|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams | | {{Adams |
| | number = ML20207J471 | | | number = ML20210A476 |
| | issue date = 12/22/1986 | | | issue date = 01/30/1987 |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-400/86-87 on 861020-1120.Violation Noted: Failure to Follow Procedure While Performing Tech Spec Verification.Unresolved Item Re Clearance Tagging of Safety Injection Sys Identified | | | title = Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-400/86-87-01 |
| | author name = Burris S, Fredrickson P, Maxwell G | | | author name = Verrelli D |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| | addressee name = | | | addressee name = Utley E |
| | addressee affiliation = | | | addressee affiliation = CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| | docket = 05000400 | | | docket = 05000400 |
| | license number = | | | license number = |
| | contact person = | | | contact person = |
| | document report number = 50-400-86-87, NUDOCS 8701080468 | | | document report number = NUDOCS 8702060480 |
| | package number = ML20207J429 | | | title reference date = 01-19-1987 |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE |
| | page count = 6 | | | page count = 1 |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:r | | {{#Wiki_filter:_ |
| *
| | -- |
| .
| | l' its JAN 3 o m7 Carolina Power and Light Company LATTH: Mr. E. E. Utley Senior Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC - 27602 Gentlemen: |
| UNITED STATES
| | SUBJECT: REPORT N0(S). 50-400/86-87-01 Thank you for your response of January 19, 1987, to our Notice of Violation, issued on December 23, 1986, concerning activities conducted at your Shearon Harris facility. We have evaluated your response and found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the implementation of your corrective actions during future inspection We appreciate your cooperation in this matte |
| ,[p [ figb o f4UCLEAR REGU.LATORY COMMISSION g
| |
| [ "nj' REGION li 101 MARIETTA STREET. * e ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
| |
| \...../
| |
| Report No.: 50-400/86-87 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602-Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-53 Facility Name: Harris 1 Inspection C nducted: ' October 20 - November 20, 1986 Inspectors: _ .
| |
| -
| |
| jw l,
| |
| l1 !22 %
| |
| G 3F. Maxwel
| |
| . i Date Signed ek 12f22f86, SqP.Burris - Date' Signed Approved by: [ .
| |
| '
| |
| 12f22/f6 P\ E. Fredrickson, Section Chief Date' Signed DiNision of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope: This routine,- ar.nounced inspection involved inspection in the areas of Emergency Preparedness Drill, Technical Specification Compliance, Initial Fuel Loading and other activitie Results: One violation wa's identified - " Failure to Follow Procedure While Performing Technical Specification Verification", paragraph No deviations were identified. One unresolved item was identified " Clearance Tagging of the Safety Injection System", paragraph %h PDR G
| |
|
| |
|
| -
| | Sincerely, cay,1NAt. SIGNED BY DAVID M VERREl David M. Verrelli, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects cc: @. A. Watson, Vice President Harris Nuclear Project g l. Tibbitts, Director of Regulatory Compliance J. L. Willis, Plant General Manager bec:p.Barth,OGC M Moore, 0GC JRRC Resident Inspector Document Control Desk State of North Carolina RII |
| .
