ML20150C257

Insp Rept 50-267/88-12 on 880501-31.Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Ler Review, Monthly Maint Observation,Monthly Surveillance Observation, Radiological Protection & Monthly Security Observation

ML20150C257
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	06/21/1988
From:	Farrell R, Heitner K, Michaud P, Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150C219	List: ML20150C216 ML20150C242 ML20150C257
References
50-267-88-12, NUDOCS 8807120380
Download: ML20150C257 (12)

See also: IR 05000267/1988012

Text

. _ . _

.

..

'

.

l

APPENDIX B

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt!!SSION

REGION IV

i

'

NRC Inspection Report:

50-267/88-12

License: DPR-34

.

Docket:

50-267

Licensee: Public Service Company of Colorado ~ (PSC)

.

Facility Name:

Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating StationE

<

'

,

-

Inspection At:

Fort St. Vrain (FSV) Nuclear Generating Station, Platteville,

-Colorado

Inspection Conducted: May 1-3 , 1988

'

,

-

<

~

'

JJtO

'

8" M

Inspectors:

-

-

-R. E. Farrell Senior Resident Inspector (SRI)

Date

f

$ n>0

77

h/AQ

P. W. McliTu'd, ResTden

nTpector (RI)

Tate'

,

h

M

4 - 20 '8J'

K. L. Heitner, NRR Project Manager

Date

r

'

Approved:

7' [.

_

6 -7/-W

T. F. Westerman, Chief

.Date

Reactor Projects Section B

i

i

8807120380 000706

ADOCK0500g7

PDR

.

d

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

-

.

,

.

2

Inspection Summary

Inspection Conducted May 1-31, 1988 (Report 50-267/88-12)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of operational safety

verification, licensee event report review, monthly maintenance observation,

monthly surveillance observation, radiological protection, and monthly security

observation.

Results: Within the six areas-inspected, no violations were identified.

One deviation was identified in paragraph 3.

,

1

,, , .,-

- - -

,

- - . . - - -

-

.

. - - , , -

--

-

,-e

,. --

.

.

--

- -.

...

.

.

.

-

.-

.

,

F

.

3

'

')

DETAILS-

1.

Persons Contacted

PSC

D. Alps, Supervisor, Security

• M. Block, Systems Engineering Manager

• F. Borst, Nuclear Training Manager

• L. Srey, Manager, Nuclear Licensing and Resources

• M. Cappello, Central Planning and Scheduling Manager

• R. Craun, Nuclear Engineering Manager

D. Evans, Superintendent, Operations

a'

• M. Ferris, QA Operations Manager

i

• C. Fuller, Manager, Nuclear Production-

.

• J. Gramling, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing Operations

"

,

• M. Holmes, Nuclear Licensing Manager

• F. Novachek, Nuclear Support Manager'

.

'

• R. Sargent, Assistant to Vice President', Nuclear Operations

>

• L. Scott, QA Services Manager

• N. Snyder, Maintenance Department Manager

• P. Tomlinson, Manager, QA

R. Walker, Chairman of the Board and CEO

• D. Warembourg, Manager, Nuclear Engineering

• R. Williams Jr. , Vice President, Nuclear Operations

W. Woodard, Health Physicist

The NRC inspectors also contacted other licensee and contractor personnel

during the inspection.

~

• Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted June 9,1988.

~

,

.

'

2.

Plant Status

The reactor was operating at 80 percent power level at the close of the

.

inspection period.

The reactor was critical 31 percent of the inspection

!

period with turbine generator capacity factor of 13.8 percent for the

inspection period.

The reactor scrammed-on May 6,1988, following a

helium circulator trip caused by a control systems malfunction.

The

reactor was again taken critical on May 18.

The turbine generator was

returned to service May 26.

The reactor was run below turbine generator

service levels from May 18-26, 1988, for reactor coolant cleanup.

i

During the inspection period the licensee implemented a.reorganizution of

its nuclear operations.

