ' ,' .^ an; dC E No' violations or deviations were identified. ' > ' .~i.

- - ,v _ p c v' . _ . a. - _ - - a., . , Q R~ ;, , ',' . _ . , ., ', ,_, r g, 5.

Maintenance /$urveillance (62703 & 61726) I.A,# l,

- <H J v r .t s n

wr [n w %d q a.

Maintenance' Activities ('62703) '

' n '% L > , " U ' ' WJ c v < ,.

,

, , , ! Station maintenance activities that~ af fected;the safety relatEd, yyj '" , andindustrycodesJorstandards,and=inconformance 1' (1Y and associated systems'and components were observed or reviewed to + }M a,. k [( ,ascer a n complia'nce with approved procedures, regulatory guides! fg ^- ti d' . a . ' 1, Specifications.f, by ' < - , . .. , , - a - ,] ... m

• s,1 ! P g ' A,,

,, C ., x ? [ t'. s

__ e A '1w The following i bms-were considered during this re' view; :the ' .N_ . ' limiting conditions for operation wereJmet while ccaponents ort \\!. ~ ' ._ obtained. prior _to; initiating _the work;. activities 1were accomplished' ' O _systemswereremovedfromandrestoredtoservice;approya.lswerei q '.e - (

m _ /V W using approved procedures and were inspected as_ applicable; - = mg f unctional.. testing rand /or cal _ibrations were performed prior to-q < . , ' returning components or systems to service; quality;cdntrol records _

' = <, , , _ ' g Wt were maintained;; activities were accomplished by qualifled - > . , ',. . d , = personne'l; parts and materials used were: properly certified; a,

radiological controls were implemented; and fire prevention controls

,, > -- F ' 'were implemented.. Work * requests.were' reviewed to. determine the- -

~' ' - status of; outstanding jobs ~and to assure that' priority is' assigned, . '

y, .to safety-relatsd' equipment 1 maintenance which may aflect system-l F , , ', -performance.

q . - , e" a Portions of the:following maintenance activities were observed: ' - = .< and/or reviewed: . ^ ' , . , , _ 2, . , s < > , - NWR 43184 - Repair 11eak 'on-union 'in Unit 2 Loop D, ?/8", Process A s g , '* _ Sample Line.

' i 't,> . . < NWR 15409 Disassemble, Inspect and Clean _, or Replacep the Oil w

, ' Cooler for Safety In,iectio_n Pump, 2SIO15B* _ g _ aJW NWR 75460 Clean air side of Cubicle Cooler for Safety Injection I Puinp 28.

' . < --

• Y

.,

.!-

S '* -.

, g 1 r , , a Y

g k , ,,.k

10 , , , - ' "

. , b .1.. j ? - , M.M n [ _ . ,

' ' '{ p%]f j%hfUl F '.y{ }w} +ppy }

V

d

,s.

' m- " e/ y; + " 3 1 i y ",M

.fh

y; _ > , - (%;;,4 < c < a

., - , , .,~- r r 3 -, , . , v . < - ' .u n;

. .. ,N b '

y ., ,

.c393 s ~ d7V NWR 770631. Disassemble, Inspect, and Clean Water-Side ofi L . N i(, y ' ' . (e i'J

'D Containment Spray Pump 20 Cubicle Cooler, y l . NWRi77729.- Ruptured Diaphragm in 10RV, 4 - W . a ~ > . NWR.78250.- Investigate,: Calibrate, and Repairiequipnient associated: N*O ' '

W - with UH t 1-- IF steam Generator PORV.t ' , ~ Y ' '

7.

NWR;78264 - Repair leak in ' /8" tube ~ fittings, Parke'r' CPI L . ' , o 2i . (SwagelockiType 4 3/8" . . . . ' . NWR'78275'-; Investigate'Un; ain 8 Feedwater Isolation Signal . . caused byfa Reactor trip Breaker.. . ,, ' ,

• NWR 78379; Replace and Calibrate Card for-Unit 2-Cold Leg 2A WR:

' ' ? Temperature Indicator.

' . . , '% The i nspectors' periodically monitored the licensee's work in

o < ' progress and. verified performance was in accordance with' proper-. j ' proc 6duresf, and approved work packages, that'10 CFR'50.59 and.other.

