ML18005B031
| ML18005B031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1989 |
| From: | Bradford W, Dance H, Shannon M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18005B029 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-89-15, NUDOCS 8909080199 | |
| Download: ML18005B031 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000400/1989015
Text
~It REgy
, ce
s
ssO
I
sss
. A
ss
~O
~+*++
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323
Report No.:
50-400/89-15
Licensee:
Carolina
Power and Light Company
P. 0.
Box 1551
Raleigh,
NC 27602
Docket No.:
50-400
Facility Name:
Harris
License No.:
Inspection
Conducted:
June
21 - July 20,
1989
Inspectors:
. H. Bradfo d
Da e
igned
M. C.
Shann
n
Accompanying Insp
tor:
W
. Ruland (July 5-7,
1989)
Approved by:
. C. Dance,
Section Chief
Division of Reactor Projects
Da e
igned
Da e S'gne
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine safety inspection
was conducted
in the areas of operational
safety
verification, surveillance
observations,
maintenance
observations,
and onsite
follow-up of events.
Results:
In the areas
inspected,
two violations were identified:
failure to maintain
an
active
SRO license,
paragraph
5.b,
and improper installation of a flow orifice,
paragraph
2.
Wake County plans to construct
an airport approximately four miles east of the
plant, paragraptI 5.c.
During this report period,
the licensee
exceeded its previous
continuous
run
time of 124 days,
paragraph
5.a.
qy()90q01$ 9 890821
ADOCK 05000400
Q
REPORT DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
D. Braund, Supervisor,
Security
- J. Collins, Manager,
Operations
- G. Forehand, Director, QA/gC
- C. Gibson, Director, Programs
and Procedures
- C. Hinnant, Plant General
Manager
L. Lentz, Operations
Support Supervisor
T. Morton, Manager,
Maintenance
C. Olexik, Supervisor, Shift Operations
R. Richey, Manager, Harris Nuclear Project Department
J. Sipp, Manager,
Environmental
and Radiation Monitoring
H. Smith, Supervisor,
Radwaste
Operation
- D. Tibbits, Director, Regulatory Compliance
B. Van Metre, Manager, Technical
Support
E. Willett, Manager,
Outages
and Modifications
Other
licensee
employees
contacted
during this
inspection
included
technicians,
operators,
mechanics,
security force
members,
engineering
personnel
and office personnel.
"Attended exit interview.
and initialisms used
throughout this report are listed in the
last paragraph.
Operational
Safety Verification (71707)
The inspectors
conducted routine plant tours during this inspection period
to verify that the licensee's
requirements
and
commitments
were
being
implemented.
These
tours
were performed to verify that:
system valves
and
breakers
required for safe
plant operations
were in their correct
position; fire protection
equipment,
spare
equipment,
and materials
were
being maintained
and stored properly; plant operators
were
aware of the
current plant status;
plant operations
personnel
were
documenting
the
status
of out-of-service
equipment;
security
and health
physics controls
were
being
implemented
as
required
by procedures;
there
were
no
undocumented
cases
of unusual
fluid leaks,
piping vibration,
abnormal
hanger or seismic restraint
movements; all reviewed
equipment requiring
calibration
was current;
and
general
housekeeping
and control of fire
hazards
were satisfactory.
Tours of the plant included
review of site
documentation
and
interviews
with plant
personnel.
The
inspectors
reviewed
the control
room operators's
logs,
tagout logs,
chemistry
and
health
physics
logs,
and control
boards
and panels.
During these
tours
the inspectors
noted that the operators
appeared
to
be alert,
aware of
changing plant conditions
and manipulated
plant controls properly.
The
inspectors
evaluated
operations
shift turnover s
and
attended
shift
briefings.
They
observed
that
the briefings
and
turnovers
provided
sufficient detail for the next shift crew and verified that the staffing
met TS requirements.
During the inspection
period,
the
Backup Senior Resident- Inspector
from
the Brunswick Plant noted that
a flow orifice,
FE 7152, containment
spray
NAOH tank outlet,
appear ed to be installed improperly.
A review of work
requests
and technical
data verified that the flow orifice was installed
backwards.
The review also noted
a hold point signoff for proper orienta-
tion
and
the
hold point
was initialed
as
being correct.
The flow
instrument is used for flow indication during accident conditions
by the
Control
Room Operators.
The failure of this component
does not render the
system inoperable
because
of safety-related
tank level instrumentation.
The inspectors
inspected
several
other flow orifices in other
systems
to
insure proper installation.
No additional
problems
were identified during
the orifice review.
The improper installation of the
NAOH tank outlet flow orifice and the
failure to identify the deficiency at the
gC hold point are collectively
identified as
violation 89-15-01,
improper flow orifice installation.