This ha, been a much talked about reorganization,

which has been in the planning stage for almost 2 years. The NRC

inspectors will closely monitor licensee's activities as the reorganization

takes effect.

,

.

T

r

- -

-

-

-

-

-

- . - .

.-.

.

-

-

- -

- -

.

.

-

..

_.

_

__

_

..

-

.

.

_

.-

.

,

,

'

4

3.

. Operational Safety Verification (71707)

The NRC inspectors reviewed' licensee activities to ascertain that the

facility is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory

requirements and that the licensee's management control system is

effectively discharging its responsibilities for continued safe operation.

The NRC inspectors toured the control room on a daily basis during' normal

working hours and at least twice weekly during backshift hours. -The

reactor operator and shif t supervisor logs and Technical Specification

compliance logs were reviewed daily.

The'NRC inspectors observed proper

control room staffing at all times and verified operators were attentive

and adhered to approved procedures.

Control room instrumentation was -

observed by the NRC inspectors and the operability of the plant protective

system and nuclear instrumentation system were verified by the NRC

inspectors on each control room tour.

Operator awareness.and

understanding of abnormal or alarm conditions was verified.

The NRC

inspectors reviewed the operations order book, operations deviation

report (0DR) log, clearance log, and temporary configuration report-(TCR)

log to note any out-of-scrvice safety-related systems and to verify

compliance with Technical Specification requirements.

The licensee's management representatives were observed in the control

room on a daily basis prior to the beginning of the day shift.

The NRC inspectors verified the operability of a safety-related system on

j

a weekly basis.

The reserve shutdown system, helium purification system,

prestressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV) penetration purge flow, and

control rod drive motors and purge flows were verified operable by the NRC

inspectors during this report period.-

During plant tours, particular

attention was paid to components of these systems to verify valve

positions, p wer supplies, and instrumentation were correct for current

plant conditions.

Shift turnovers were observed at least weekly.by the NRC inspectors.

The-

information flow appeared to'be good, with the shift supervisors routinely

soliciting comments or concerns from reactor operators, equipment

operators, and auxiliary tenders.

The NRC inspectors responded to the control room following a reactor scram

on May 6, 1988.

The scram occurred after "B" helium circulator tripped

due to an upset in the Loop 1 bearing water surge tank.

Approximately

2 minutes later a reactor scram on high hot reheat steam temperature

occurred.

This was due to a failure of the cold reheat steam

attemperation flow to automatically increase following the circulator

trip. .Following the trip it was discovered that the hot reheat

temperature signal supplied to the overall plant control. system had

,

!

drifted such t N t it was reading 35 F below actual hot reheat steam

,

a

-

, - -. ,. _, _

.-

, , . . .

w

.- .

.-

.;

.

,

5

temperature.

The plant protective system, which was verified to have been

reading actual hot reheat steam temperature, thus saw the actual hot

reheat steam temperature reach the scram setpoint before the control

system detected anything abnormal.

Because of recent problems with radioactive releases via the core support

floor vent following a plant trip, the reactor _ operators were attempting

to reduce primary coolant pressure as fast as reasonably possible

following the trip.

The rate at which the primary coolant was being

vented exceeded the capacity of the low temperature absorber in the helium

purification system.

This caused the low temperature absorber.to heat up

and off gas into the coolant which was being vented into the helium

storage bottles.

The off gassing of radioactive noble gases resulted in

radiation 1. ab a high as 125 mr/hr in the helium storage bottle area,

which was quickly posted as a high radiation area.

The NRC inspectors

verified the dose rate at the posted boundaries was within the

requirements of 10 CFR 20.202.

The situation was quickly recognized and

the rate of primary coolant depressurization was reduced.

It was

subsequently determined that the corrective actions taken to address the

problem with the core support floor vent were successful in precluding the

need to rapidly depressurize the PCRV.

During the PCRV depressurization, the operating purified helium compressor

tripped.

This resulted in a loss of buffer helium wakeup which, in turn,

resulted in a small amount of primary coolant flowing down the shaft of

"C" and "D" helium circulators.

This primary coolant then mixed with

bearing water and ended up in the reactor building.

It was subsequently

released to the atmosphere via the plant vent stack.

The reactor building

atmosphere was measured at 3.6 E-8 microcuries per CC, and the accumulated

dose at the site boundary was calculated to be 1.94 E-7 Rems.

The NRC inspectors were in the control room immediately following the

reactor scram and remained there until the plant was stabilized.

The

licensee's operations personnel were observed to be in control of the

plant at all times and responded to the event in a professiunal manner.

The licensee in a power ascension on May 26, 1988, experienced difficulty

in stroking valves HV-2292 and HV-2293.

These valves are hydraulically

operated valves which direct main steam flow from the startup bype s

system to the main steam bypass system in preparation for startint iie

turbine generator.

These two valves must stroke closed during powa

ascension after the main steam temperature reaches 760 F.

The hydraulic

actuator on each of these valves is equipped with thermal relief valves to

protect the actuator against hydraulic pressure surges.

It was a thermal

relief valve on HV-2292 failing to reset which initially led to the fire

experienced October 2, 1987.

The problem experienced during this inspection period with HV-2292 and

HV-2293 was with the thermal relief valves associated with the hydraulic

actuators.

A relief valve on HV-2292 was leaking slowly and was

i

subsequently replaced.

This is normal after very few strokes of the

-

-

-

-

-

- - - -

-

-

-

..

..

.

_

-.

._ . _

__

._

4

..

.

,

.

6

'

relief valve.

The relief valve on HV-2293' failed to reseat af ter HV-2293

'

was stroked closed.

The oil flow relieving through the thermal relief

,

valve was stopped by reopening HV-2293.. The thermal relief valve was

replaced, and HV-2293 was again closed.

Again the themal relief valve

lifted, failed to reseat, and re.lieved oil to the oil recovery system.

Again the oil flow was stoped by opening HV-2293.

The licensee noted

that the oil flow through tie thermal relief salve on the actuator of

HV-2293 was greater than expacted.

There is a flow orifice 27 mils in

diameter installed upstream of these thermal relief valves to restrict

this oii flow.

Additionally, restricting this-oil. flow serves to protect

the relief valves and prolong service life of the relief valves.

In-

October 1987, it was' discovered that the orifice upstream of the thermal

rolief valve on HV-2292, which led to the fire, was not installed and

consequently the oil flow experienced was greater than could be handled by

the oil recovery system.

,

J

j

While NRC inspectors watched, the thermal relief valve and associated

piping was disassembled on HV-2293.

The flow orifice upstream of the

relief valve was missing.

The licensee recovered the documentation of the

disassembly, inspection, and reassembly of HV-2293 following the

October 1987 fire and verified that mechanics had installed the flow

orifice and that quality control inspectors had witnessed the

installation.

Additionally, the parties involved who had actually

i

performed the work and inspection in 1987 were interviewed by the licensee

,

and insisted that they had indeed performed this work as documented.

The

licensee stated to the NRC inspectors that the men involved were

i

l

considered to be particularly reliable.

The mechanics probed the

connecting piping of the hydraulic actuator and did find the flow orifice.

This flow orifice is a screw which screws into a fitting and has a 27 mil

diameter hole drilled in it.

Apparently this screw had vibrated out of

its fitting and fallen into a portion of the actuator piping where it

could not perform its function.

The licensee reinstalled the orifica and reassembled the actuator on

1

HV-2293.

HV-2292 and HV-2293 were successfully stroked closed and power

3

ascension continued.

The licensee is preparing to disassemble and inspect

i

all hydraulic actuators with this type of orifice and will take corrective

steps to assure that the orifices are installed in a manner which

precludes vibrating out of position.

The NRC inspectors will follow this

a: tion and this is considered an open item (267/8812-01).

3

.;

By letter dated July 10, 1985, the licensee committed to follow certain

l

,

!

Interim Technical Specifications concerning reactivity control at FSV.

Interim LCO 3.1.1.C states for a control rod drive (CRD) to be considered

operable, there must be helium purge flow to each CRD penetration when

reactor pressure is above 100 psia.

Interim SR 4.1.1.A.2 requires that

purified helium flow to each CRD be verified by verifying flow at each

'

subheader.

The purpose of these requirements is to limit the upward flow

of contaminated helium coolant to the CRD mechanism in the CRD

penetrations.

l

]

,

0

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

_ - _ . - . , , ,

- - . . - , . - - -

- ,

. , . .

-

.,.

.

,

7

On May 18, 1988, at about 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br /> and on May 19, 1988, at about-

0815 hours0.00943 days <br />0.226 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.101075e-4 months <br />, the inspcctor observed helium flow at the subheaders

(FI-11268-3, 4, and 7) was reading zero or below iero.

At the same time,

flow indication for some individual CRD penetrations read zero or below

zero.

(These flow indicat$ons were read both locally in the reactor

building and remotely in the control room.).

At this time the reactor pressure was above 100 psig (172 psig on May 19

at 0815 hours0.00943 days <br />0.226 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.101075e-4 months <br />). _ The inspector observed that the licensee's-

instrumentation did not indicate compliance with LC0 3.1.1.C.

.The

licensee stated that the instrumentation might_not read correctly because

of reduced reactor-coolant density (approximately 39 percent of full

value).

The NRC inspectors requested the licensee provide the surveillance

procedure to satisfy the requirements of Interim SR 4.1.1.A.2 and

compliance with Interim LC0 3.1.1.C.

The licensee provided pages from the

reactor building equipment operator round sheet.

This sheet required only

that the subheader flow be greater than zero in order to satisfy the

LC0 3.1.1.C.

The NRC inspector noted that this criteria for surveillance of subheader

purge flow does not reflect the reactor's design criteria.

Specifically,

the licensee's Reference Design Manual, 50-11-6, notes the helium purge

flow is to be 5.5 lbs/hr per penetration (at full helium density).

The

greater than zero criteria would also allow instrumentation error to

falsely indicate that there is adequate flow.

The NRC inspectors concluded that the licensee's current surveillance

procedure is inadequate.

In subsequent discussions with the inspector, the licensee stated that by

reducing all indications to a common basis, approximately 2.5 to

2.8 ACFM of flow was indicated at 170 psia for the total system.

By

contrast, the control system was set to deliver 7.4 ACFM.

Thus, the

system was not operating correctly when observed by the NRC inspector.

The

licensee was informed of the NRC inspector's' observation of the apparent

malfunction of the control 'systet.s for helium purge.

It is not apparent that the licensee has implemented measures to assure-

compliance with his July 10, 1985 commitment to follow Interim Technical

Specification LC0 3.1.1.C.

ThisIsanapparentdeviation(267/8812-02).

On a tour of the control room, the NRC inspectors found a television set

and a connected video tape machine in the kitchen behind the:

atrol

boards within 'he control room vital area.

The equipment wa3 not in use

at the time. but the NRC inspectors immediatelv interviewed the licensee's

operations suW rin,endent as to why this equipment was in the control

room.

The operati(ns superintendent explained that people on shift could

not attend regular 1y scheduled safety meetings.

Consequently, the

licensee was videc taping the safety meetings and allowing the operating

__

__ _

__

_

_

_

__

, .

,

8

crew to watch the video :

of the meeting >when.they could.

This

o

activity was taking place

at kitchan.behind the control boards ir, the-

control room vital area.

li

MC 'nspcctors inquired as to why-this

activity had to take place in

ontrol room since the control roon,

-

operators could not perform ti

technical specification required

licented activities in front

une control boards and also watch tne

video tape simultaneously.

The operations superintendent agreed and the

- equipment was removed from .,he control roo'm vital area to an office area

nearby where on shift personnel, who are not renuired to be. in tha

control room at their stations, can watch the video tapes of-the safety

meetings during their shifts.

