ML20211L109
| ML20211L109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M800 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-86-10, GL-83-28, IEIN-85-030, IEIN-85-30, NUDOCS 8607010291 | |
| Download: ML20211L109 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1986010
Text
-
_ _
- - - . .
_ .
-.
.
. -
- . .
,
.-_
_- . - . - -
_-
.
.
.
t
!'
.
I
!
'
i
l
l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
.
.
!
!
REPORT N0.
50-322/86-10
1
l
DOCKET NO.
50-322
i
I
LICENSE NO.
{
l
LICENSEE:
Long Island Lighting Company
P. O. Box 618
i
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
i
Wading River, New York 11792
I
j
INSPECTION AT: Wading River, New York
i
{
INSPECTION CONDUCTED: April 16-May 31, 1986
i
i
INSPECTORS:
John A. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector
i
Clay C. Warren, Resident Inspector
2'
.'
d
APPROVED:
~
!
J. R. Strosnider, Chief, Reactors Projects
6 ate Signed
,
Section IB, Division of Reactor Projects
i
j
SUMMARY:
During the period covered by Inspection Report 86-10, April 16,
j
1986 through May 31, 1986, 290 hours0.00336 days <br />0.0806 hours <br />4.794974e-4 weeks <br />1.10345e-4 months <br /> of direct inspection were
performed by the Senior Resident Inspector, Resident Inspector
,
I
and one region-based inspector.
i
}
No unacceptable conditions were identified during the
j
inspections described in this report.
I
i
i
!
I
1
!
i
1
-
$
i
!
I
i
9607010291 860625
,i
i
ADOCK 05000322
3
G
!
.
I
!
i
~ . _ _ , . _ . - _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ , _ - , . . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ , _ . . . . - , _ . _
. -
.
-
-- -
.
-
.
.-.
.
.. . _ _ -
_
.
4
.
.
.
i
i
.
2
!
i
j
1.
Status of Previous Inspection Items
]
1.1 Closed 86-08-03:
Inadequate Local ~ Leak Rate Testing of BWR Vacuum
,
i
Relief System Valves (IE Notice 86-16)
I
i
Shoreham has a different Containment design than the plants in the
i
subject information notice (i.e. no Torus or Torus to Secondary
j
vacuum breaker systems). However, SNPS has had similar problems with
l
simulating the Integrated Test direction in Local Tests. The most
1
similar case at SNPS to those in the Information Notice are the Con-
j
tainment Purge and Vent lines-T46.
The test frequency for valves in
these lines has been increased per the present Technical Specifica-
'
tions for reverse testing of these valves. They are also tested in
'
the Integrated test direction per the Appendix J schedule as recom-
i
mended in the Information Notice using a blank flange inside Contain-
l
ment. This adequately addresses possible leakage paths for these
valves. Another possible concern are flanged connections at valves
<
j
in the Appendix J test program.
These are addressed by a special
maintenance bolting procedure SP35.121.02 to assure proper flange
i
!
tightness.
This item is closed.
<
j
1.2 Closed 86-08-05:
Failure of _ Automatic Sprinkler System Valves to
i
Operate
!
Licensee review of the facility fire suppression systems showed that
,
no ASCO valves of the same type listed in IE Notice 86-17 are in-
stalled at Shoreham.
.
j
This item is closed.
i
l
1.3 Closed 84-29-01: Bahnson Air Handling Units
'
<
'
i
I&E Information Notice 85-30 was provided to inform licensees of
j
potentially significant discrepancies in record keeping and material
j
defects identified on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) equipment manufactured by the Bahnson Company (a division of
4
i
Flakt, Inc.) of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Millstone 3 and
Shearon Harris have found discrepancies in record keeping and ma-
i
terial defects.
It was found that factory NDE liquid penetrant in-
{
spections were incomplete and undocumented. Millstone 3 units had
low strength carbon steel fasteners substituted for the required
ASTM-A449 fan motor anchor bolts and self-tapping stainless steel
1
screws for the required ASTM-A193-GRB8 cooling coil mounting bolts.