' .M' applicable drawing. updates were madeLand/or planned, and that.

' d , !", operator trainingy;asiconducted inta reasonable' period of time., +- s ,.

Duringj.hemaintenanceactivitiest(NWR77729and<77723)'onthel l ' ' [

Unit 1 pressuriter power operated relief valves (PORV) 1RY455A and J t , - 1RY456 on June'14,'1990,' wrong diaphragms.were installed, Instead ;

' F , [ of, ethylene propylene. material. the diaphragms' installed were BUNA-NJ j d material.

Since the PORVs.were EQ valves, the'ticensee performed an' " s . ~0nsite Review-(OSR)'to' determine operability of'1RY455A and 1RY456., M ( , ' The OSR;(90-151) is discussed in paragraph 7b.iof this' report.- The < ' , licensee identified this issue ducing a rev'iew of;the maintenance ' < o " * package 1after the completion?of the maintenance activities on 1; 1RY455A and 1RY456.

Further investigation by the' licensee ! > ' s , identified that a Unit-2 PCRV 2RY455A,salso had the wrong diaphragm

' . installed in November,1999. >The licensee.has issued Discrepancy

r e

A . Record;(DR) 90-148 and Deviation: Report (DVR) 90-092, ;to acidress

j

.,e >1 root cause(s)-of thenincorrect-installation,'. corrective action j.

. i, ' (required and action.to prevent' recurrence.- This. matter i.s n 1.

" considered an~openfitem pending review of DR'90-148.

' lI , ? _;

(454/90017-03(DRP);455/90016-04(DRP))(*

o* '

U nP'

'. . . . _.. ~ ~ .

The lice necihas initiated a. Reliability Centered Maintenance-(RCM)

' . , Study of the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) by an-independent;g. ' > party.' LThe"results.of. the study wi1T be reviewed by the insp,ectors. ; j , w' v C-Theistudy will include an onsite.isit by the" independent; party inh q late August 1990'and will utilize-work history,; vendor < manuals etc.. j , m , f' insiinput to the RCH program for AFW.

'

/ X:j, ' m , , -D & . 3'

,.

. y b.

Surveillance hetivities (61726) 3Y /

, Ag %

3 , , - ~ m ,.. ,, kW, Theinspectorsobservedorreviewed~3urveillandetests, req 0iredb'yli /, j i ! k1; Technical Specifications during the inspection p,eriod an.d verified! q $ ]

KT, g that'testsiwere performed.in accordance with adequate procedures,+ q y 'r > ' L test instrumentation was calibrated,. limiting conditions for d < , =cperation were met, removal and restoration.of-the.affected j

~ k d.i components were accomplished, results conformed withiTechnical.

,. , '

,7 . , > [ P.

d, '.f' s

~* L . i

, - Y ( I l (_ .. y ' f h k +y-.. , , , ' s

A s , q{ < l N, " M } N

Ws p, W, o,, %,'w' %c. - 7 - .,F, _ ,e- .. M

~ ' ' ' ~ M ., , m r-h-

• * ll 1. %

]y;W$ Q T '.,"40 4 [o s, ht-we wo . ,' - o a, < _ ', ! ' n , , ' . 't , - , , . ,. .e,mn . . ,, }") l ,F j; ' ' ~< ' I

q + , , q ,. > ._ ~ . 't 3: e

f Specifications.and procedure requirements and were. reviewed by/ H '

, 3 f;, ', i, 3. '

per'sonnel other;than the individual: directing-the. test, and anyj l

4

deficienciesiidentified duringsthe tests were properly, reviewed!and-

-

'Mg resolved by appropriate, management _ personnel.

1. "

f g4 , ,,,, , , . _ I . a o . j, 'The' irispectors: alsolwitness'ed/ reviewed portions. of the following ' ' 'p' . 7.- activities: ' ' ' ' '

'i . ' + t m ,, .. . - . . . ._ j 1;BOS 3'1.1-20? "! Train A Solid State ProtectioncSystem.Bi-Monthly < g" ' .' . .. Surveillance", Rev.:8; - n a s 1( 1 BOS-3.'2.1-860 --i "ESFAS Instrumentation Slave Relay. Surv'eillance . c ,

(Train'A-Containment Isolation Phase B-K618,1

' ' < - . W , K626)", Rev. 2.

.. . ' ' ' ' - > ~ Sf?f, 1 BOS;3.2.1-900.-'"ESFAS Instrumentation' Slave. Relay Surveillance, ' ' , % ~(Train; A Steam Line Isolation-K616)"., Rev. 2. N, '. ' ~

• y.TE

,l'BVS 6.2.2;d-1.

" Containment 15 pray. Additive Flowrate . l m ' j . _. Verification", Rev. 2 ..

1. 7 t a

'"

, . , , q

' 2 BOS 3.1.1-21

" Train B Solid-State Protection System _ Bi-Monthly-

, @M' , ? e L Surveillance",'Rev. 5.

w '

,J , N j 2180S ?3.2.1-12 " Reactor? Trip :- P-4 Contacts", Rev. 51.- Q .. " - '> d, L J N ? 2 BOS 8.1.1.2.La-2 -1"2B Diesel. Generator Operability Month'ly and! ", 't / - , am +, i ;,4 JSemi-Annual Surveillance", Rev. 2.

3'W'

, m

' ,

E, s L 72'BVS 3.3;2-1 X"Mo.veable-Incore Detectors' Operability Check"i I( ! A . - TRev. 2.

M i . ' ~ ~ '

M" V;7,lh' NThe' inspectors did identify:two concerns' withisurveillanc'eb1BVS o Ut - M Iff j l'p"H, 4. ' _. _ . .. .., E > WM % e?t . , ' f, 6 '3M / [6.2.2.d-1, "Conta'inment Spray Additive Flowrate Ve'rification"., 2 m+ " My e ? W N LThe' surveillance was: required to be performed every five-years;by2

4 s + 0~ ~ Technical-Specifications:(TS)' The review of the surieillance' t % Li ' , - . & 6 4-resultsafor Train "A'E performed on 0ctober 11 and.12,1988 j, j' ' 4' ' J t , J t % t_ $' 'i_dentified the following concerns: ' - u-(- ' / ' 'f + . f N i;4 -< y ,f .e >

% %% , i . The installed, flow transmitter,1FTCS015, ~ utilizedTiri"the - - i " ' U< ~

• '

surveillance to' determine that the additive floe meets'TS m$l limits wastlast calibrated in" June,-1984. 'The calibration } '

y y Y frequency;for the transmitter and associated. loop was :also r t ' - , /M ' -five years.

However, the_duesdate was not' adjusted,to)fallt !vi .due at the'same time the surveillance, 1BVS 6.2.2Jd-1 was due.

,J o %.,, J Instead the last calibration' oft 1FTCS015 was' performed over ' > W ' ' ,t four years prior to performance of surveillance,:1BVS" ' ,

G.2.2.d-l', in October,1988. The inspectors reviewed the data M, for the IFTCS015, April 29, 1987, calibration,;and determined '

that the "as-found" data did not adversely affect the rtsults J > of' surveillance.1BVS 6.2.2.d-1 performed in October',198t'. '

_ . .t , , il, r .Howevery the insper,. tors 'still have a ! concern with -the , ' ht 4'- timelitiess of the calibration _of plant installed instruments: ' C utilized for TS: acceptance datac ~ l , + , ,+ , b ' (w r s

, q > > - -.. . , f ), ,

L 3 'a a: Q ,; f ,' On , , } 'I vy.

.o,

, , ,

+/ ; '

, , ' ' , + .- - . i

h $, s e? S ; A +$p% ' pg

W A ,' ^ N ". S% '

g - , x

- - q 'y, - . . ~ s ,

q q . j. w m p y + . ;i l ' ' .j pg :, e > , , j j.I4( ', .w

i.

5 * N ' ,'*J 4, p(qp;;;S#yp Q,p.n .

3

p

... . t tt ',o - e , s -: +p r, y= " Er, n uv, 4h ' .. 4, 1.s3

V j hyy

,- , fe[h

.n . ,, , (gyg[,,' - ' gp 7*; T N surveillanci procedure,,1BVS 6.'2T2.d-1.id}d'.not identifyh. , theN erification of< proper. calibration of the.plantainsta11ed W o Eh e m*s iflow0ransmitter and associated loop that was utilized fortTS c .1- ' C" gW.g acceptance criteria.