The licensee advised the NRC inspectors

that persons required by Technical Specifications.to be at their stations

within the control room will, in the future, watch the video tape of the

safety meetings after being relieved from their pest.

There-has been r.o time when the NRC inspectors have observed less than

minimum Technical Spec:rication required manning ~in front of the control

panels in the control room.

At no time ilave the NRC inspectors observed

on-duty licensed reactor operators watching television or participating in

other activities-that would divert their attention from their duties.

During tours of the facility, the NRC inspectors noted that the average

age of deficiency report tags (DRTs) appears to be growing.

The DRT

system developed by the licensee identifies equipment already logged as

requiring maintenance and also allows observers to trace the maini,enance

requests pending to repair the equipment.

However, the NRC inspectors

noted that the requests once gene.'ated do not appear to be closed in a

timely manner. Observed examples are as follows.

DRT 004061 on valve V-6223 is dated Septemt,er 3,1986.

DRT 004062 on valve V-6222 is dated September 3,1986.

ORT 010055 on valve V-91141 is dated January 26, 1988.

This is a

hydraulic system valve and the LRFdocuments a missing hand wheel.

The h6nd wheel was still: missing on May 6, 1988.

The NRC inspector

noted that a: missing hand wheel on a: hydraulic system valve aggravated

the fire experienced October 2, 1987.

The valve part is on back

01 der.

'

DRT 004450 on M-82, a broken box protecting instrument valves, is

dated January 25, 1987.

'

i

DRT 005054 on valve HV-2189-8 dated August 5, 1987.

The licensee has been informed of the NRC inspector's observation of the

l

excessive time required to close DRTs.

The licensee is cornidering actions

to address this issue.

This item is considered an open itoa (267/8812-03).

On a tour of the 480 V switchgear room, the NRC inspectors noted that some

electrical cable conduits were quite warm to.the touch.

The licensee's

1

,

.---- -- .a..--

. --

- - -

.- .-.

--- .

---

--. -a-

.

- - - - . -

..-e

- _ - _ ..

.-

.

_

_ .._

.

.

.

..

.

.

,

'9

'

shift supervisor, maintenance manager, and electrical maintenance

supervisor were interviewed regarding these conduits.

This condition had

previously been identified by' licensee _ personnel.

The licensee'.s .

~

engineering organization has.determinedithat-the cable in these. conduits

~

is qualified'to.a' higher temperature than canibe tolerated by' human touch.

~

Consequently, the cables were within their qualified parameters.

The

licensee also advised that' the particular conduits carried power. cables :to

a bearing water pump motor.

This'is.a large 480 V motor and the conduit

temperature'is expected to be warm when the motor is running.

No violations or deviations ware identified in the review of this program

area.

4.

Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) (90712)

The NRC inspectors reviewed the LERs listed below during this inspection

period.

This review verified that each.LER was submitted within-the

required time, the description of the occurrence is accurate, a root cause

was established where possible, and the corrective actions taken or

proposed are appropriate.

The five LERs reviewed were found to be

acceptable in these areas. The LERs are:

LER 88-07, Surveillance Procedure not_ Performed Mithin Technical

Specification Interval Due to Error in Computer Scheduling Program

LER 88-06, Expansion Joint Failure Causing Losa of Circulating Water

Resulting in a Manual Scram

LER 88-05, Neutron Flux Rate of Change High Scram (while shut down)

LER 88-04, Manual Scram Due to Power' Grid Fluctuecions

LER 87-23, Revision 1, HV-2292 Oil Leak Caused Fire and Manual Scram

Mo violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program

area.

i

5.

Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)

The NRC inspectors monitored the licensee's efforts to troubleshoot tL

prestressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV) penetration interspace purge

flow indication, FI-11263, located in the control room.

This instrument

.

is used to verify compliance with Technical Specification 4.2.7, which

requires the interspace between primary and secondary PCRV penetration

seals to be pressurized.

A purge flow of purified helium maintains this

pressurization.

ORT 9282 identified a problem with flow indication FI-11263 cycling

between 0 and 3 ACFM.

The flow element was removed and cleaned, which

'

returr.ed the instrument to its normal indication of cycling-between l'and

2 ACFM.

The licensee's system engineer then performed a test of an

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

- -

-

--

- ..

-

- .

- -

-

-

_

-

=- .

-

. . -

. - .

...

- .

. -

'

,

,

.

~10

.

electrical-dampening circuit which took a 2-minute average of.the

normally cycling signal and gave a time averaged,-steady indication. -.This

test was performed under. test procedure:T-362, which the NRC inspectors

.

reviewed and'found acceptable.

The purpose of this test was.to prove;the

feasibility of modifying the instrument .to provide a mcre steady, but -

-

still meaningful, indication. . Based on the. licensee's evaluation of the

test data, a permanent change notice is being developed-to modify the

circuitry for this instrument.

The NRC inspectors will monitor the

i

licensee's progress in this area.

The NRC resident inspector followed the licensee's actions to check the

operation of the Loop 1 bearing water s Jrge tank level control system

following the plant trip on May 6, 1988. .A level excursion in the Loop 1

bearing water surge tank was the cause of the loss.of "B" helium

circulator, which was followed by a reactor scram.

Troubleshooting

efforts discovered the Hi-Hi level dump valve on the surge tank was

opening at an approximately 18 inch leQ.

The surge tank-. level is.

normally controlled at 17 inches with the Hi Hi level dump valve set at

23 inches.

The licensee was not able to establish a reason for the Hi-Hi

i

level dump valve setpoint being as found.

The fact that it was operating

at that point does explain how a level excursion could have occurred under

normai operations.

The NRC inspectors verified both the Loop 1 and Loop 2

bearing water surge tank level controls were calibrated prior to returning

to power operation.

During power ascension, the fluid in the main steam lines at FSV goes from

water to wet steam to superheated steam depending upon the'. power level at

,

the time.

Consequently, the safety relief valves in the main steam lines

are designed to handle water, wet steam, or superh_eated steam. '

The

particular design of these safety relief valves causes them to perform

best and co be most leak tight when exposed to superheated steam.

The

manufacturer does recommend gagging leaking valves when the working

fluid is water or we' Jte6m.

There are three safetyfrelief valves on each

main steam line and t w wer operated relief valve on each main steam line.

Each of the safety relief valves'(SRV) will pass approximately 34 percent.

<

of the full flow of its associated main steam line,

j

On May 25, 1988, the NRC inspectors noted that SRV V-2214 was gagged in

main steam Loop 1 and SRV V-2245 was gagged in main steam Loop 2.

The NRC

inspectors interviewed the maintenance supervisor responsible-for gagging

1

the valves and reviewed station service requests (SSRs) 88503122, which

authorized gagging V-2245, and SSR 88503082, which authorized gagging.

V-2214.

The NRC inspectors noted that in both cases quality control had

inspected the installation of the gags on the safety relief valves and that

SSRs for gagging safety relief valves stay open until the gag is again-

'

removed.

The controlled work instructions (part of the SSR) stated iri a

note to Step 8, "Gag must be removed before going above 30 percent." The.

NRC inspectors verified by personnel interview, documentation review, and

visual inspection that the-gags were removed from the safety relief valves-

when the facility went above 30 percent power.

'

4

S

r v

r s

s

s-.-au

vv p c~ p--.-,gV4

w

,re s s ,. e r N w - n --

m- e-- n

r,v r ,w v s - m +

r

ve

~-,-r-

m.

es

-.*s,

+-,-+--~e.

-

-e-~>-

+

t

-e st,e-

r-

o,r e v

.---r-

_

._

-

-

_-

._

- ._

_

.

. .

.

... ,

,

,

11

<

'

The NRC inspectors also reviewed the documentation and witnessed portions

of the work of SSR 88500302 "Perform Quarterly Inspection." - This was.the

flushing and quarterly maintenance on the "B"-Instrument Air Compressor.