!
Shearon Harris units had welds with cracks, lack of fusion, and
i
undercut exceeding 1/64 inch. There were also missing welds and
i
welds not made in accordance with the design drawings.
!
l
i
!,
-
- -
- - -
-
- -
.
.
3
As a result of these findings, Board Notification 84-006 (2/9/84)
was made by NRR for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
The Shoreham Station uses four safety-related air conditioning units
(ACUS) supplied by Bahnson (shipping date 9/75-5/76).
These units
(S&W Mark Nos. IX61*ACU-007A&B) supply cooling air to the control
room and relay room, respectively.
Upon issuance of the Board Notification and IE Information Notice,
the licensee initiated an inspection of all accessible areas of each
ACU's internal / external structures.
These inspections resulted in
the following LILCO Deficiency Report (LDRs):
Equipment
LDR No.
Date
Mark No.
Service
2167
03/07/84 1X61*ACU-007A&B
Cantrol Room (CB E1. 63')
2168
03/07/84 IX41*ACV-014A&B
Relay Room
(CB El. 44')
2470
08/06/84 1X41*ACU-0148
Re1ay Room
(CB E1. 44')
2471
08/06/84 1X41*ACU-014A
Relay Room
(CB El. 44')
2472
08/06/84 1X61*ACU-007A
Control Room (CB E1. 63')
2473
08/06/84 IX61*ACU-007B
Control Room (CB El. 63')
2537
11/05/84 IX61*ACV-007A
Control Room (CB El. 63')
Typical nonconformances identified in the above LDRs were: weld
splatter, discontinuity, undercut, excessive convexity and lack of
fusion on structural members; cooling coil / air filter support braces
missing; various weld detail discrepancies with design drawings;
lower-strength bolting substitutions made on the inlet bell and its
support attachments. While these inspections were limited to
external welds and internal welds which were readily accessible, the
engineering disposition would address the adequacy of the remaining
welds without further inspections required.
In a follow-up to the licensee's corrective actions on the Bahnson's
HVAC equipment deficiencies, NRC Inspections 50-322/84-50 and 85-02
were conducted by the Resident Inspector.
Unresolved Item 84-29-01
was identified to permit NRC review of the seismic structural
calculations prepared by Corporate Consulting, Ltd. (CCL) for
Bahnson/Flakt to address the LDR-specific deficiencies for both the
welds inspected "as-built" as well as the inaccessible, " hidden",
Unresolved item 84-29-01 was updated in NRC Inspection Report
50-322/85-02.
The inspector reviewed the LDR's and expressed a con-
cern over the engineering disposition.
The concern related to the
fact that because of the relatively small number of welds inspected,
and the high number of deficiencier found, that either 1) the remain-
ing welds should be inspected or 2) satisfactory justification should
be provided for why further inspection is not necessary.
The item
remained unresolved pending NRC review of the licensee's final engi-
neering dispositions and seismic calculations.
, - . - .
__.
.=.
.
. _ - _ _ - _
.
.
.
.
.
4
.
i
The licensee reviewed the disposition of the LDR's and concluded
that upon satisfactory completion of the LDR reworks, the structural
integrity of Shoreham's Bahnson ACUS will not be compromised in
performing its intended safety function under design basis loads.
That conclusion was based upon additional calculations performed in
response to the inspectors concerns expressed in NRC Inspection
Report 85-02, as well as previous calculations.
The seismic calculations were performed assuming that the " hidden"
welds did not exist.
The calculations showed that with this assump-
tion the ACOs would still perform their intended safety function.
!
Non-conforming bolting material was replaced under LDR rework.
Based
'
on the inspectors eview of the seismic calculations, and the LDR
i
rework, this item is closed.
