ML18348A225

LER 1977-029-03 Safety Injection Tank Level Exceeding Technical Specifications Limits

ML18348A225
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/08/1977
From:	Hoffman D Consumers Power Co
To:	James Keppler NRC/IE, NRC/RGN-III
References
LER 1977-029-03
Download: ML18348A225 (3)

Text

...-*

consumers

• Power company General Offices: 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201

• Area Code 517 788-0550 July 8, 1977 Mr James G Keppler Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region III US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT - SI BOTTLE

• LEVEL DEVIATIONS - ER-77-029 Attached is a reportable occurrence which involved a safety injection tank level outside of Technical Specifications limits for the Palisades Plant.

David P Hoffman (Signed)

David P Hoffman Assistant Nuclear Licensing Administrator

e. LICENSEE EVENT REPORT-Palisades CONTROL BLOCK: 11.--......._.l_,__...__...,I__..,:,*' (PLEASE PRINT AU REQUIRED INFORMATION]

1 6 LICENSEE LICENSE EVENT NAME LICENSE NUMBER TYPE TYPE

.jMjrjPIAjLj1j I o I o 1-1* o I o I o I o 1- o 1-1 o I o I 1411!1!1!11 I o I 3 I

. 7 8 9 14 15 25 26 30 31 32 REPOR\ REPORT r r* ,. L!!..l w TYPE SOURCE DOCKeT NUMBER EVENT DATE REPORT DATE

@TilcoN'T *- lol 51 ol-1 ol2 j5j5j lol6lolsl1l1I lol1lolsl1l1I 7 . 8. 57 58 59 60 61 68 69 74 75 80 EVENT DESCRIPTION lol2I I Routine once-per-shift checks. identified a high level condition for safety injection I 7 8 9 80 lol3I I tank, T82C, which e:x:ceeded Technical Specification 3.3.1.b reguirements by 1.6 percent.I 7 8 9 . . . 80 lol41 j .The other three tanks were. within specifications. The. level was a*d.iusted to bring -1 7 8 9 80

~ I T82C within specifications ...

• 1*

7 8 9 BO lal6I 'L-------------------~-----------------_.;.._(_ER_-_7_7-_0_29_)-...---------...~=r 7 8 9 PRIME 80 SYSTEM . CAUSE COMPONENT COMPONENT CODE SUPPLIER MANUFACTURER VIOLATION w

CODE COMPONENT CODE * .

@EJ jsj Fj L!..l lr!NlslTIRlul IF 11 I B lo I Lx.J 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 17 43 44 47 48 CAUSE DESCRIPTION

~ I On 6/8/77 a Deviation RepoTt was initiated for the "as found" indication for C safety I.

7 8 9 80 lolsl I injection bottle level transmitter/indicator. It was found that instrument drift I

~j produced-~ 1 8

(specifically zero drift) had 3-4percent error in level indication. The

.}llllr 9 FACILITY METHOO OF (Contd on Attached Sheet) 80

[ill]

7 8 .

STATUS L!J 9

I 10

% .POWER 1 I 0I 0 I 12 13

. .__I_ _

OTHER STATUS NA_ ____.

44 w

DISCOVERY 45

• INormal 46 DISCOVERY OESCRIPTION on~e-a-shift log sheet readings!.*

80 FORM OF ACTIVITY . CONTENT RELEASED OF RELEASE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY LOCATION OF RELEASE

(!)) W W _j..__ _....;;,N;;;;;.A_ _ ___.... NA 7 8 9 10 11 44 45 80 PERSONNEL EXPOSURES 7

[IE11010101 8 9 NUMBER 11 w

TYPE 12 13 DESCRIPTION NA 80 PERS.ONNEL INJURIES NUMBER OESCRIPTiON ..

filll8 9I I I0 11I

• 7 0 0 L . __ _...;.;N:::::,A.::.._.

12

---

....;.._----~---~--~ 80.

PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES fi]J I See the attached sheet.

7 8 9 . 80 LOSS OR DAMAGE TO FACILITY TYPE DESCRIPTION NA DEW 7 8 9 10 80 PUBLICITY mzI NA 9 80

• ADDITIONAL FACTORS

-~ NA 7 8 9 80 illfil89 7 80

• Cause Description Continued From Line 10 instrument was recalibrated and an evaluation was performed of the consequences of this error assuming that it had existed over the previous five months. While this evaluation was in progress,' the C SI bottle level was found to be 60%

(1.6 percent above the Technical Specifications limit) at 0015 on 6/8/77. The level was returned to within specifications by 0100 the same morning. Meanwhile, the concurrent investigation revealed that numerous violations from 1 to 2 percent below the Technical Specifications limit had occurred for C bottle under the above assumption. The discrepancy developed due to conflicts between the bottle level indicators ahd high-low level switch alarms, Probable Consequences From Line 15 Since the violations described above are of such similar nature, they are being treated in a single event report. It should be noted that since the violations occurred for only one of the four SI bottles and that the other three had normal levels, the total volume available in each instance for a safety injection was certainly within acceptable limits .