The preventative maintenance was being performed according to.

Procedure MP-7055 (Q), Issue 1,'"Quarterly Inspection and Preventative

Maintenance, Guardner-Denver Instrument: Air Compressor." The SSR~also

incorpt.ated by Reference Procedure ME-iO51, . Issue 3, "Guardner-Denver Air

Compressor, Coolant System, Chemical Cleaning Procedure Using Rydlyme."

1

No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program

area.

6.

Monthly Surveillance Observction (61726}

Ouring the course of the inspection period,.the NRC inspectors monitored

the Technical Specification 1 surveillance logs'to assure that Technical

Speciff ation required surveillances were current.

Additionally, they

observed performance of parts of the following surveillances:

Emergency Diesel Generator Weekly Load Test

Radiation Monitor Operability. Test-

Gaseous Radwaste System Surveillance

Vital Area Door Alarm Test

Primary Coolant Chemistry Analysis

Alternate Cooling Method Diesel Generator Weekly Test

The NRC inspectors reviewed-the results of the 10-inch scram tests and

back-EMF tests on the control rod drives performed during the course of

the month.

The NRC inspectors also met with the licensee's technical staff 'to' review-

licensee use of a new computer code for doing-fuel analyses'and

accountability required by 10 CFR Part 74.13.

The NRC inspectors

conferred with the NRR Project Manager.

Based on the interviews with the

licensee and discussions'with the NXR Project Manager, the NRC inspectors

have no feether questions at this time' regarding use of this computer

code.

<

No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program

area.

7.

Raalological Protection (71709)

The NRC inst. ' tors verified that required area surveys of exposure rates

are made and posted at entrances to radiation areas and in other

appropriate areas.

The NRC inspectors observed health physics

professi_onals on duty on all shifts, including the backshift.

The NRC

inspectors observed the' health physics technicians checking area radiation

j

.

, _ _ _ . .

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

. . .

. -

.

~ , , ,

,

. . . - _ , , _

. ,,

,

.

.

. _ _ .

_

_

_.

-

.

_

.

. . _ _ .

_.

..

_

__.

,".

-

,

/

12

monitors, air samplers, and doing area surveys for> radioactive-

contamination.

The NRC-inspectors observed the health physics technicians

checking prin,ary coolant chemistry for total-oxidants.

No violations or deviations _were identified in the .eview'of this. program

area.

8.

Monthly Security Observation (71881)

The NRC inspectors verified that there was a lead security officer (I M

on duty authorized by the facility-security plan to direct security.

activities onsite for each shift.

The LSO did not have duties that would

interfere with the direction of security activities.

The NRC inspectors verified, randomly and.on the backshift, that the

minimum number of armed guards required by the facility's security plan

.;

were present.

A 100 percent hands-on search was being utilized threughout

the inspection period as the licensee was unable to declare the new metal

detector. operable.

The protected area barrier was surveyed by the NRC inspectors. -The

barrier was properly maintained and was not compromised by erosion,

openings in the fence fabric, or walls, or proximity of vehicles, crates

or other objects that could be used to scale the barrier.

The NRC

inspectort observed the vital area barriers were well meintained and riot

compromised by obvious breaches or. weaknesses.

The NRC inspectors-

observed tnet persons granted access to the site are badged indicating

'

whether they had unescorted or escorted access authorization.

The NRC inspectors obserled armed response force deployment when badged

unescorted individuals attempted to enter. areas for which they did not

have access.

No deliberate attempts to-violate access levels,were

observed.

Rather, newly badged individuals have recently shown a

propensity to confuse the central alarm station door with the reactor

building entrance.

The NRC inspectors observed that the security force

responded according to .the security plan.

,

No violations or deviations were identified in-the review of this program

aiea.

9.

Exit Interview (30703)

An exit meeting was conducted on June 9, 1988, attended by those

4

identified in paragraph 1.

At this time the NRC inspectors reviewed the

scope and findings of the' inspection.

i

') .

!

,

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

-