1.4 Closed 84-29-06:
Generic Letter 83-28, Salem ATWS Event
NRR review of Licensee Actions in response to Generic Letter 83-28
acknowledges that the facilities response to the NRC's concerns were
,
adequate. A letter dated April 9, 1986 from Walter R. Butler, BWR
1
Project No. 4 Directorate, Director Division of BWR Licensing to
John D. Leonard, Vice President Nuclear Operations, LILCO, documents
this satisfactory Licensee response.
This item is closed.
2.
Review of Facility Operations
i
2.1 Plant Status Summary
During the period covered by inspection report 86-10 the facility
remained in a shutdown condition while the licensee plugged
!
condenser tube leaks (See Section 9.0) and performed 18 month
surveillance activities.
2.2 Operational Safety Verification
l
The inspector toured the control room daily to verify proper shift
manning, use of and adherence to approved procedures, and compliance
with Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.
Control panel instrumentation and recorder traces were observed and
the status of annunciators was reviewed.
Nuclear instrumentation
and reactor protection system status were examined.
Radiation
monitoring instrumentation, including in plant Area Radiation
monitors and effluent monitors were verified to be within allowable
limits, and observed for indications of trends.
Electrical
distribution panels were examined for verification of proper lineups
of backup and emergency electrical power sources as required by the
Technical Specification.
.
l
,
-..
,
. - - -
,,.
., - , -
, -
-,n
--.
---a.-
,er
-, , --
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
5
The inspector reviewed Watch Engineer and Nuclear Station Operator
logs for adequacy of review by oncoming watchstanders, and for proper
entries. A periodic review of Night Orders, Maintenance Work
Requests, Technical Specification LCO Log, and other control room
logs and records were made.
Shift turnovers were observed on a
periodic basis.
The inspector also observed and reviewed the adequacy of access
controls to the Main Control Room, and verified that no loitering by
unauthorized personnel in the Control Room Area was permitted.
The
inspector observed the conduct of Shift personnel to ensure
adherence to Shoreham Procedures 21.001.01, " Shift Operations" and
21.004.01, " Main Control Room - Conduct for Personnel".
The inspector noted that on-shift personnel conducted themselves in
a dedicated and professional manner, and that watchstanding
personnel were fully aware of plant status and ongoing activities.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.3 Plant and Site Tours
The inspector conducted periodic tours of accessible areas of plant
and site throughout the inspection period. These included:
the
Turbine and Reactor Buildings, the Rad Waste Building, the Control
Building, the Screenwell Structure, the Fire Pump House, the
Security Building, and the Colt Diesel Generator Butiding.
During these tours, the following specific items were evaluated:
-
Fire Equipment - Operability and evidence of periodic
inspection of fire suppression equipment;
-
Housekeeping - Maintenance of required cleanliness levels;
-
Equipment Preservation - Maintenance of special precautionary
measures for installed equipment, as applicable;
-
QA/QC Surveillance - Pertinent act'vities were being surveilled
on a sampling basis by qualified QA/QC personnel;
-
Component Tagging - Implementation of appropriate equipment
tagging for safety, equipment protection, and jurisdiction;
-
Personnel adherence to Radiological Controlled Area rules,
including proper Personnel frisking upon RCA exit;
-
Access control to the Protected Area, including search
activities, escorting and badging, and vehicle access control;
l
l
. - _ _
_
_
-
.
.
._.
...
_
._ - _-
4
.
.
,
6
.
i
i
-
Integrity of the Protected Area boundary.
!
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
2.4 Administrative Matters
2.4.1
Review of Operations Committee (ROC)
Several Review of Operations Committee Meetings were
attended by the inspector during the inspection period.
'
During these meetings, the inspector verified the required
Technical Specification composition and quorum for the
committee. The inspector also verified that appropriate
reviews of safety evaluations and issues were presented.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
,
1
2.4.2
Plant Organizational Changes
'
During this inspection period, the following organizational
changes occurred:
Mr. Jeffrey L. Smith was appointed as Corporate
.