The, surveillance procedure did require...' ' the identification of other test instruments-that was not plant '/'. n (installed used during the. surveillance 1by identifi, cation number.

A": '~ ' -

, , ~ and calibration due date.' ' ' ww ^ q, , x , - , _ l

The above two concerns are considered open items' pending further,

~i h , '

W~ < review by the NRC.(454/90017-04(DRP); 455/90016-04(DRP)). e

c L pWQ sp ,, Follow-up on Allegation Involving a Fuel Handling Foreman Activ'ites '

2 /? " 4 < c.

, Rfg.

M (RIII-90-A-0011) , , + p

e 1<

j . , W m ~0n January 29,.1990, an individual telephoned the.NRC Region III ." , '7% < ' Allegation 7 Coordinator with information that concerned a 'sel > , handling foreman (FHF) and the lubrication program at1tht ;yron .< @: m Station.=' The individual provided'the following linfrirmation: " ' ' y . . . f . y r .

- , ' e . Op # ' '~ (1)4 LThe: FHF f abricated,.in' a home ; workshop,.a 1 thimble-plug' t'ool .' 7

l

C4 ' that was;. utilized, withcut certification or quality assurance,

(tests'during'thejUnit1outageinJanuary,E1990.. A ' " ,, y , . n . . s.

. , , O (2) Three times' within the last 30 -days the FHF reeked of Alcohol ' - ,, ~ 1,d while'onsite. -The dates given were January-28, 1990, . . ' o s ,

December 4,,1989 and'either the day,before or after>the FHFs:

W 'y, . . .NRC licensee examination.- 10n; one occasion,' Januaryf28#1990, ' ~ ' the indi'idual' stated that: security was notified and tne only ' v s - . ' assessment performed was akobservation while on opposite ~ sides

t.

ofsthe glass a't the;gatehouse.1 The individual.proviced the; ,s-

' -

names ofTthree 0ther individualsithatishould be:able tot.. ,

• T W; G

'substantiatehthel allegation. ; >x m -

1. 6Y M4,

' - During slow peridds, fue1 handlersi(FH) were givenLduties to @q t < -'r s , p p g_ , Vi ' ' I (3) ~ i . { . lubricate plant' equipment..The assignments.wereigenerat'ed byJa ' ' Lcompute't? printout and the: FHs. initialed the printout ~ after they a H. ; <

.

a , J.

f .C P v" 3 f '. $ [ y% b Lcompletion of.the job, The individual stated that.the FHF:. ; 9i:k'f"f , a routinelyfalsifiedtheprintoutbyplacing=FHinitialsfonthe(g k ge h"% fg , printout for jobs not' completed.

The individua). stated tha.ty; 4 g' yy the data from the printouts were logged into the compute,rjand; L, N y WLp ghg.

i y %

the printouts -with the initials were then destroyedA."

, ~ . . g_ c._ AM (* - > Nw

y g, ' (4)' Two years. ago,' the in-core' detector was raised out. of.the' waterf .-t.m

• (b #rA yY 'j, S -

Eby the FHF even though the radiation technicians warnedithe4HF 'nn . g not to perform such an^ activity. The FHF still performed the% + T ' * g M F 9; - as a' joke and set off the electronic' dosimetry d $ N W j < g, N J ?activitys - nvi g~ ',O [Y g . [p. 4 L ' j - Qw

. , t ' ' - p,y$ a y st . -- . }.j. ~ "

'k s s q; _ , _, ti e ff % s L

/ . G, y 'Y . 9, ( ,f'= ,., .g . . - m&;v ' .

' '

o .g.

- .. v . , < + v ,, - . g - h \\ :.

W l 5., <

.+, a

),. -

, , , . .gN y5p, , e ' 4" 1 g E, '

, ,

. ,% .y

• Q- } c: \\[.

), yd,$; V)lqy4 6 ' , . > gt.

. - -s (. ofv .< - , (4 6 M '. f. Lt. - ;p , ' y , gn- ., 1 J' , , . , , , , M 'W w'M, s ,.#. - - + (1 . <, * ,* ~ ' ' j

g[c n v.w > -r, , ,, , - s

9. j p . jc d f., , , ,?b . . j b' '.4 , .. ; '.,4 ,. u HRW .