| | . . |
| REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted
| | elle :jd Fred ckson DVerrelli 30/87 /z56 /87 1/ /87 8702060480 870130 PDR ADOCK 05000400 ( O Q PDR gg |
| . Licensee Employees J. M. Collins, Manager, Operations G. L. Forehand, Director, QA/QC J. L. Harness, Assistant Plant General Manager, Operations C. S. Hinnant, Manager, Start-up L. I. Loflin, Manager, Harris Plant Engineering Support C. H. Moseley, Manager, Operations QA/QC G. A. Myer, General Manager, Milestone Completion M. F. Thompson, Jr., Manager, Engineering Management D. L. Tibbitts, Director, Regulatory Compliance R. B. Van Metre, Manager, Harris Plant Maintenance R. A. Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project J. L. Willis, Plant General Manager, Operations Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, engineering personnel and office personne . Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 24, 1986, with the Plant General Manager, Operations. No written material was provided to the licensee by the resident inspectors during this reporting period. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the resident inspectors during this inspection. The violation identified in this report have been discussed in detail with the license The licensee acknowledged the findings without exceptio . Emergency Preparedness Drill (943008, 92719)
| |
| On October 28, 1986, the inspectors observed portions of an emergency exercise drill conducted by the license The drill was conducted to l demonstrate the licensee's capabilities in the following areas:
| |
| -
| |
| Ability to assemble the emergency organization within the allotted time;
| |
| -
| |
| Test the licensee's correct classification of the emergency scenarios;
| |
| - | |
| Test the licensee's ability to communicate with state and county authorities;
| |
| -
| |
| Test the licensee's ability to provide adequate support facilities during the drill conditions; l
| |
| i
| |
| -- .-_ -
| |
| - - . __- - . . _ - -
| |
| | |
| - | |
| . | |
| | |
| -
| |
| Test the capability of the radiation protection, fire protection and rescue personnel to provide on-site aid at the drill locatio The drill started at about 3:00 p.m. , in the waste process building, and at about 6:00 p.m., a site general emergency was declared. At about 8:00 p.m.,
| |
| the drill condition was downgraded to a site emergency and was completed at about 9:00 During the entire drill scenario, personnel from Region II and assigned CP&L coordinators evaluated the licensee's performance. The results of the Region II inspectors' findings will be documented in another repor No violations or deviations were identifie . Technical Specification Compliance (71501C) During the week of November 2,1986, the inspectors reviewed records and interviewed personnel to verify that work was accomplished in accordance with approved procedures, Technical Specifications and codes and standards. This evaluation involved CP&L maintenance activities during the conduct of maintenance surveillance testing (MST) on the solid state protection system logic of the safety injection system The tests were identified as MST-I-001, Train A Solid State Protection System Actuation Logic and Master Relay Test; and MST-I-0320, Train B Solid State Protection System Actuation Logic and Master Relay Test, which verified proper performance of the actuation logic, master relay test and permissive indication. These tests were performed to satisfy the initial surveillance requirements of Technical Specifications Section 4.3.2.1, Table 4.3-2, Section 4.3.1.1, Table 4.3- Upon successful completion of the Train A test, the maintenance techni-cian completed the test sections of MST-I-0320 for Train B. During the restoration section, 7.7, he failed to require the control operator to verify that the B Train safety injection signals were blocb;d. The technician informed the inspectors that since the A Train blocks had not been affected by conducting the A Train MST, he assumed that the B Train blocks had also not been affected when he performed the B Train MS However, when the technician placed the " Input Error Inhibit" switch to the " Normal" position, a safety injection signal was initiated, because the block signals were not isolated, causing the B sequencer to cycle and start the aligned B Train equipment. The plant alignment was such that no emergency core cooling systems discharged into the reactor vessel, due to both the safety injection and the residual heat removal pumps being tagged out of service for other maintenance activitie The technician and operators took immediate corrective actions to restore the emergency diesel generator sequencer and systems to their normal state. The inspectors were informed by the licensee that this inadvertent initiation of safety injection did not result in any damage to plant equipmen .
| |
| | |
| , -
| |
| | |
| Failure to verify that the blocks for safety injection signals were in effect is a violation of MST-I-0320, Section 7.7.3, which requires that the technician direct the operator to attempt to reinstate the manual blocks by actuating the appropriate block switches on the Main Control Boar This item is identified as a violation, " Failure to Follow Procedure While Performing Technical Specification Verification",
| |
| 50-400/86-87-0 The inspectors reviewed and evaluated the conditions which resulted in an inadvertent initiation of safety injection on November 7,198 The safety injection was initiated when two of the four process instru-mentation cabinets (PICS) were simultaneously de-energized. A review of the licensee's control wiring diagrams and drawings indicated that when two out of four PICS are de-energized at the same time, a safety injection signal is generated in both A and B safety actuation trains. Although the licensee's operations personnel investigated and issued clearances For the identified items (both inverters for the "B" train), they assumed since the "B" train safety injection actuation system had been defeated there would be no safety injection signal generated. However, when a PIC is de-energized it automatically sends a signal to the opposite trai Since both of the PICS were de-energized on the "B" train, it met the required signal generation requirements for a safety injeccion initiatio Due to the nature and extent of this item the inspectors are in the process of obtaining additional information to determine whether or not there is a violation of any regulatory requirements or commitment This item is identified as an unresolved item, " Clearance Tagging of the Safety Injection System", 50-400/86-87-0 Except as noted, no violations or deviations were identifie Initial Fuel Loading (72524C)
| |
| | |
| '
| |
| On October 24, 1986, CP&L wa) issued a license for low power testing and operation. The license authvizes CP&L to load fuel and operate at up to five percent of reactor power?. Authorization to operate beyond five percent power is still under consider:1 tion by NR During the week of November 17, 1986, the inspectors evaluated the licensee's implementation of procedures and activities as they related to initial fuel loadin Portions of the evaluation included review of Start-up Procedure 9101-S01 and verifitption of its implementation in the control room, the containment buildin[aand in the fuel handling building. Those points which were witnessed by tM inspectors included the following:
| |
| -
| |
| Test prerequisites and initial conditions were me >
| |
| -
| |
| There was sufficient staffing, both operators and technicians, to properly implement the procedur . - . -. - .. ..
| |
| . m
| |
| | |
| -
| |
| The correct revision of the procedure was being use The results and observations by the technicians and operators were being properly recorde Water chemistry was being controlled and documented according to procedural requirement The primary concerns were boron concentra-tions being measured at the appropriate intervals and satisfying the requirements of the Technical Specifications and procedure Radiation monitoring instruments were in satisfactory working condition and were being properly used during fuel loadin Shift turnover was observed to assure compliance with administrative procedure Control room, fuel handling building and the refueling floor personnel maintained the refueling status board curren The inspectors evaluated the various control room logs for a period of time ,
| |
| preceding fuel loading and routinely during the fuel loading operation The fuel loading was satisfactorily completed on or about 2:00 a.m., on November 21, 1986.
| |
| | |
| .
| |
| During this period, a Region II inspection specialist (fuel / refueling loading) conducted an inspection during new fuel loading operations. The residents assisted the regional inspector during selected portions of his inspection. These activities will also be documented in a Region II inspection report 50-400/86-8 No violations or deviations were identifie . Other Activities (60502C and 71501C) The inspectors conducted routine tours of the facility to make an independent assessment of equipment conditions, plant conditions, security, and adherence to regulatory requirements. The tours included a general observation of plant areas to determine if fire hazards existed; observation of activities in progress (e.g., maintenance, preoperational testing, etc.) to determine if they were being conducted in accordance with approved procedures; and observation of activities which could damage installed equipment or instrumentation. The tours also included evaluation of system cleanness controls and a review of the logs maintained by test groups to identify problems that may be appropriate for additional follow-u During the week of November 17, 1986, a Reg'on II team inspection was conducted at the Harris site. The areas evaluated by the team included:
| |
| electrical separation, preoperational testing of the emergency diesel generator sequencer, design changes and modifications affecting the
| |
| -_ -
| |
| _- - -_ _ . -_
| |
| | |
| _ ___ _ _ _ _ . __ _ . _ . . _ __._. _
| |
| # . .
| |
| i l
| |
| - | |
| i 5' l l
| |
| l sequencer and follow-up on previously identified enforcement item l The results of the team inspection will be documented in report 50-400/86-8 During the week of November 17, 1986, the licensee commenced fuel load as' directed by the previously issued low power license. Fuel load was completed in under four days. Details of the actual fuel load and any identified problems will be discussed in a regional inspection report, 50-400/86-89, which will be issued subsequent to this repor No violations or deviations were identifie I
| |
| !
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| l J
| |
| }} | | }} |