Director of Training, responsible for both nuclear
and fossil training.
Mr. Brian McCaffrey was appointed Manager, Nuclear
.
Operations Support Department, replacing Mr. Smith.
,
j
Mr. Chuck Daverio was appointed Assistant to the Vice
.
President-Nuclear Operations, replacing Mr.
i
l
McCaffrey.
!
!
Mr. Doug Crocker was appointed Section Head, Offsite
.
1
Emergency Preparedness Section, replacing Mr. W.
{
Renz, who resigned.
I
Mr. Gary Krieger was appointed Section Head, Onsite
1
.
Emergency Preparedness Section, replacing Mr.
Crocker.
Mr. Dennis Spencer, Section Head, Drill Scenario-and
.
Development Section, Emergency Preparedness Division,
resigned.
'
Mr. Mark Potkin was appointed as Modification
.
Engineer, Outage and Modifications Division,
replacing Mr. R. Gutman who was previously promoted
to the position of Manager, Nuclear Contracts &
Material Control Division.
!
- - - -
--.
- - - .
- - - - - - - .
.
. , . ~ - . -
- . - .
-
.-
-
. .-
. . - .
_
_
_ _ _ . _
.
.
.
7
.
3.
Licensee Reports
3.1 In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports
The inspector reviewed Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted to
the NRC to verify that details were clearly reported, including
accuracy of the cause description and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector determined whether further information was required
from the licensee, whetner generic implications were involved, and
.
whether the event warranted onsite follow-up. The following LERs
"
were rcviewed:
1
86-17
Source Leak Test not performed on a sealed source prior to
being put in use.
86-18
Unmonitored discharge of non-radioactive water (less than
minimum detectable activity) from the condensate storage
tank sump.
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
4.
Monthly Surveillance and Maintenance Observation
4.1 Surveillance Activities
The inspector observed the performance of various surveillance tests
to verify that; the surveillance procedure conformed to technical
specification requirements, administrative approvals and tagging
requirements were reviewed and approved prior to test initiation,
testing was accomplished by qualified personnel, current approved
procedures were used, test instrumentation was currently calibrated,
limiting conditions for operation were met, test data was accurately
,
and completely recorded, removal and restoration of affected
components was properly accomplished, and tests were completed
'
within the required Technical Specification frequency.
In the area of surveillance testing, the facility conducted an
extensive program to complete a large number of 18 month tests that
would have come due during the next three months.
This licensee
effort was conducted to ensure that no shutdowns would be necessary
to perform surveillances once the low power testing program is
resumed.
The bulk of the 18 month surveillances were performed on the
Emergency Diesel Generators including operating emergency diesel
lockout feature test, operating emergency diesel load reject test
from both rated and partial load, operating emergency diesel loss of
offsite power test, operating emergency diesel loss of offsite power
test with emergency core cooling system actuation and operating
,
emergency diesel generator 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> full load run.
-
-
.
.
-
..
_
_.
- _ -
- - - .
.
-.
.,
__
- _ .
J
.
.
.
8
In addition to 18 month diesel generator testing, the licensee also
conducted 18 month manual and automatic initiation tests of both
loops of the Core Spray, Low Pressure Coolant Injec. tion Mode of the
Residual Heat Removal System and Reactor Building Service Water
Pumps.
The inspectors monitored the performance of the following surveil-
lance items to ensure procedural compliance, system performance,
procedural adequacy and Technical Specification satisfaction:
24.307.01 Electrical Power Systems /AC Sources-Operating Emergency
Diesel Generator Load Test
24.307.02 Electrical Power Systems /AC Sources-Operating Emergency
Diesel Generator Test Mode Override Verification
-
24.307.03 Electrical Power Systems /AC Sources-Operating Emergency
Diesel Generator Load Reject Test
24.203.04 Electrical Power Systems /AC Sources-Operating Emergency
Diesel Generator Loss of Offsite Power with Emergency Core
Cooling System Actuation
24.307.02 Electrical Power Systems /AC Sources-Operating Emergency
Diesel Generator 24 Hour Run Test
24.203.04 Plant Systems / Reactor Building Service Water Automatic
Pump Start Operability Test
24.203.04 Plant Systems / Reactor Building Service Water Automatic
Valve Accident Signal Operability Test
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.2 Maintenance Activities
The inspector observed the conduct of various maintenance activities
throughout the inspection period.
