ML20062D869
| ML20062D869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1978 |
| From: | Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062D862 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812010016 | |
| Download: ML20062D869 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1978026
Text
.-
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
- " "%
UNITED STATES
9
yg)f(, pg
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
y l
3
REGtON l
N .. E
431 PARK AVENUE
5 /^ \\
'
0,
M
KING OF PRUSSI A. PENNSYl.V ANI A 19406
s....,
Docket No. 50-277
2 0 007 1978
.
Philadelphia Electric Company
~
ATTN: Mr. S. L. Daltroff
Vice President
Electric Production
-
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection 50-277/78-26
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. E. Greenman of this
office on September 19-22, 1978, at Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pennsylvania,
of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-44 and to the discussions
of our findings held by Mr. Kalman with Mr. R. Fleischmann of your staff
at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the Office of
4
Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this
letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Our inspector also verified the steps you have taken to correct the
items of noncompliance brought to your attention in a letter dated June
'
30, 1977. We have no further questions regarding your action at this
time.
Based on the results of this inspection, it appears that certain of your
activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements,
as set forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix
'
A.
These items of noncompliance have been categorized into the levels
as described in our correspondence to you dated December 31, 1974. This
notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the
NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2. Title 10, Code of Pederal Regulations.
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within twenty (20)
days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation
in reply including:
(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you
and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to
avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance
will be achieved.
7812010016
i-
l
i
-
. ,
-
~.
--
--.
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Philadelphia Electric Company
2
2 0 QCT 1978
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part
2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the
enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this
report contains any information that you (or your contractor) believe to
be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application
within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public
disclosure. Any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit
executed by the owner of the information, wh.'ch identifies the document
or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a statement of reasons
which addresses with specificity the items which will be considered by
the Commission as listed in subparagraph (b) (4) of Section 2.790. The
information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible
into a separate part of the affidavit.
If we do not hear from you in
this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in
the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be
pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
'
.
M
Eldon J.
unner,
i
Reacto
perat'o
ad uclear
Support Bran
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report
Number 50-277/78-26
cc w/encis:
W. T. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
s
Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esquire (Without Report)
Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire (Without Report)
Raymond L. Hovis, Esquire (Without Report)
Warren Rich, Esquire (Without Report)
v
.
.
.
,
-
.
APPENDIX A
Philadelphia Electric Company
Docket No. 50-277
Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on September 19-22,
1978, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in
full compliance with conditions of your NRC Facility License No. DPR-44,
as indicated below.
Item A is a Deficiency.
Item B is an Infraction.
A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1, states in part that, " Written pro-
'
cedures . . . shall be established, implemented and maintained . .
Contrary to the above, two prerefueling procedures, FH 21.2 and FH
5, were performed prior to completion of the prerequisites for
these procedures in that: The individual steps of procedure FH
21.2 were completed by August 31, 1978, while a prerequisite pro-
cedure, M 4.18 was not completed until September 9,1978, and the
individual steps of procedure FH 5 were completed by July 24, 1978,
while a prerequisite procedure, M 17.1, was not completed until
August 22, 1978.
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1, states in part that, " Written Pro-
cedures...shall be established, implemented and maintained...."
Step 3.d of Procedure FH 6c, " Fuel Movements and Core Alteration
Procedure during a Fuel Handling Outage", Revision 5, dated March
14, 1978, states that the grapple operator must always watch the
fuel bundle during fuel transfer.
Contrary to the above, at approximately 2000 on September 21, 1978,
the grapple operator failed to look at a spent fuel bundle from the
time the bundle approached the upward limit of its travel during
removal from the reactor core until after the first phase of its
horizontal movement was completed.
012010035
.
_
-
.
_
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report No. 50-277/78-26
Docket No.
50-277
License No.
OPR-44
Priority
Category
C
--
Licensee:
Philadelohia Electric Comoany
2301 Market Street
-
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2
' spection at: Delta, Pennsylvania
'
l
Inspection conducted:
September 19-22, 1978
Inspectors.
[ d
F.m.
/o/1/ M
GjfoTge Kapn, Reactor Inspector
date signed
k
./O/4 /yy
Edwarc'Greenman, Reactor Inspector
date signed
~
date signed
.
Approved by:
f1 QM(M4
/d
/
D. L. CaEhton, Chief, Nuclear Support
date signed
Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch
Inspection Summary:
Insoection on September 19-22, 1978 (Report No. 50-277/78-26)
Areas Insoected: Routine, unannounced inspection by two NRC regional based
inspectors of preparation for refueling, refueling activities including:
'
facility tours and offshift observations of fuel movement; and, independent
effort. The inspection involved 58 inspector-hours onsite by two regional
based inspectors.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-
fied in three areas. Two items of noncompliance were identified in two areas:
(Deficiency - failure to complete procedure prerequisites prior to performing
procedures, paragraph 4.c; and, Infraction - failure to observe fuel bundle
during movement, paragraph 5.c).
