IR 05000317/1982010

IE Insp Rept 50-317/82-10 on 820503-07.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Surveillance Testing,Maint, Preparation for Refueling,Refueling Activities & Followup on Previous Insp Items

ML20054H093
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	05/24/1982
From:	Bettenhausen L, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054H090	List: IR 05000317/1982010 ML20054H089
References
50-317-82-10, NUDOCS 8206220564
Download: ML20054H093 (7)

Text

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-317/82-10 Docket No. 50-317 License No. DPR-53 Priority -

Category C Licensee: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 1475 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Facility Name: Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 1 Inspection At: Lusby, Maryland

Inspection Conducted: May 3-7, 1982 Inspectors: MM Charles D. Petrone, Reactor Inspector w ddM9; date Approved by: /r/ NMhi<w Lee H. Beitenhausen, Ph,0., Chief,

-

5~/2_kd2 date Test Program Section

~

, Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 3-7, 1982 (Inspection No. 50-317/82-10)

i Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of surveillance testing; maintenance; preparation for refueling; refueling activities; and followup cn previous inspection items. The inspection involved thirty-eight inspection hours onsite by one region based inspecto Results: No violations were identified.

l l

,

l l

l l

!

B206220564 820604 PDR O ADDCK 05000317 PDR

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

. .

.

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

• G. E. Brobst, General Supervisor, Chemistry

• J. T. Carroll, General Supervisor Operations P. T. Crinigan, Senior Engineer, Chemistry D. A. Ensor, Maintenance Supervisor, Unit 1 J. E. Gilbert, