IR 05000297/1988003

Insp Rept 50-297/88-03 on 880523-26.Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Recent Activities to Reduce & Monitor Pool Leakage & Completed Biennial Insp of Licensee

ML20195J412
Person / Time
Site:	North Carolina State University
Issue date:	06/09/1988
From:	Burnett E, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195J330	List: IR 05000297/1988003 ML20195J325 ML20195J364
References
50-297-88-03, 50-297-88-3, NUDOCS 8806290129
Download: ML20195J412 (6)

Text

___- ____ ____ -

wn

.g" 4 UNITED STATES g ,j f NUCLEAR REGULATOR,1 REGION 1 Y COMMISSION o,

g +,,,, j[ , 101 MARIETTA ST., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report No.: 50-297/88-03 Licensee: North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27607 Docket No.: 50-297 License No.: R-120 Facility Name: North Carolina State University Inspection Conducted: May 23 - 26, 1988 Inspecton: M_ - !

. T. Burnett

'

[/ / Date Signed

&

Approved by: A6M t> kff[

F. Jape, Section Chief / f Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection completed the biennial inspection of North Carolina State University, Class Il research reacto Recent activities to reduce and monitor pool leakage were reviewe Results: Two action items and one violation were identifie Inspector Followup Item 297/88-03-01: Establish Administrative procedures to require that non-intent changes to any RPC-approved procedure be reviewed by the RPC within sixty days - Paragraph Unresolved Item 297/88-0?-02: The issue of full implementation of the operator requalification program is unresolved pending receipt of more infonnation from the licensee - Paragraph Violation 297/88-03-03: An interval of over ten months elapsed between RSAG meeting TS 6.2.7 requires RSAG meet at least every six calendar months - Paragraph $$k G

Och $[

- . . , . . . - - _ _ _ - .. - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -

,

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees S. J. Bilyj, Chief of Reactor Maintenance T. L. Brackin, Reactor Safety Specialist

• T. C. Bray, Reactor Operations Manager

• K. V. Mani, Reactor Health Physicist

• D. Miller, Associate Director Nuclear Reactor Program

• .

W. Morgan, Radiation Protection Officer

• H.. Palmour III, Chairman,' Reactor Safeguards Advisory Group Other licensee employees contacted included Nuclear Engineering Department faculty, operators, and office personne * Attended exit interview Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragrap . Initial Interview and Facility Tour Inanediately upon arrival on sito, the inspector received a briefing from management on the activities conducted to identify and isolate the leaks in the reactor pool liner and the sump drain line. Video tapes of the inspection of the liner by hydrophone were reviewed. The audio signal gave an obvious hissing sound in the vicinity of a raised area about one-quarter inch in diameter, in the south spent fuel pit. This area is now called the wart. The licensee stated this was the only leak identi-fied following a 100% survey of the liner by hydrophone. Another area of visible deposits about three inchet square, now called the growth, was cbserved in the same pi It shows no signs of leaking, and has been tentatively identified by a material scientist as corrosion products from foreign material in the surface of a weld. Another video tape showed a cloth thread being sucked f ato the hole in the wart. The hole was not visible in the picture, but the motion of the thread into the hole was clear and obviou The inspector also inspected the prototype of the hole-sealing device used to temporarily cover the wart witn a neoprene seal. The in-place device and the growth were observed in the pool using binocular The licensee's periodic surveillance of the hole sealing device revealed that the closed-cell neoprene 'in use tended to collapse after extended, more than two week, exposure to the twenty-seven foot pool head. The first

neoprene device has been replaced with identical closed-cell material.

'

The next replacement will be with open cell material, which is not expected to exhibit the same response to pool pressur L-

.

. Records Review Review of Operating Logs and Records The operations log was reviewed for the period February 17, 1988 to May 23, 198 During the ieriod February 27 to May 2,1988, the reactor was shutdown to attend to leaks in the reactor pool liner and the reactor building sump dischargc line. On May 2, the reactor was restarted. The ECP was rods banked at 16.9 inches, and the ACP was rods banked at 16.7 inches, which was acceptable agreemen Incorporated in the log for May 2, 1988 was the Fuel Movement Checklist for Biennial Fuel Inspection Per PS-40-7:51 and Dose Rate Measurements Around Core and South Storage Pit. All fuel assemblies on the grid were removed to either the fuel storage pits or the storage rack Graphite reflector assemblies were removed one-at-a-time, inspected for swelling or cracking, and returned to the gri Fuel assemblies were then visually inspected one-by-one and returned to the gri That inspection was limited to the condition of the assembly box surface and the screws attaching the bales, grids and nose pieces to the box. No inspection was r.ade for flow channel plugging, but the licensee stated that operators are trained to observe the flow channels when working over the core duri g operatio The Cherenkov illumination is better for that May 5, 198 The review of operating parameters revealed no discrepant entries for the period ending May 23, 198 Entries are made in the Primary Water Inventory Log every working day. The gross leakage is determined from the change in reactor pool level and then adjusted for estimated evaporative losses and measured losses from the reactor coolant pump seal. Averaged over the last 18 entries, the unidentified leakage is less than 2.2 gallons per da Procedure Changes TS 6.3 b requires that temporary changes to procedures that do not change the original intent of the procedure be reviewed subsequently by the RPC. The Operations Manual has a requirement that non-intent changes to its procedures be reviewed by the RPC within sixty days, but a similar limit for changes to surveillance, maintenance. and special procedures ha; not been specified. As a result, some nor.-intent changes to some of the SMPs discussed later in this report had not been reviewed within sixty days of the changes. At the exit interview, the licensee made a commitment to establish administrative procedures to require that non-intent changes to any RPC-approved procedure be reviewed by the RPC within sixty days (Inspector Followup Item 297/88-03-01).

.

1<I

< 3

,

.

F5 Requalification Training Review of the operatcr license requalification program records ,

'

identified f.ifteen lectures that had been presented in the~two years beginning May 1986. Those lectures did not appear to address all of .

the topics listed in . the approved requalification program. The

. person responsible for. tne program was absent due to illness, and others were not familiar with his record system. Hence, the issue of full implementation of the operator requalification program -is ,

unresolved pending receipt of more inTormation from the licensee '

(UnresolvedItem 297/88-03-02). Maintenance Activities

.

The leaks in the reactor pool liner and drain line were discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-287/88-01. To identify the leak locations .

f and to effect the neces5ary repairs, the following special procedures were written, approved by NRP management and the RPC, and performed by the NRP staff:

(1) SMP#PL-1, Procedure for Removing Primary Cold Leg Lagging in Reactor Building Air Intake Area, was completed on March 15, 198 (2) SMP#PL-2, Procedure for Excavating Primary Cold Leg Piping in Vicinity of Reactor Building Air Intake Backfill Retaining Wall, was completed on March 16, 198 (3) SMP#PL-3, Procedure for Reactor Pool Liner Visual Inspection with Underwater Camera, was completed on March 22, 198 In a test of resolution, it was determined that the camera could resolve holes drilled in an aluminum plate as small as 0.015in -

when immersed in water. .Two suspect areas were identified for further investigatio (4) SMP#PL-4, Procedure for Acoustic Inspection of Reactor Pool Liner Surface, was completed on March 23, 1988 Only one leakage path 1:as identified in the pool liner. It was in the south fuel storage pit in a defect now called the wart. There were two deviations from the written approved procedure as performed: The nicrophone was not wrapped in a polyethylene sleeve because it increased the background noise and the microphone was not attached to a handling tool because it was not neede (5) SMP#PL-5 and SMP#PL-6 were not issued for performanc {

(6) SMP#PL-7, Procedure for Excavating and Repairing the Sump Transfer Piping, was completed on March 23, 1988. This proce-dure led only to the temporary repair of the piping, and the i

r

_. _ _ - _ __

.

.

details of the repair were not provided in the documentatio However, a photographic record was maintained of the excavation and_ the temporary repairs, which were perfonned by-the univer-sity maintenance department.- The temporary fix was used only to

service facility laboratory drain The final repair is-

~ discussed in subparagraph e. belo (7) SMP#PL-8, Procedure for Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Pool Liner Surfaces was completed on March 23, 1988. This was a sampling

' rather than a 100% inspection. All surface areas tested showed full thickness of liner aluminum. The test did not provide interpretable results in the area of welds or at the wart; since a smooth surface is required. The inspection was performed by Nuclear Energy Services Inc., and was witnessed by an NDE specialist from CP& (8) SMPfPL-9, Installation Procedure for the Primary Tank Hole-Sealing Device, was completed on April 15, 1988. The hole-sealing device is called a dam in other licensee record On drawing 6401, it is called the pool tank plug assembly, Design Changes Design change 88-01, Reactor Building Sump Line Replacement, was necessitated by a leak 'in the the original Duriron pipe, which had failed under externally applied stress and provided a path for leakage of reactor waste water to the environment. The replacement piping was polypropylene, which had a demonstrated capability to

.

t

- withstand any chemicals which might be present in the laboratory waste that also passed through the line. As part of the modifica-tion. a new isolation valve was installed in the line adjacent to the waste tank vault and a testing tee was installed in the line in tne reactor building sump. These changes along with the existing isolation valve in the sump make it possible to pressure test the line to moniter its integrit That test was performed successfully before the trcnch containing the pipe was backfilled. Drawing N was revised to reflect the changes. The modification was approved by both RSAG and RPC.

! Committees l

Review of RPC minutes for the two-ynar period preceding this inspec-tion confirmed that meetings were held with the required quarterly

- frequenc The minutes contained records of reviews of PULSTAR operations, procedures, and inspection results.

l

,

Review of the RSAG minutes for period December 1985 to February 1988 l

showed that six routine meetings had been held in the period, of which five were to discuss appraisals of the PULSTAR facility and operations. Only one meeting was held in calendar year 1987, on

\

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___-_______ ___ _______ -_ _ __

.

.

.

April 7, and the next meeting was held February 26, 1988, an interval of over ten months. Since TS 6.2.7' requires' RSAG meet at least every -

six calendar months, this extended interval has been identified as a

- violation (VIO 297/88-03-03).

'

Since the discovery of the leaks in'the pool liner and the sump drain line, RSAG has held five meetings on that issue and appears' to functioning as an effective advisory and oversight grou . Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 26, 1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and- discussed in detail the inspection findings. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio . Acronyms and Initialisms

ACP- - actual critical position CP&L - Carolina Power and Light Company ECP - estimated critical position NDE - nondestructive examination NRP - Nuclear Reactor Project (The University's reactor operating ,

organization)

RPC - Radiation Protection Council '

RSAG - Reactor Safeguards Advisory Group SMP - special maintenance procedure SMP#PL - special maintenance procedure related to pool leakage problems i TS - Technical Specifications t

1 i

.

,

.

I

' _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,