ML19324A973
| ML19324A973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1981 |
| From: | Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324A971 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-81-08, 50-334-81-8, NUDOCS 8910300080 | |
| Download: ML19324A973 (5) | |
Text
-, -
c,p g.1.' -
s y
j
+
i (mv' (G
H J
r g
APPENDIX A 8m
['
/
Duquesne Light Company-Docket No. 50-334 4
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 r
License No. DPR-66 As a result of the inspection conducted on March 1-31, 1981, and in accordance.
5 with'the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), the following' violations were identified-30 CFR 50.72, Notification of significant events, states, in part, "(a) l A..
each licensee of a nuclear power reactor licensed under 50.21 or 50.22 L
shall. notify the NRC Operations Center as soon as possible and in all cases within one hour by telephone of the occurrence of any of the l.
.following significant events and shall identify that event as being
. reported pursuant ~to this section:... (3) Any event that results in the nuclear power plant not being in a controlled or expected condition while uperating or shutdown..."
l The Beaver Valley. Power Station Operating Manual, Section 1.48.9.D.
Miscellaneous Reports, Paragraph 1.c', Revision.12, t)ecember 31, 1980, states, in part:
"c.
Prompt Notification - The NRC shall.be notified immediately (not to exceed I hour) of any significant events at operating nuclear' power plants.
Notification will be given directly to I&E
.. Headquarters by way of 'the NRC Hotline... It is preferable to report a
.. questionable event than~not.
Therefore:
for any operational, radiological, or security problem which is not expected and which may l
possibly generate public requests for information... the NRC hotline will be also used to notify NRC Headquarters.
It is considered that the following significant events are examples requiring NRC notification:
l.
3)
Any event that results in the nuclear power plant not being in a
ntrolled or expected condition while operating or shutdown Contrary to the above, On March 5, 1981, an unexpected degradation in Iz L
Residual Heat Removal System flow through the core was not reported to the NRC Operations Center within one hour.
The degradation of core flow, due to apparent air entrainment in the Residual Heat Removal System pumps began at about 6:25 p.m. and was terminated at about 7:35 p.m.
The NRC Operations Center was notified of the event via the NRC Emergency Notification System at 8:39 p.m.
l 8910300000 810818 PDR ADOCK 05000334 G
PNU 1'
)
f. '
.f.'
)
g Appendix A' 2
e This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement'I)
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1, Procedures, states, in part, " Written
. procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities referenced below:
r'. -
a.
The applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory p
Guide.l.33, November 1972..."
L Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972, Section C, states in part:
y i
"C. Procedures for Startup, Operation, and Shutdown of Safety C
Related PWR Systems Instructions for energizing, filling venting, draining, startup, shutdown, and changing modes of operation should be prepared, as appropriate, for the following systems:
1.
4.
Shutdown Cooling System..."
l Contrary to the above, on March 5, 198'1, appropriate and adequate procedures for the Reactor Coolant System and Shutdown Cooling (Residual Heat Removal) System were not properly established, implemented and maintained for operation of these systems during periods when the Reactor Cociant System (RCS) wa's partially drained.
The licensee procedures, established as of March 5, 1981, for the conduct of operations with the RCS partially drained were:
BVPS OM Section 1.6.4.N Draining the RCS to the Centerline of the
?
Hot Leg Loops for Maintenance, Issue 2, Revision 2.
BVPS OM Section 1.10.4.J, Residual Heat Removal Operation When the RCS is Partially Drained, Issue 2.
BVPS OM Section 1.10.4.K, Abnormal Procedure: Loss of RHR with RCS Drained to Mid Span of Loops.
BVPS OM Secticn 1.53.4, Emergency Operating Procedure E-20, Loss of Residual Heat Removal System, Issue 2 Revision 4.
Corrective Maintenance Procedure No.1-6RC-LT-TEMP-11, Temporary RCS Level Indication, Revision 3.
Collectively, the procedures listed above failed to specify requirements for:
p.-
j c F. 's * ;-,
t h y
(
l t
I*.