7812010031
f
Region I Fonn 12
(Rev. April 77)
-
.
--
.
.
.
,
-
.
J
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Representatives
- R. Fleischmann, Assistant Station Superintendent
!
- F. Polaski, Reactor Engineer
S. Roberts, Test Results Engineer
D. Smith, Outage Coordinator
J. Spencer, Maintenance Engineer
W. Tilton, Fuel Floor Supervisor
W. Ullrich, Station Superintendent
'
J. Winzenreid, Technical Engineer
Other licensee employees and contractor personnel were contacted
during the inspection. These included engineering personnel,
reactor operators, shift supervisors, security personnel, health
physicists and General Electric Technicians.
denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Uodate
(Closed)ItemofNoncompliance(277/77-19-03): Unauthorized changes
to procedures / failure to review temporary changes within seven
days.
-
_
a.
The inspector verified that procedure M 4.20 and procedure
21.4 were revised to include a workable sequence of steps and
noted that a statement was included in each procedure cautioning
against unauthorized deviations from the presc-ibed steps.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter
at this time,
b.
Cognizant licensee personnel have been briefed on requirements
regarding the review requirements on temporary procedural
changes. Technical Specification 6.8.3.c was changed and now
requires PORC review of temporary changes within 14 days
versus 7 days.
(Amendment 37, dated December 13, 1977). The
inspector had no further questions regarding this matter at
this time.
,
'
.
e .
- - , . -
_
- - - - , - - ,
.
,
.
.
-
1
3
.
(Closed) Item of Noncompliance (277/77-19-04):
Failure' to follow
procedures.
a.
Procedure FH 6C was revised to permit fuel handling prior to
completing the refueling platform check-off sheet at the start
of each shift. An inspection of the refueling related check-
off lists did not detect discrepancies. The inspector had no
further questions regarding this matter at this time.
.
3.
Plant Tour
The inspectors examined various areas of the Unit 2 and 3 facilities
including the reactor building, Unit 2 containment process areas,
turbine deck, Unit 2 refueling floor, and exterior areas.
Inspections were conducted to determine the general state of house-
keeping, cleanliness, adherence to fire protection guides and to
observe plant conditions. The inspectors checked equipment status,
operability and verified by comparison of selected control room in-
strumentation that, limiting conditions for operation were being
satisfied at Unit 3, and that nuclear instrumentation indicated
compliance with Technical Specification requirements for refueling
.
in progress at Unit 2.
Status of off-normal alarms were discussed
with various operating personnel. Operators were knowledgeable re-
1
garding these alarms. The inspectors also verified that minimum
staffing requirements were satisfied, during the course of various
control room tours.
No unacceptable conditions were iden'tified.
4.
Preparation for Refueling
a.
Documents Reviewed
(1) Procedure FH 5, Revision 14, July 19, l'78, New Fuel
9
Inspection, Channeling and Placement in the Fuel
Pool, including Associated Check-Off List
'
(2) Procedure M 17.1, Revision 3, December 11, 1975, Reactor
Building Cr.ane Maintenance, including Associated
Check-Off List
(3) Procedure M 4.17, Revision 0, October 15, 1975, Fuel Pre-
paration Machine Inspection, including Associated
Check-Off List
(4) Fuel Receipt and Inspection Records for 260 New Fuel
Assemblies
.
,
_
..
_
_
_ _ _ _ .
_
-
._
_..
. _ _
.
.
-
.
.
4
(5) Procedure FH 21.1.3, Revision 1, April 2,1976, Check-Out
of the Refueling Platform Hoist and Load Cells
(6) Procedure M 4.20, Revision 1 July 28,1977, Refueling
Platform Electrical Inspection, including Associated
Check-Off List
(7) Procedure FH 21.4, Revision 2, August 11, 1977, Fuel
Preparation Machine Operational Check-Out, including
Associated Check-Off List
(8) Procedure FH 21.2, Revision 1, March 23,1978, Check-Out
of the Service Platform and Associated Protective In-
i
terlocks, including Associated Check-Off List
(9) Procedure M 4.18, Revision 0, October 15, 1975, Service
1
i
Platform Mechanical Inspection, including Associated
Check-Off List
4
(10) Procedure M 4.19, Revision 1, Service Platform Electrical
Inspection, including Associated Check-Off List
.
(11) Procedure FH 21.1.1, Revision 0, October 23, 1975, Start-Up
of the Refueling Platform, including Associated Check-Off
List
>
(12) Procedure FH 21.1.2, Revision 1, April 2,1976, Check-Out
of Refueling Platform. Bridge, Trolley, Monorail and
,
Hoists in the Fuel Fool, including Associated Check-Off
List
.