During this observation, the in-
spector verified that; maintenance activities were conducted within
,
the requirements of the plant's administrative procedures and techni-
cal specifications, proper radiological controls were implemented and
observed, proper safety precautions were observed, and tnat activities
.
which have the potential to impact plant operations are properly co-
'
ordinated with the control room.
During the inspection period the following maintenance activities
)
were observed:
,
Main condenser tube leak repairs,
-
-
Repair to plant exhaust ventilation radiation monitor,
_ _ _ .
.
.
.._
. - , .
-
- _ _ . ,
-- - _ .
- . - . . - - - . . - - .
_ _ _ _ -
,
.
.
.
i
.
'
i
'
9
.
Electro-hydraulic control system pump removal, ins,allation and
-
l
system flushing, and
-
M-50 system chiller condenser tube cleaning
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
5.
Review and Followup of I&E Notices, Bulletins and Generic Letters
5.1 I&E Notices
The inspector reviewed notices issued by the Office of Inspection and
>
Enforcement during the inspection period.
Review was to determine;
if the subject of the notice was applicable to the Shorcham Nuclear
Power Station, and if followup of the licensee's action was required
by the inspector.
The following IE Information Notices were received during the period
covered by Inspection Report 86-10:
IE Notice No. 86-23:
Excessive Skin Exposure Due to
Contamination with Hot Particles.
IE Notice No. 86-24:
Respirator Users Notice:
Increased
!
Inspection Frequency for Certain Self-
contained Breathing Apparatus Air
Cylinders.
IE Notice No. 86-25:
Traceability and Material Control of
Material and Equipment, Particularly
Fasteners.
IE Notice No. 86-26:
Potential Problems In Generators
i
Manufactured by Electrical Products
Incorporated.
IE Notice No. 86-27:
Access Control at Nuclear Facilities.
IE Notice No. 86-29:
Effects of Changing Valve Motor-Operated
Switch Settings.
IE Notice No. 86-30:
Design Limitation of Gaseous Effluent
Monitoring Systems.
,
IE Notice No. 86-31:
Unauthorized Transfer and Loss
of Control of Industrial Nuclear Gauges.
IE Notice No. 86-32:
Request for Collection of Licensee
Radioactivity Measurements Attributed to
the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Accident.
. - -
. _ _ . - -
--
._-
.
--
-. .-
.
.
.
.
-
..=
.
.
10
.
IE Notice No. 86-34:
Improper Assembly, Material Selection and
Test of Valves and Their Actuators.
IE Notice No. 86-35:
Fire in Compressible Material at Dresden
Unit 3.
IE Notice No. 86-36:
Change in NRC Practice Regarding Issuance
of Confirming Letters to Principal
Contractors.
IE Notice No. 86-37:
Degradation of Station Batteries.
IE Notice No. 86-38:
Deficient Operator Actions Following Dual
Function Valve Failures.
IE Notice No. 86-39:
Failures of RHR Pump Motors and Pump
Internals.
IE Notices 86-26, 86-31, 86-36 and 86-39 are not applicable to
Shoreham.
Shoreham was the subject of IE Notice 86-34 and has
satisfactorily completed action to resolve the problems identified
in the notice.
Licensee response to all remaining notices will be
reviewed as part of future routine resident inspections.
6.
Survey of Licensee's Response to Selected Safety Issues
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's response to selected safety issues
in response to Temporary Instruction 2515/77.
Licensee response to
recommendations on reliability of high pressure coolant injection / reactor
core isolation cooling systems and on biological fouling of cooling
water heat exchangers were reviewed. The licensee has adequately
addressed the recommended actions.
The inspector had no further questions.
7.
Annual Review of Licensee Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program annual report for 1985. This report summarizes the
!
results of the sampling and analyses of environmental media to determine
,
the radiological impact of station operations. These environmental media
include air, water, vegetation, and aquatic plants and animals.
In
addition, direct radiation is monitored by-placement of thermoluminescient
i
i
dosimeters at various locations around the station,
l
As a result of this review, the inspector determined that the licensee has
{
generally complied with its environmental Technical Specification require-
1
ments for sampling frequencies, types of measurements, analytical sensi-
tivities, and reporting schedules.
Exceptions to the sampling and analysis
program were adequately explained, e.g., low air sample volume analyzed
due to sample pump power failure. The report included summaries of the
laboratory quality assurance program and of the land use survey.
I
.
-
-- .
-
-.-
_-
.
-
__
_ - _ - .
- _ _
-_
-.
=-
.
11
.
The analyses of environmental samples indicated that doses to humans from
radionuclides of station origin were negligible.
8.
Licensee Response to CAL 86-05 Dated March 21, 1986
In response to CAL 86-05 the licensee issued a 30-day letter dated April
18, 1986 outlining actions taken to correct deficiencies identified in
Special Inspection 50-322/86-03. This letter (SNRC-1249) provides
information requested by Item 4 in CAL 86-05 and is outlined below.
8.1 Vice President Nuclear Operations / Plant Manager Activities
Meetings were held between the Vice President Nuclear Operations,
Plant Manager and Local 1049 IBEW Representatives to emphasize the
importance the licensee places on the concept of personal
accountability and responsibility.
j
The Vice President Nuclear Operations and Plant Manager held a
5
meeting with facility foreman and line supervisors to encourage open
communication on matters effecting quality of safety. A meeting
emphasizing the same matters was also held with plant section heads.
The licensee has taken a more aggressive attitude in the personnel
recruitment area in an attempt to reduce the number of contractor
personnel filling supervisory positions.
Results of this effort are
not yet conclusive but a positive trend appears to be developing.
This is evidenced by the licensee's recruiting and hiring qualified
personnel to fill three supervisory positions within the
i
Radiochemistry Department.
In addition to filling these supervisory
positions the licensee has been able to successfully recruit five
technicians to fill vacant positions.
Plant Manager directives have been issued in an effort to increasing
management attention and responsiveness to quality assurance audit
findings, improving administrative control over personnel training
and qualification programs, establishing a personnel resources
report that will enable the plant manager and Vice Fresident Nuclear
,
Operations to be better appraised of vacancies and personnel
transfers, and improving observations of work being performed in the
plant by division managers and section heads.
8.2 Quality Assurance Actions
!
In the Quality Assurance area, an action plan has been developed
instituting programmatic changes, audit actions and quality
assurance training improvements designed to remedy the problems
identifi J by Inspection 86-03 of the radiochemistry area.
Programmatic changes have been made within the Quality Assurance
,
process to ensure a timely resolution of quality concerns. At the
direction of the Quality Assurance Manager changes were instituted
.
_
_ _ .
. .
__
.
.
.
__
.
_ _ - - -
_.
__
.
.
.
12
-
'
to increase the distribution of QA Audit Reports to all department
managers regardless of the audit area, in an attempt to increase
interdepartmental attention.
Format changes in the Quarterly Trend
i
'
Analysis Report, Quarterly Audit Finding Summary and Quality
Assurance Open Item List have been made to increase the usefulness
,
of these reports. These changes should assist management in keeping
abreast of outstanding Quality Assurance Open Items, timeliness of
response, response acceptability and potential for adverse trend.
The licensee contracted an independent assessment of the facility
Quality Assurance Program. The audit assessment report was
j
presented to the Nuclear Review Board on April 18, 1986.
