ML20140D144

Forwards Integrated Insp Repts 50-277/97-02 & 50-278/97-02 on 970308-0503 & NOV

ML20140D144
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	06/04/1997
From:	Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
Shared Package
ML20140D148	List: ML20140D144 ML20140D184 ML20140D205
References
50-277-97-02, 50-277-97-2, 50-278-97-02, 50-278-97-2, NUDOCS 9706100269
Download: ML20140D144 (4)

See also: IR 05000277/1997002

Text

- . - -. _ - . - ~ -- .- ._ -

F

'

!

.  !

,

A

June 4, 1997

i

Mr. D. M. Smith, President i

PECO Nuclear

Nuclear Group Headquarters

Correspondence Control Desk

P. O. Box 195

Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195

SUBJECT: ROUTINE INTEGRATED INSPECTION 50-277/97-02 AND 50-278/97-02

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter refers to the inspections conducted from March 8 through May 3,1997, at the

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Delta, Pennsylvania. We performed these inspections

to determine whether your staff conducted activities authorized by your license safely and in

accordance with NRC requirements. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. W. L. Schmidt

discussed the findings with Mr. G. Edwards and other members of your staff. The inspectors

based these findings on independent observation of activities, interviews, and document

reviews.

Your staff continued to operate both units safely. The problem identification and corrective

actions processes have had positive effects on the operations of the units. Station

management provided strong support for implementation of these programs, which included

a low reporting threshold and positive self-assessment culture throughout the organization.

An area for improvement was noted in documenting the initial performance enhancement

process significance levels.

Operators responded well to plant transients and initiated a Unit 3 manual reactor scram when

the operating recirculation pump tripped while in single loop operation. We noted, however,

that non-safety-related equipment failures continued to cause challenges to the operators.

While operators performed wellin identifying that a reactor feed pump trip indicating lamp was

not lighted, they did not fully review nor understand its significance. The f ailure to understand

the condition, along with problems with the engineering review, led to the Unit 3 C reactor

feed pump high level trip being inoperable in excess of the time allowed by technical

specifications, without reactor power being lowered to less than 25%. This issue is

considered a violation of NRC requirements.

We found that your staff adequately implemented the improved technical specifications,

including the relocated items and development of new surveillance requirements. During this

review, however, we noted that your station qualified reviewers may not have enderstood

fully the need to review changes posted against the updated final safety analysis report. We

consider this an unresolved item, pending further review.

In review of maintenance activities, we found that the modification to the Unit 3 high pressure

coolant injection steam line was conducted well and has reduced, but not elimine.ted, the

piping vibration. However, we noted that temporary scaffolding, installed to support work,

~

9706100269 970604 ~****

PDR ADOCK 05000277 l

G PDR

_-

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

. .

-

.

1

.

Mr. D.M. Smith 2

was in contact with or in close proximity to operable safety-related equipment. These

3 installations were outside the analyzed bounds for scaffolding as defined by station procedures

,

and were not previously analyzed by your engineering department. As such, the scaffolding

2 placed the safety-related systems in a condition that was unanalyzed with regard to design.

This is also considered a violation of NRC requirements.

a

4

The surveillance tests observed were conducted well. However, during review of several

j systems and associated testing, we found several instances where either the basis for the  ;

testing was not fully understood or documented, or where the tests specified to meet j

technical specification requirements did not fully verify operability. As such, these instances '

.

'are considered unresolved items, pending further review.

4

i The engineering inspection found a technically competent staff with an attitude of ownership

for their assigned responsibilities. Your engineering department properly responded to a high

pressure service water leak, analyzing the potential flaw and developing an adequate repair

plan. As with the previous emergency service water piping leakage, we remain interested in i

the cause of this piping leak. This good performance was tempered by the apparent lack of l

engineering continuity in dealing with the reactor feed pump trip issue discussed above.

inspectors reviewed the emergency preparedness and security programs, finding that they I

were wellimplemented and directed toward protecting public health and safety.

The two violations discussed above are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation, with the

specific circumstances described in the enclosed inspection report. Please note that you are

required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed

Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine

whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory

requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and '

its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

We appreciate your cooperation.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

Richard R. Keimig, Chief

Projects Branch 4

Division of Reactor Projects

Docket / License No. 50-277/DPR-44

50-278/DPR-56

Enclosure:

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violations

2. NRC Inspection Report 50-277/97-02 and 50-278/97-02

./

_ . _.

.

.

Mr. D.M. Smith 3

cc w/ encl:

G. A. Hunger, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Review Board and Director, Licensing

T. Mitchell, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

G. Rainey, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations

D. B. Fetters, Vice President, Nuclear Station Support

T. Niessen, Director, Nuclear Quality Assurance

A. F. Kirby, Ill, External Operations - Delmarva Power & Light Co.

G. Edwards, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

G. J. Lengyel, Manager, Experience Assessment

J. W. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel

J. A. Isabella, Manager, Joint Generation, Atlantic Electric

W. T. Henrick, Manager, External Affairs, Public Service Electric & Gas

R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations

J. Vannoy, Acting Secretary of Harford County Council

R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition

J. H. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland

Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Hiebert, Peach Bottom Alliance

Mr. & Mrs. Kip Adams, Peach Bottom Alliance

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

State of Maryland

TMI - Alert (TMIA)

i

I

l

)

l

1

!

l

!

l

l

!

l

.

)

j

-_ - . _ _ . . _ - . . _- _ _. . __ _ . _ , . . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . - . ._ _ ._ . . _ - . -

-

l

!  !

,

Mr. D.M. Smith 4

Distribution w/ encl:

Region i Docket Room (with concurrences)  :

W. Axelson, DRA (irs)

K. Gallagher, DRP )

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) l

. D. Screnci, PAO

i NRC Resident inspector i

j PUBLIC l

!

'

Distribution w/ encl: (Via E-Mail)

W. Dean, OEDO

! J. Shea, NRR

"

J. Stolz, PDI-2, NRR

-l Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS) l

, R. Correia, NRR ,

'

F. Talbot, NRR

'

- DOCDESK

1

1

l

l~ l

1  !

,

1

!

! l

!

j

!

.

.:

i

i

DOCUMENT NAME: g:\ bran 2\9702.pb

,

Ta receive e copy of thie document, indic in the box: "C" = Copy witpasft ettechment/ enclosure "E" = Copy with ettschment> enclosure *N" - No copy

) ' OFFICE RI:DRP /// RI:DRP //

,

NAME WSChmidt / /n / RKeimig[/ _,

DATE 6/1/97 M/ 6/y/97 f

I /

] / OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

,

l