(13) Procedure FH 21.1.6, Revision 1, April 2,1976, Check-Out
of the Air Compressor, Air Lines and Solenoid Valves,
including Associated Check-Off List
(14) Procedure FH 21.1.7, Revision 1, April 2,1976, Check-Out
!
of Refueling Platform Bridge, Trolley, Monorail and
Hoists in the Reactor Cavity, including Associated Check-
Off List
b.
Scope
The inspectors reviewed the receipt and inspection records as-
sociated with 260 new fuel assemblies. Refueling equipment,
check-out procedures and associated check-off lists were also
reviewed.
_ - .
. - -
_ _
_ _ _ _ _ - . - _ __.. __
__ __.
.
.
. .
_
.
-
'
.
,
5
c.
Findings
No discrepancies were noted in the new fuel receipt and in-
spection documents.
Through review of the maintenance request
forms and check-off sheets, the inspector noted that procedure
FH 21.2 Check-Out of the Service Platform and Associated
Protective Interlocks, was completed prior to the completion
of its prerequisite section.
Specifically, as a prerequisite
to performing procedure FH 21.2, procedures M 4.18, Service
Platfom Mechanical Inspection, and M 4.19, Service Platform
Electrical Inspection must be completed.
Examination of the
completed check-off sheet for procedure FH 21.2 indicated that
the prerequisite section had not been signed off as required
and subsequent investigation revealed that procedure M 4.18
was completed after procedure FH 21.2
A similar circumstance was found for the check-off sheet as-
sociated with procedure FH 5, New Fuel Inspection, Channeling,
and Placement in the Fuel Pool.
In this case, the Maintenance
Request Form for prerequisite procedure M 17.1, Reactor Building
Crane Maintenance, was not signed off until after FH 5 was com-
pleted. Howe'.er, it was ascertained that the crane procedure
was satisfactorily completed prior to handling new fuel. Failure
to complete procedure prerequisites is contrary to Technical Speci-
fication 6.8.1 and constitutes an item of noncompliance (78-26-01).
5.
Refueling Activities
a.
Documents Reviewed
(1) Procedure FH 6C, Revision 5, March 14,1978 Fuel Movement
and Core Alteration Procedure During a Fuel Handling
Outage
(2) Refueling Floor Log Book
b.
Scope
The refueling procedure was reviewed for compliance to Technical
Specification requirements. Refueling activities including
LPRM removal and spent fuel transfer were observed. Refueling
floor and control room manning, fuel status keeping, and control
room to refueling floor communications were compared to applicable
requirements. General refueling floor housekeeping and radiation
protection practices were inspected.
. _- -
.
'
..
,
f
-
.
6
,
c.
Findings
Items inspected were acceptable with the excepti n of the
o
following item of noncompliance.
Item 3.d _ under the pre-
.
caution section of procedure FH 6C states that the grapple
operator must watch the fuel bundle when the fuel bundle is
approaching the upper grid or the top of a fuel storage rack.
.
The inspector noted that during the removal of a spent fuel
bundle from the core, the grapple operator did not once
observe the fuel bundle as required by procedures from the.
. ~
time the fuel bundle _was several feet from the top.of its
vertical travel until after he had moved'the bundle several
'
feet horizontally. At this time, fuel handling operations
'
were suspended by the Senior Licensed Operator (SLO) and the
inspector reviewed the procedure with the two SL0s on the
refueling floor.
The' SLO on duty reviewed the applicable
procedural requirements with the grapple operator and fuel
handling operations were resumed.
The above instance of
.
failure to follow procedures is contrary to Technical Specification.
6.8.1 and constitutes an item of noncompliance (78-26-02).
~
'
~
6.
Outage Related Maintenance Activities
a.
Documents Reviewed
(1) Procedure M 1.6, Revision 2, May 15, 1978, Relief Valve
'
Replacement
'
>
'.
t
(2) Procedure M 12.21, Revision 1, September 21, 1978, R.W.C.U.
System Chemical Cleaning Connection Removal ,
L
(3) Modification Procedure 218, March 27, 1978
b.
Scope
The inspector reviewed the above referenced documents and in-
spected the modifications being done to valves M0 2-10-898, M0
2-10-89C, MO 3-10-89B and M0 3-10-89C in accordance with
modification procedure 21B.
'
c.
Findings
-
No discrepancies were identified in the inspection of the
above items.
w
/
e
e
,
'
> =>
.~-.v..
__
y
- ,
,.,
,.
-,
+
-
'
-
.. .
. ;
,
.
t
7
7.
Exit Interview
At the conclusion of the inspection onsite, the inspectors con-
ducted an exit interview with licensee representatives, identified
by an asterisk in Detail 1.
Items as described in the Details were
discussed. The licensee acknowledged inspection fin.d.ngs.
J
1
4
.
.
/
e
@
9e
.e.
Y
e
e
/
.
,
,
m-
?
. -- - . , ,
ym,
,
. _ ,
,
__ _