One violation and no deviations
were identified.
3.
Monthly Surveillance Observation
(71709)
The inspectors
reviewed
surveillance
test activities
on safety-related
systems
and components
to verify that the licensee
performed the activities
in accordance
with applicable requirements.
The review included witnessing
selected
portions
of each
surveillance,
review of the
surveillance
procedure
to ensure that administrative controls
were in force, insuring
that approval
was obtained prior to conducting the surveillance test,
and
verifying that
the individuals conducting
the test
were qualified in
accordance
with plant approved
procedures.
Other observations
included
verification that test instrumentation
was calibrated,
data collected
was
within the specified
requirements
of TS, identified discrepancies
were
properly noted,
and
the
systems
were correctly returned
to service.
Portions of the following test activities were observed
or reviewed
by the
inspectors:
OST-1013
OST-1004
IASA Emergency Diesel
Generator
Operability
Diesel
Generator
IASA Engine Vibration Trip Switch
Test
Power
Range
Heat Balance
OST-1026
OST-1215
RCS Leakrate
Emergency Service Mater (Train "B") quarterly
Accumulator Tank
C Pressure
Loop Calibration
Spent fuel pool water chemistry sampling
No violations or deviations
were identified.
4.
Monthly Maintenance
Observations
(62703)
Station
maintenance
activities of safety-related
systems
and
components
were observed/reviewed
to ascertain
that they were conducted
in accordance
with approved
procedures,
regulatory guides,
industry codes
and standards
and were in conformance
with TS.
Items
considered
during the review
included verification that
LCOs were met while components
or systems
were
removed
from service;
approvals
were obtained prior to initiating the
work; approved
procedures
were used;
completed
work was performed prior to
returning
components
or systems
to service; quality control records
were
maintained; activites
were accomplished
by qualified personnel;
parts
and
materials
were properly certified;
and radiological
and fire prevention
controls
were
implemented.
Work requests
were also reviewed to determine
the status
of outstanding
jobs to assure
that priority was assigned
to
safety-related
equipment maintenance
which could affect system performance.
Portions of the following activities were observed
or reviewed:
"A", Diesel
Generator Oil Temperature
Switch
"C" Accumulator Pressure
Insrument Repair
Spent
Fuel
Pool
and Transfer
Canal
Weld Repairs
Brown Boveri
LK16 Breaker Inspection Following Failure to open.
During this reporting period the plant experienced
an additional
Brown
Boveri
LK16 breaker failure.
The "A" pressurizer
heater
supply breaker
failed to open
and resulted in burning up the trip coil.
Approximately 20
breakers
in non-safety
related
applications
have failed to open
since
initial operation.
No violations or deviations
were identified.
5.
Onsite Followup of Events
(92702)
The following events/concerns
were reviewed
by the Inspectors
during this
inspection period:
a.
Record
Run
During this
inspection
period
the unit exceeded
its first cycle
record
run of 124 days
and
had reached
a
127 continuous
day run at
the end of the report period.
Inactive Licensed Senior Control Operator
On Duty:
On July 5, 1989, the licensee
informed the resident
inspectors
that
an active
licensed
Senior
Reactor
Operator
had not completed
the
required five 12-hour shifts to remain qualified for his position
as
Senior Control Operator for the quarter ending June
30,
1989.
E
The
SRO subsequently
performed three
12-hour shifts
on July 1, 2,
and
3
as
the
SCO without meeting the re-activation
requirements
of
10CFR 55.53.f.
Technical Specification 6.2.2.b requires at least
one
qualified
SRO to be in the main control
room when the reactor is in
modes
1, 2,
3
and 4.
The plant
was in mode
1.
When the Shift
Foreman
performed his plant tours or left the main control room, the
minimum shift compliment
was
not maintained
on the
6:00
a.m.
to
6:00 p.m. shifts
on July 1, 2, and'.
The
SRO worked 12-hour shifts
as the
SCO
on May 9,
May 28,
May 29 and June
9,
1989.
He worked 4
hours
on May 10 until approximately 9:30
PM when
he was notified of a
family emergency.
He was relieved
by a qualified
and promptly
left the plant.
This
SRO worked ten 12-hour shifts
as .the Shift Foreman
Designee
on
April 4, 5, 6, 11, 12,
13,
14, 28, 29,
and 30, 1989.
This position
requires
a thorough
knowledge of the plant at all times.
He works in
close co-ordination with the shift foreman
and operating
crew.
He is
stationed
in the Operations
Clearance
Center,
which is adjacent
to
the control
room,
and is
charged with issuing
work clearances
on
equipment
requiring maintenance.