• ~The'NRC' requested;theTlicensee;toLinvestigate the parts of t W,g,'

[q.

. 0j

q ' ' h, ,

eg%pn 4 allegation idenMfiedcin paragraphs'(1) and (2) above.TThr,other. f ' Ci i , 1y + parts'ofithe allegation were investigated by;the'NRCL lThe-results( a, . Q i d, Fof thesel investigations were: ', ' ' *

' .

' T jb f

1' f

3 . + , t., -.e i m~

s.

- ,

4 s < . + m %; k;.y ', 'y 1)$FabhicationofL. fool- - ,- e , , ( ,,,A ~ ;

y

,,! ,1 , _ , :. . ~ s, -- cq,.

.. .

< #

?[L N, Afy;; ' ' [ v This',partoftheallegationwasinvestighedby'the, licensee,~

q . .

- . , N" 3 Q " GJ i

and the'results' documented in aFletter~to;the,NRC Regional'

-% M , 'Administstion,on May 25, 1990.. The inspectors reviewed the .

' i +

(resultyof.O.Qnvestigation.

TheLlicensee'.s1 investigation g i' fr , AT . - could not substantiate the alleger's concern that a^tooln.

i , fj T,, . JfabricatM in the FHF home' workshop'was utilized duringethe - >0 o , ., % %y = Unit;1; refueling outage without proper tests pndicertification.

i

'

- . , %t^ 4; Thellicensee's' investigation determined,,through interviews' 't Vj ' MR with:FHs and review of documentation that a new tool was' . t, i ' fabricated but prior to use. the. tool wasitestedG'Also, prior,, N + i ~' f to'use as50.59 review and alon-site. review wascperformed.

'

, . ,. - , , m.

, $"- ,(2)[FitnessforDuty(FFD)-FHFreekedof'alcoholwhileonsite Vq ' ' lW

"; . ,,' ', - '

, ,

,6-

This-paYt?of the allegation was.also investigated by.the

j! ' ,. , ? licemee,and,the results documented to the' NRC Region,III d6 - ' n[t ' # ' ' , fI: AdministrationDin'a' letter dated April 30,t 1990. ' The " ' , Einspectors reviewed-the results of the licensee's

, . investigation. The licensee; could: not'substantiateithat the

> - J FHFehad reeked ofsalcohollon the days stated'by the-' alleger. J ,

. < V6 The licensee) interviewed the individuals the alleger'had stated " M > QN

could substantiateithe allegation.- The interviews considered

.. 1% 3' not only specific referenced" dated,:but also' addressed any past ' t , , Q% s /= FFD concerns _ for :'e. individual.

None of the three' individuals y ' 1W" V interviewed coulo provide anyLinformation,to support the wa ' . _ t W allegaticns..Alsofon one of the' dates of concern identified 'oy , ,% the. all eger, ' January. 28', 1990, the station received an f j ^ l anonymous FFD allegation against. the same individualsidentified-J ~Y is this allegation, LThe1 Shift Engineer had the individual , screened for.FFD.'iThe result was negative..Also,1the - ~. a individual's supervisor' assessed the individual's behavior-and' ' . l

+ performance of duty-in the' individual's work environment and '

' ~ .i , M there'were.no FFD! concerns observed.

Sincelthe NRC, Region III , , office received the same= allegation on.the morning'of'

~ s9 January 29,1.1990,.the Senior Resident" Inspector was immediately i , f notified of: the allegation and observed the individual e C ' ' , ., ', . ' ' performing his duties.

The. inspector didinot identifytany - -t ' ' behavior,of-the individual that(would. indicate he was unfit

~

1. ,.

' V-i for' duty.. l ' ' , ED (3) Falsification of Lubrication Records ~ ' ' ' t 1 j - ,

,;h ' , . , 'A f c y [p( O. { ,d i( i~ ' t a

) - , wy . ,,, W ~ r .,N',,

_ i 5-e a , '

' ',, J.. _ p %J W A

~ W Ohb Ah Y. . q\\- . , .s

..