, Appendix A-3 l
.The frequency of operator surveillance of actual RCS water level (measured by a temporary standpipe inside containment);
j r
Periodic cross-checking of temporary remote Control Room RCS level indication with actual RCS water level; 1
i,>
Periodic calibration checks of the temporary remote Control Rooa RCS L
level indication; or Actions to be taken for either abnormal actual or remotely indicated RCS' level.
}-
The inadequate procedures appear to have contributed to the cause of degraded core flow on March 5, 1981.
5 L
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)
C.
Technical Specification 6.8.1, Procedures, states, in part, " Written procedures shall be stablished, implemented and maintained covering-the 4
activities referenced belcw:... c. Surveillance and test activities of safety related equipment..."
Technical Specification 4.7.11.1, Resi#ual Heat Removal System - Tavg <
350'F., Surveillance Requirements, states,'"The Residual Heat Removal subsystem shall'be demonstrated OPERABLE per the applicable Surveillance Requirements of Specification 4.7.10.'1."-
i Technical Specification 4.7.10.1 states, in part, "Each residual heat removal subsystem shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:... d. At least once per 18 months by verifying that each residual heat removal pump develops a discharge pressure of > 135 psig on recirculation flow."
Contrary to the above, licensee procedures covering these surveillance activities were inadequately established, implemented and maintained from December 8, 1978 to March 8, 1981, as indicated below:
Operating Surveillance Test (OST) 1.10.1, Residual Heat Removal Pump Performance Test, Revision 10, performed March 7 and 8, 1981, included erroneously worded acceptance criteria for the above Specification:
"The pump a discharge pressure > 135 psig." Neither performance of the test met the acceptance criteria of the Technical Specification in that tests were performed at a system flow of about 4000 gpm vice only recirculaticn flow; the pumps developed a differential pressure of 90 psid and 100 psid respectively; and, indicated discharge pressure was less than 135 psig for both pumps on both occasions.
pl
',7 m-.
i j.='1, j
[b f
,' Appendix A.
4
.1 s
Temporary Operating Procedure (TOP) No. 79-10, Residual Heat Removal l
ja D
Pump (IRH-P-1A'& IB) Pump Curve Generation Procedure, Issued January T
h 1979, and performed on January 19, 1979 and October 9, 1980, did not l
include acceptance criteria pursuant to TS 4.7.10.d or 4.7.11 but I
appear to constitute the tests of record for the twenty-seven month period between December.8, 1978 and March 8, 1981.
Although the
, test records indicate pump discharge pressures of 380-420 psig, t
i system pressure (backpressure) was approximately 300 psig and differential pressure was less than 135 psig in all cases.
The test of October 9, 1980 was performed at a system flow of about 4000 gpm vice recirculation flow only.
OST 1.10.1, Residual Heat Removal Pump Performance Test, Revision 5, performed December 8, 1979, did not include acceptance criteria pursuant to TS 4.7.10.d or 4.7.11 but appears to constitute the test of record for verification of RHR pump operability.
Although the test records indicate a pump discharge pressure of 160 psig, system pressure (backpressure) was approximately 90 psig, and differential pressure was less than 135 psig. The test was performed at a system
- flow of about 4000 gpm vice recirculation flow only.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201,' Duquesne Light Company is hereby required to submit to this offi,ce within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violationt; and, (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending your response time. The responses directed by this Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Date AUG I 81981 h
roj c c
Division of Resident and Project Inspection l
,we en -
,,4, r,
r
- f.. ;,. ',.,-
l p
p.
r., o APPENDIX B NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duquesne Light Company Docket No. 50-334 Beaver Valley Power Station,' Unit 1 License No. DPR-66 I
As a result.of the inspection conducted on March 1-31, 1981, and in accordance withtheInterimEnforcementPolicy,45FR66754(October 7,1980),the following violations were identified:
1 i
L THIS PAGE, CONTAINING 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
[-
l I
l L
l I
l l
L
. _., _ - _