ML14181A559
| ML14181A559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1994 |
| From: | Decker T, David Jones NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14181A557 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-261-94-14, NUDOCS 9406270244 | |
| Download: ML14181A559 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000261/1994014
Text
o
R
0
HEG <
UNITED STATES
o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199
IM- 0O3 1994
Report No:
50-261/94-14
Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company
P. 0. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602
Docket No.:
50-261
License No.:
Facility Name: H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2
Inspection Conducted: May 2-6, 1994
Inspector:_9
D. W. Wnes
Date Signed
Approved by:_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
5
T. R. Decker, Chief
[ate Signed
Radiological Effluents and Chemistry Section
Radiological Protection and Emergency Preparedness Branch
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Control Room
emergency ventilation, meteorological monitoring, and radioactive effluent
monitoring instrumentation.
Results:
One deviation was identified regarding testing and test acceptance criteria
for the Control Room emergency ventilation system. The licensee had complied
with the operational and surveillance requirements delineated in the Technical
Specifications for the Control Room emergency ventilation system but had not
met the testing and test acceptance criteria commitments described in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for that system (Paragraph 2).
The licensee was collecting the required meteorological data and maintaining
the meteorological instrumentation in an operable condition (Paragraph 3).
The licensee had implemented an effective program for maintaining radioactive
effluent monitoring instrumentation in an operable condition and for
performing the required surveillances to demonstrate their operability
.
(Paragraph 4).
9406270244 940603
ADOCK 0006
S500261
-PDR
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- J. Adams, Manager, Operations Programs
t*W. Christensen, Supervisor, Environmental and Chemistry
t*D. Crook, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Affairs
tJ. Eaddy, Manager, Environmental and Chemistry
t*J. Harrison, Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control Support
R. Hitch, Senior Specialist, Environmental and Chemistry
- K. Jury, Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Programs
- J. Kloosterman, Manager, Mechanical Systems, Technical Support
- M. Millinor, Senior Specialist, Environmental and Chemistry
t*P. Musser, Manager, Engineering Assessment
t*M. Pearson, Plant General Manager
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
t*C. Ogle, Resident Inspector
t*W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspector
tAttended entrance interview
- Attended exit interview
2.
Control Room Emergency Ventilation (84750)
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3/4.15 described the operational and
surveillance requirements for the Control Room Air Conditioning System
(CRACS). Sections 6.4 and 9.4.2 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) provided descriptions of the system's design, operational
procedures, testing and inspection, and instrumentation. The CRACS
included an environmental control system and an air cleaning system. The
environmental control system was designed to operate continuously during
normal and emergency conditions and to provide heating, ventilation, and
cooling. The air cleaning system was designed to actuate by either a
safety injection signal or a Control Room radiation monitor alarm and to
maintain the Control Room envelope under a positive pressure with
respect to adjacent areas during the emergency pressurization mode. The
air cleaning system consisted of redundant 100 percent capacity fans and
parallel dampers, a prefilter, a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter, a charcoal adsorber filter bed, and a post-HEPA filter. The
CRACS was required to be operable during all modes, except cold
shutdown, and demonstrated operable by performance of prescribed
surveillances at specified frequencies. Those surveillances included
monitoring Control Room temperature, actuation and operation of the air
cleaning system from the Control Room, Control Room pressure
measurements while in the Emergency Pressurization mode, HEPA and
2
charcoal filter leak testing, air flow measurements, differential
pressure measurements across the air filtration unit, charcoal
adsorption efficiency testing, and automatic actuation of the air
cleaning system by either a safety injection signal or a Control Room
radiation monitor alarm. Action statements applicable to various modes
were provided for conditions in which one or both safety-related active
components or trains were inoperable.
The inspector toured the mechanical equipment room in which the CRACS
was located. The major components of the system were located and
identified for the inspector by licensee personnel who were cognizant of
the system's design and operation. The inspector observed that the
components and associated ductwork were well maintained structurally and
that there was no physical deterioration of the ductwork sealants.
The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below which related to the
required operability and performance tests.
0
OMM-008 "Minimum Equipment List and Shift Relief"
EST-023 "Control Room Emergency Ventilation System"
OST-163 "Safety Injection Test and Emergency Diesel Generator Auto
Start On Loss of Power and Safety Injection and
Emergency Diesel Trips Defeat"
0
OST-750 "Control Room Emergency Ventilation System"
OST-924 "Radiation Monitoring System"
The inspector determined that the above procedures included provisions
for performing the operability and performance tests required by
TS 4.15. Review of selected records of those tests indicated that they
had been performed at the required frequencies and that the acceptance
criteria had been met. However, the testing and acceptance criteria for
test results in two of those procedures (OST-750 and EST-023) were not
consistent with the commitments contained in the UFSAR. Sections 6.4 and
9.4.2 of the USFAR specified that during the emergency pressurization
mode the Control Room envelope is maintained under a positive
differential pressure with respect to adjacent areas and the outdoors
and that periodic testing is required to demonstrate that the Control
Room is pressurized to a minimum of +A inches of water gage with respect
to the outdoors. Procedures OST-750 and EST-023 included provisions for
testing the differential pressure between the Control Room and the
outdoors but neither of those procedures included provisions for testing
the differential pressure with respect to adjacent areas. Furthermore,
both procedures indicated that the acceptance criteria for the
differential pressure with respect to outdoors was greater than zero
rather than a minimum of +'A inches of water. The licensee's failure to
3
include in their performance test procedures, provisions for testing and
test acceptance criteria which are consistent with the commitments
contained in the UFSAR has been deemed to be deviation from written
commitments (DEV 50-261/94-14-01).