+

n , .

h ! ' ' ,,,, ,, [[fh h [^-

, j; ... .jjs .$ I M - - +

$DOh1 ' ~~ A" i

' ' +y~ ,,, y q. y x ~+ . . . - . s.

+ x<o - i - r . [u.j,.*.Q., ]+l Q, , ., y

y -

. , , , , w& .. ,

'

'4 ,. ,-

' ~ c.. !. ,t .. ,,.. .. fiH 3Q + > t TheLinSpec'tsrs investigated this portion of the allegation.

. , 'A " ' ' d g ( f a: m /The -investigation' consisted Jof.several' phases that includedh , '

, W*p , interviewing FHs,/the review of the-lubrication programLat . J , V.

Byrun, review of tlubrication records, and a sample of Lequipment" I? $

in iht plant 'where the lubrication oil, by visual' inspection,N,'3 <

@# 'i'6 appearsd suspect.1to. verify the component's current lubricati_on u ,, . statusW Also, the inspector interviewed six individuals-o ,j .# - s, from the FH organization.~ The,FH organization has" eleven'

[" ,6r uindividuals and not all individuals'were; interviewed since some-tc . ' ' Y individuals were in training,-vacation,'or on the second shift.

j

p K..

Each individual interviewed described the' administrative

' , m , s' controls;for,the lubrication program. The individuals' stated

lb '

ccomputer' sheets /were initialed and dated-by the FH:that N

' performed the lubrications.: The_ data on the computer sheets 1 a , Fw

., were then transferred to the mc ter.fi_le'by one the FHFs.

C'& ,e ,* The. individuals interviewed. sere not: aware of any occurrences

• y where falsification;of lubrication-records were! suspect.

The- ' inspectors reviewed <a sample of the lubrication records and '

, , did not identify anyLanomalies that could-be potentia 11 ' '

, . falsification of-records.

Also,;the inspectors selected

• '

e,

several components in the plant that_upon visual inspection, a '

- a ~@ ' appeared to need an oil' change due_to thercolor of.the oil (dark)e The inspectors: identified no anomalies that: j , , " substantiated falsification of' lubrication: records.

The ' ' O inspectors did substantiate that the records FHs initiated ' < > - , ~ after trt performance _of'a lubrication activity.were destroyed' ' , ,

after the data was transferred by one of the FHF to the; master '.- '" a

file.

The'inspectorsdidnotconsiderthismethodofrecordy.

, , ,W ' keeping as a problem.

. j,M < M ! m _ _ i. , .

,i (4) !-

11 In Core detector raised out of the water : -

j

, & .. .

n

,a Q

'This part of

the allegation ~ wast reviewed by NRC6 region.alc nj

> gg specialists. The review!was ' documented <in Inspection 'i R1, _.. reportsE50-454/90007;'50-455/90006.

The inspectors could [ j %d 5:M1 *' not su,bstantiateithat the incore detector was liftedLout , .s.

' 'of thawaterlintentionally, For further -details see_ ! " , . .

f

dP referenced reports.

' ' ' ":

,t % ,n.

, , , l; 4 A d.1 ~ ' Backlog ' "" # s1 - - ~, ~

~b

! Q@i._ .* The inspectors reviewed the licensee's backlog of non-outage ;NWRse,g% f ! A ~ .

.

(

p'L'@ associated with the Unit 1 Chemical and Volume Control Systems-(CV) 3 ' Eto 'determinef tf maintenance was accomplished. cThe' inspectors'

e& ' 3 E -' '., sselec.ted three NWRs from a" computer' listing,off the' licensee's i fm , , ~ @ f' backlog as of July 24,-1990..TheiNWRs were evaluated'for safety 'r' ' s %[ 'W 5. w" " -impact :of deferrals, and causes*uch as lack of per,sonnel,- lack-of .. _ trained / qualified personnel, 1 e* parts'or. engineering, support.

! ' T the three!NWRs reviewed were: . < 'j B78346 "0il Leaking From Piping To Auxiliary Oil-Pump".

'

-

g.

? W B72599 - " Replace Existing Transmitter With Barton Model 764".