In the audit area, two audit related actions have taken place in
response to Special Inspection 86-03.
A Quality Assurance audit of
the Health Physics Section was performed and findings have been
discussed with the lead auditor, the Health Physics Engineer and the
Radiological Controls Division Manager. The results of this audit
report can be found in Inspection Report 86-07.
In addition to the
above audit the QA Division Manager moved up scheduled Nuclear Review
Board Training Audit and QA Training Audits to April from their
originally scheduled dates. The Training and Qualification audit
was conducted by a twelve man audit team that expended over 1,000
man hours in audit preparation and conduct.
The audit indicated
proper qualification of personnel with no problems similar to the
4
qualification deficiencies identified in the radiochemsitry area
(See Inspection Report 86-03 for further details).
However, the
audit report did result in 35 audit findings and 19 observations
spanning all areas from program / procedure development through record
keeping. As a result of these findings the audit report recommended
further management attention be applied in the training and
qualification area to assure timely resolution of these audit
findings and observations.
Actions have been or will be taken in the QA training area to enhance
the activities of Quality Assurance personnel conducting audits.
4
QA auditors will receive or have already completed training in Health
,
Physics, Radiochemistry, Operations and Radwaste operations. This
training should enable the Quality Assurance auditors to improve
their technique in these areas.
8.3 Training Actions
The Vice President Nuclear Operations ordered an immediate update of
all qualification and training records in response to findings in
Special Inspection 86-03. As part of this effort all qualification
file folders have been updated and a qualification matrix performed.
In the future these files will be updated on a monthly basis until
software changes can be made to allow training records to be placed
in a computer data base at which time updating will be maintained
continually.
,
- . . - -
,,
ov--
p ---. ,
,,a
>_
,n--
, , , ., -
- . , _
-
.,_
_ -_
.
.
_
-_
"I(p
- *
'
,
13
This inspector has no further questions.
9.
Condenser Tube Leaks
During late April the licensee noted a gradual increase in condensate
system conductivity and chloride concentration, indicative of condenser
seawater inleakage.
Further investigation using installed conductivity-
elements indicated inleakage in three of four condenser quadrants with
only the 'B' quadrant showing no indication of leakage.
<
The facility opened the waterboxes that indicated leakage and performed
soap tests on the tubesheets.
Soap bubble testing indicated that the
'A'
quadrant had 10 leaks, the 'C' quadrant had 28 leaks and the 'D' quadrant
had 22 leaks.
The leaks were found to be at the tube /tubesheet interface
and all leaking tubes were characterized by a small bulge or bubble on
the inner tube surface.
The bulges appeared uniform in size and shape
being approximately one-eighth inch high, one-third inch wide and three-
quarter inch long.
4
A complete mapping of all tubes indicated approximately two hundred tubes
had the same bulge formation and all were subsequently plugged to stop
known leaks and preclude any further leaks from bulged tubes.
In an attempt to identify the cause of the bulging a tube was cut to
determine if a chemical reaction was occurring between the titanium tubes
and the munz metal (admiralty brass) tube sheet. There was no evidence
of corrosion at the tube /tubesheet interface and this mechanism has been
eliminated. One additional tube was removed, with the bulge intact, and
shipped to an independent metallurgical laboratory in hopes of
determining the mechanism by which the bulges are formed. The results
of that analysis are not yet available.
j
The condenser is currently in service and no additional tube leakage is
'
evident.
10. Management Meetings
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings
were held with licensee management to discuss the scope and findings
of this inspection.
Based on NRC Region I review of this report, and discussions with
licensee representatives, it was determined that this report does
not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restrictions.
The inspectors also attended entrance and exit interviews for
inspections conducted by region-based inspectors during the period.
l
-. -
.--
. . . _ . _ _
-.
_
, . - - -
-.
.
_ _ _ - - _ - .
--
. _ . , - _ _ , - . . - , - .