He designates
post-maintenance
testing
and
determines
acceptance
criteria
on equipment
released
after maintenance.
He relieves
the shift foreman in the control
room
when required.
The licensee
does
not count this time
as Shift
Foreman
Designee
as fulfillingthe requirements
to remain qualified
as
SCO.
The licensee's
method for tracking the active license required hours
consists
of data retrieval
approximately
bi-weekly
by the shift
clerk.
Sixty days into the quarter,
a computer printout is generated
which designates
the hours
worked
and flags those operators
who need
more hours.
This report is provided to the Operations
Supervisor
and to each on-shift foreman.
The Shift Foreman
ensures
that all
personnel
are appropriately
scheduled
to accomplish
the five full
shifts
by the
end of the quarter.
On the last day of the quarter,
the final computer printout is generated
which shows the total hours
worked
and flags those
who do not have the required
60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />.
The
60 day printout identified this
as not having enough time.
When
he
counted
his hours,
he
had forgotten
the partial shift he
had
worked
on
May 10.
The
12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift he worked on June
9 still made
him approximately
8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> short.
The
end of the quarter
computer
printout
on Friday,
June
30 identified this
SRO to be short of the
required
hours.
This printout was generated
on Friday evening
and
the person responsible
to read the printout was off on July 1, 2, and
3 and
came
back to work on July 4.
He then
read the printout and
identified to the Shift Foreman that his
SRO did not have the time
required to be
an active
SRO.
By this time the
SRO had worked three
12-hour shifts
on July 1, 2, and 3.
The licensee
immediately placed
the
SRO under
40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of instruction
by a qualified
SRO as required
by 10
CFR 55.53(f)(2).
Failure to maintain
a
SRO license active
due to not fulfilling the
requirements
of working five 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts during the second quarter
of 1989;
and
subsequently
performing
license
duties
for three
consecutive
days
in the third quarter of 1989 without completing
certification
is identified
as
violation 89-15-02,
failure to
maintain
an active
SRO license.
c ~
Proposed
Make County Airport
The licensee
informed the inspectors
that
Wake County was proposing
to construct
a
new airport which will be called
Wake South Regional
Airport.
The airport is to
be located
about four miles =from the
Harris Nuclear Plant
on the east, side.
The airport will initially
have
one
5000-foot
runway oriented
northeast
to southwest.
The
airport is
supposed
to relieve airport congestion
at Raleigh/Durham
International
Airport.
The
runway is lined
up approximately
10
degrees
to the southwest of the Harris Nuclear Plant.
The airport is intended
almost exclusively for general
aviation.
This
means
a
good portion of flights will be
by small aircraft.
Multiple engine aircraft (Learjet
and Gulfstream)
with weights in
excess
of 12,500
pounds
are
projected
to
use this airport.
The
annual
number of flight operations
is projected to be
as follows:
5 Year
10 Year
20 Year
Peak
Hour
Traffic
40
55
85
Annual
Operations
64,400
88,500
128,000
Annual
Instrument
Approaches
950
1,800
3,500
The
inspectors
questioned
the potential
impact of the
proposed
airport
upon
the plant.
The
licensee
met with the
inspectors
subsequent
to the inspection
period
on July 24
and explained
much
of the
above
information.
The licensee
stated
that the airport
criteria was within the plant siting guidelines of the NRC's Standard
Review Plan,
The licensee
indicated that
a presentation
would be made to
NRR in the near future.
One violation and no deviations
were identified.
Exit Interview .
The
inspection
scope
and findings
were
summarized
during
management
interviews
throughout
the reporting
period
and
on July 19,
1989, with
those
persons
indicated
in paragraph
1.
The licensee
acknowledged
the
inspection
findings
and did not identify as proprietary
any material
reviewed
by the inspector during the inspection.
Item Number
~0
89-15-01
89-15-02
VIO - Failure to maintain
an active
SRO license,
paragraph
5.b.
VIO - Improper flow orifice installation,
paragraph
2.
Acronyms and Initialisms
IFI
LCO
LER
LIV
NAOH
NRC
OP
OST
PMTR
RCS/RC
SCO
TS
WR/JO
As Low as Reasonably
Achievable
Emergency Service Water
Emergency Planning
2one
Flow Element
Final Safety Analysis Report
Inspector Follow-up Item
Limiting Condition for Operation
Licensee
Event Report
Licensee Identified Violation
Loss of Coolant Accident
Maintenance
Surveillance
Test
Sodium Hydroxide
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Operating
Procedure
Operations
Surveillance Test
Plant Change
Request
Post Maintenance
Test Requirements
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Radiation
Work Permit
Senior Control Operator
Senior Reactor
Operator
Technical Specification
Violation
Work Request/Job
Order