ML20004E536
| ML20004E536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Jackiw I, Maura F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E534 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-81-08, 50-358-81-8, NUDOCS 8106120300 | |
| Download: ML20004E536 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000358/1981008
Text
-
.
,
.
.
O
u.S. NuCtEAR REGut4 TORR C0a 1SS10N
-
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/81-08
Docket No. 50-358
License No. CPPR-88
Licensee: Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
139 East 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH 45201
.
Facility Name:
W. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station
Inspection At:
W. H. Zimmer, Moscow, OH
,
Inspection Conducted: February 24-26, 1981
d. M
Inspector:
F. Maura
MAY 2 9 @@
1.N.Jalckiw,ActingChief
d' Sc/
!
iMAY 2 0 ' cot
Approved By:
Test P 'ogram Section
f
Inspection Summary
Inspection on February 24-26, 1981 (Report No. 50-358/81-08)
l
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection to witness preoperational
'
testing. The inspection involved 31 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC
inspector including 24 inspector-hours onsite during off-shifts.
l
Results: Two apparent items of noncompliance were identified (failure to
follow procedures - Paragraph 2; failure to have an adequate instrument
calibration program - Paragraph 3).
l
l
8106124)]OO
.
- - - .
.
- . .
.
_.
. .
.
--
.-
. -.
DETAILS
'
.
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Schott, Station Superintendent
- P. King, Assistant Station Superintendent
- J. Wald, Station Quality Engineer
- A. Mosbaugh, Test Coordinator
J. Woeste, Instrument and Control Engineer
W. Bruins, Acting Instrument Foreman
A. Jenkins, General Electric Site Operations Manager
J. Steininger, General Electric Test Coordinator
D. Dycus, General Ele-tric Test Engineer
The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including
members of the technical, operating and maintenance staff.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview of February 26, 1981.
2.
Preop Test Witnessing
The inspector observed the full core scrcm testing performed on
February 24-26, 1981. While verifying prerequisites and initial con-
ditions prior to the performance of the initial full core scram, the
inspector observed that test procedure step 7.4.3.5 had been signed
off as complete by the system engineer. The step required that fuse
IC71-F21A and IC71-F21B be installed. The inspector verified, at the
fuse blocks, that the fuses were not installed and that an outstanding
switching order required they be removed. Failure to follow the test
procedure is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V and Startup
'
Administrative Procedure SU. ACP.05 and is considered to be an example
.
- an item of noncompliance (358/81-08-01) of Severity Level V.
During the first two full core scrams the scram initiation signal
on the recorder failed to work. Prior to the third scram it was
determined that the cause was due to the fact that the fusas for
relays K-21A and B were not installed. The relays which are part of
the reactor protection system should have been energized as required
by test prerequisite step 5.2.2.11.
Failure to follow the test pro-
cedure is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V and Startup
Administrative Procedure SU.ACP.05 and is considered to be an example
of an item of noncoupliance (358/81-08-02) of Severity Level V.
3.
Instrument Calibrations
The inspector reviewed the calibration records on equipment required
for the test, compared the calibration records to the preop ' rt
records (Data Sheet 9.1) and interviewed instrument department
personnel regarding their established practices. As a result, the
following findings were made:
-2-
_
. -
-
.
.
. - .
---
.-
- - - _,__.-_. _-_- -...
- - - _ _ . - - - .
-
,
a
The Instrument Department's initial calibration includes a loop
a.
-
calibration, however prior to 1980 no data obtained during the
loop calibration was recorded. The only available data being
that obtained during individual components calibrations.
In late
1979 the licensee developed a form to record the loop calibration
data, and according to department personnel loop calibration data
exists for work done since 1980.
b.
No plans exist for the performance of loop calibrations after
the initial calibration. According to the Instrument Engineer,
loop calibrations are done only once in plant life, all subse-
quent calibrations being that of a specific component.
'
c.
Most of the instruments being used for the test had been last
.
.
calibrated approximately two years ago. For example, the CRD pump
suction pressure switches P3-C11-NOCIA and N001B had a calibration
date of January 8, 1979. There is no program for periodic loop
calibrations of instrumentation prior to licensing of the unit
for operation. After the initial calibration, no further work
is pe.rformed unless the E' stem Engineer requests a recclibration,
and {s able to " justify
t" to the satisfaction of the Instrument
Engineer, prior to the performance of the preoperational test.
a.
Data Sheet 9.1, Instrument Calibration Record contained obsolete
informati on.
The entries were initially made in early 1979 at
the start of the preop. The preop was interrupted for over a
year before resuming in late 1980. By that time, some instru-
ments had been recalibrated (i.e. , pressure switch Cll-N012 and
differential pressure indicator C11-N600) but the Systems Engi-
neer had not reviewed the latest calibration records to ensure
their acceptability and update the test records.
The lack of a program to perform periodic calibrations of essential
test equipment or to calibrate prior to its use is in violation of
ANSI N45.2 and N45.2.4/IEEE336-1971, and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B,
Criterion XII and it is considered an example of an item of noncom-
pliance (358/81-08-03) of Severity Level
V.
,
4.
Test Results
Sampling of test results obtained showed scram times of 1.5 to 1.7
,
sec, well within the acceptable limit. Two problems were noted in
'
the areas of CRD pump operation and CRD status display as follows:
a.
Daring the first full core scram several C>30) of the CRD status
display indicating lights were not working properly either because
of problems with bad data memory cards or light modules. The prob-
lems are considered an open item (358/81-u8-04) pending licensee
demonstrating the reliability of the system to accurately provide
warning of an abnormal condition.
-3-
i
._. _ . _ _ . . _ _
_ , .
--
-- --- -
'
"
'
<
,
..
..
b.
Whenever a high demand was placed on a CRD pump a low pressure
trip would. occur. The licensee was unable to filter out the low
pressure spike (<0.5 sec.) with a snubber upstream of the pressure
switch. According to General Electric personnel the pump can
operate for ten seconds with low suction pressure. The planned
corrective action is to install a three to five second time delay
relay in the CRD pump low suction pressure trip circuitry. This
is an open item (358/81-08-05) pending licensee corrective action
and satisfactory testing.
5.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on February 26, 1981. The inspector summarized the scope and findings
of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the statements by the
inspector with respect to the items of noncompliance.
(Paragraphs 2
and 3).
.
.
!
l
-4-
- , - -
.- ,.
,_
.-_ . .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . - . - - _ - _ _ ,
.
.