Based on the above reviews and observations, it was concluded that the
licensee had complied with the above operational and surveillance
requirements delineated in TSs for the Control Room emergency
ventilation system but had not met the testing and test acceptance
criteria commitments described in the UFSAR for that system.
One deviation was identified.
3.
Meteorological Monitoring Program (84750)
Section 2.3.3 of the UFSAR described the onsite meteorological
monitoring program. The program included measurement of wind speed,
direction, and variance at 10 and 60 meter elevations, ambient
temperature at the lower elevation, and differential temperature between
the upper and lower elevations. A computerized records system was used
for collecting and reducing the continuously generated meteorological
data and for producing an annual summary of the data. That system
included provisions for editing the input data for consistency and
eliminating spurious data points. The monitored parameters were
displayed on a chart recorder located in the equipment shelter near the
meteorological tower and on computer terminals in the Control Room. The
program also included provisions for semiannual calibrations of the
meteorological instrumentation with standards traceable to the national
measurement system. TS 6.9.1.3 stipulated that an annual summary of the
meteorological data would either be included in the year-end Radioactive
Effluent Release Report or retained in an onsite file.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's "Air Quality Monitoring and
Compliance Unit Operation, Maintenance, and Calibration Procedures
Manual" and determined that it included instructions for calibrating the
meteorological instrumentation semiannually. Selected records for
performance of those procedures during 1992 and 1993 were also reviewed
by the inspector. Those records indicated that the instrument
calibrations had been performed in accordance with the above procedures
and at the required frequency. The inspector visited the meteorological
equipment shelter and the Control Room and observed that the
instrumentation was then currently operable. The 1993 year-end
Radioactive Effluent Release Report was also reviewed by the inspector
and found to include the required summary of the meteorological data.
Based on the above reviews and observations, it was concluded that the
licensee was collecting the required meteorological data and maintaining
the meteorological instrumentation in an operable condition.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4
4.
Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation (84750)
TSs 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 4.19.1, and 4.19.2 described the operational and
surveillance requirements for the liquid and gaseous radioactive
effluent monitoring instrumentation. The instrumentation was required to
be operable during specified operational modes and demonstrated to be
operable by the performance of channel response checks, source checks,
channel calibrations, and channel functional tests at specified
frequencies. Compensatory actions for inoperable monitors were
specified.
The inspector toured the control room and relevant plant areas with a
licensee representative to locate and determine the operational status
of the following radiation monitors.
RMS-18
Liquid Radwaste Effluent Line
0
RMS-19a
Steam Generator Blowdown Effluent Line
o
RMS-14c
Plant Vent
o
RMS-20
Fuel Handling Building Lower Level Exhaust Vent
The instrumentation for the above radiation monitors was found to be
operable at the time of the tour.
The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below which related to
channel checks, source checks, channel calibrations, and channel
functional tests for the above listed monitors.
OMM-008 "Minimum Equipment List and Shift Relief"
o
RST-001 "Radiation Monitor Source Checks"
EMP-027 "Operation of GA Monitors R-37 and R-19A, B, and C"
0.
EMP-013 "Operation of R-14 and F-14"
RST-016 "Calibration of Radiation Monitoring System Monitor R-18"
o
RST-017 "Calibration of Radiation Monitoring System, Monitors
R-37, and 19A, B, and C"
o
RST-012 "Calibration of Radiation Monitoring System, Monitor R-14"
0
RST-011 "Calibration of Radiation Monitoring System, Monitors
R-12, R-20, and R-21"
0
OST-924 "Radiation Monitoring System"
MST-901 "Radiation Monitoring System"
The inspector determined that the above-procedures included provisions
for performing the required surveillances in accordance with the
relevant sections of the above TSs and at the specified frequency. The
inspector also reviewed selected licensee records of performance of
channel checks, source checks, channel calibrations, and channel
functional tests for the above listed monitors. Those records indicated
that the surveillances had been performed in accordance with their
applicable procedures.
.5
The inspector also reviewed monthly performance monitoring reports for
availability of effluent monitors during January, February, and March of
1994. The reports included a listing of each effluent monitor and the
percent of the time that the monitors were operable each month. The
average availability of the effluent radiation monitors exceeded
91 percent during those months.
Based on the above reviews and observations, it was concluded that the
licensee had implemented an effective program for maintaining
radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation in an operable condition
and for performing the required surveillances to demonstrate their
operability.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were summarized on May 6, 1994, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed
above. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Item No.
Status
Description and Reference
50-261/94-14-01
Open
DEV - Failure to include in
performance test procedures,
provisions for testing and
test acceptance criteria which
are consistent with the
commitments contained in the
UFSAR (Paragraph 2).