$~ ' - B77149 " Perform Votes Testing %

~ ,. >7 L.p.;u r - , , j i

'

, . .Y, ,A , ,

P sf4 La ' t";, %, 7g yg - , y]h g JO Q

' J Q 3 %'.y " " ' , , ng y . ' 'y j q fj ,, + m , N Q j' % ' j*Q : - ' ' ' <; ,,

' 'f .

> p; '..cn.

-r ,,r s s .' ', '

;w yg

+ , . , ll W ;, gi +, L & ' Gj ;ff 's r 'y- %' ~j,j' ?' ' i aEthe basklog for the Unit 1 CV and the specific three hit; iThe! - p 4 $y e d'6, CWRs , h i identify ~any concerns.

The number of NWRs.in the= ,9 M a N og for;the CV system was 37, which was-not considered; ' , t. ec y g excessive.- m; ' tl w - m . .. t" % _ . . . . , ' ' - +f j m

No violations or deviations were identified;

- - . L A

(,

, g, g i , [ $ 4, j. Engine'ering'& Technical: Support _(37700) -l'

D 1 T.y o

' j sa ,s u .i'+,

i d, C f ,V bi 'a.1 On July 16,11990,. the station received a letter dat'ed July,2,T1990; Q from the: Nuclea'rs Steam Supply System vendor,- Westinghouse,? that-M; / identified a potential' problem with welds on the Chemical andi 'Fg1 M kpp<E $ L A Q s Volume Control System (CV) and Safety Injection;(SI) pump,p.,,Thet* Mhp A w.- ',N"4 mproblem pertained to the potential for. failure oflthe welds.on the, 7 ' V y, ', ' :of the welds could cause misalignment offCV and S 4,+ o3 - A alignment dowels and keyways during a' seismic event /.' 6The failure [ O3 y

'N.

. #+3

• N

1 ' . 7 %' -, subsequent; fail _ure of the pumps. L On July 30, 1990, the, inspectors"

• %

e 'requestedEthe status of:the welds on the CV and SI pumps;for both!t! iM (c0

'?- ' - . uni _ ts. The incpectors determined that the welds had not,yet"been 1 1' P s; W/4 - Inspectedito the criteria in the July 2,,1990 Westinghouse letter. > * Q^ 11 g, % ~ ' < . 'O M Investigation by the inspectors determined that the We'stinghouse,

' ! ' +[- C letter had been sent to the licensee's corporate engineeri_ngf y iorganization with-copies sent to.the licensee's pressurized water- ^ ~ . . reactor'(PWR)' facilities.

As previously stated,'theiletter was ? ! - , received by the' station on' July 16, 1990 and'sent*toitheDstation's i " . LTechnical' Staff..The inspectors were concerned that the"as-built' ' J configurati_on off the welds for the' CV and SI pumps alignment dowels- ~ 'and keyways were not ascertained'by the station until-the inspectors P; s ._ questioned the station of the welds.,The licensee inspected the

welds on July 31, and August.1, 1990,xand' determined that three of M . the dowel welds.did not' meet the requirements of the1 Westinghouse

J' J ' July 2,' 1990 letter for proper size.

The pumps that had-undersize . M L ' 'i welds were the IA and.1B CV pumps'and the 2A CV pump. ;The + . g tlicensee's engineer.ing organization-bas'the as-buiJt weld ' configuration and was assessing'the acceptability'of:the welds; based ' y , T-on thefspecific-seismic criteria of Byron instead of the morei !! ' ._4 stpingent seismic: criteria used-in'the. July 2,'1990 Westinghouse 1 . c 11etter.

This matter is considered open.pending further review by i v".

, 1, -the licensee and the NRC-(454/90017-05(DRP)'; 455/90016-05)DRP))~. j ' g , ,5 ' g S4 4, ' b.

The inspectors reviewed"On-Site Review (OSR)s90-151 performed:"on i

June 27,1990, to docume'nt the continued operability of: pressurizer , ~ i ' power operated valves, IRf455A,JRY456'and 2RY455A that had the -!

wrong diaphragm installed.(BUNA-h) instead.of the' required' ethylene- !, . c - propylene. LThe PORVs, 1RY455A, 13Y456'and 2RY455A were classified A yas EQ valves and therefore'OSR 90 151 was initiated to document the ~ 'g . , . operability of the valves with the BUNA-N. material for the

7 . diaphra*gm. + The OSR. was~ reviewed by regional-EQ specialists. and ' " , . determined to.be' acceptable.

' , . [Noviolationsorideviationswereidentified.

'

' l

. . L ,

7 '> ' , g, - , ' . s.

L-n . t , - y-fL f

a , ,

., -,. m7

. . . ,. , . J,, h.-.3M 'J f) JV e > t' 't v - , LIG e.C '

,s , a.. y-Mf / . ;" a ~

.. ' q . - - - f-6 ; 6,. _ %> % 4, , [, - ' .n' M I Q gl: -O @ - .. , , r , $t t

' .. ' ,- .

's = < yGM gv j ',( _ ' ' > , , .

a u\\ ;;e . , ,, , , Q4 . 5F

c . %Q 3:a ' ' '

, ;% g

. " _ , , ya y , a., , i _ A 7? FueliHandling-X 'i " "

. ',s ; ' tn e ~' "On~severaloccasions!the"inspectorswitnessedtherech,ipPandIstdrage'of ^ ^ , u . dw ~ W.._ o. enew fuel within the. fuel handling building., The.inspecto'rs: verified the( y M f appropriate' documentation of new fuel and that station procedures'were:. Al : & ?a- - ?

followed in' unloading,; lifting, moving, lowering; and inspecting'new fuel d

- d_ f f ' assemblies.L Appropriate cleanliness controls _were implementedt . . ' - A Efficient communications between fuel-handlers,icrane; operators, radcheml 'it 4 " o ' . f.Jf i + technicians, and the;. fuel handling foremen facilitated fuel; handling - ~'%, . j; o. %

operations.,

.

+ , , ' ' ' v, Noiviolations or deviations were identified. de l' _/

y ~ ; . - ' < ' y W ' C_ < 8, Open Items , , ' h

)

, , . + . ,e f0 pen items are matters ~which have been discussed:with'the, licensee,3which Y l ~ ~ ' ' . M C.

will be reviewed by the inspector- .d which involve some action on~the" '

, s "linspectico are. discussed ~iniParagraphs 3a, 3e,- Sa',15b, and 6a.1 . J '.'part,of the'NRC'or licensee or both.

Open Items disclosed during the.

4^ > ,

' n . ~ a c q, . ' y -.. g n-o .

i , ' 59. L Meetings"ahd Other 'AEtivities ' g)'yw!n D - . e w - .- .. _ < , , ._ L a.' .Mancoament Meetings (30702) . . . 'v. N;m w . a il,E k s, '. t' f e t On Jul'y 11, 1990, CommissionerKennethRogers,accompaniedbyl.

. ' Wf "' (* 4^. , , b =h - T., Martin. Deputy Director, Division ofr Reactor-Safety, toured-the - l o Byronplantandmetwithlicensee,managementto;discussp~1 anti y,,, t % -,,i ' t' . performance and plant material condition.

', er )

, a , , .. - -

g %

.. ,, M,' -. .6~ ' ' . + j', N.,

p /?: i b.

Exit:Inte"rview;(30703) , r.' ' - s+i 'ny ~ 3 : :

, ;

+ . ., 9Y The' inspectors met with theilicensee representativesidenoted inL Qd ' ' ' - 4M 4 ;; -

• j, paragraph,1 during the inspection. period and'at-the conclusionJ'of '*

" N?

thelinspection onLAugust

10 [ 19901-The, inspectors summarized the1 ?

' fp (;M W , sscope and!results of the inspection and' discussed t'he likely coptenti fwv T W b % of this inspection report.

The. licensee acknowledged the ' - O N disclosed during;did not; indicate;thatHany_ of-the:informati n! j V(y' ~ .> - QQ k % information and -

' the1inspectioncould,beconsideredproprietarp.in pQg g , W ,

nature.

p.

, , ) , eg Q ' sc y . . ~ gi( ',. ), - ~ * . - lty

, . y

g +1' ',o;

,t ' . -i , ' . ta & - . u ' ' ,

1. w m 4;

{ q ..s -.,.

< . a . j; , v.

. m <,,

r

h , ' ' - , - T

a- - < g , ,f " + , ' y; - - ' ' , , ,,

a - , , ' ' , l ' I ,,. ' bd ! -

$

< s % }}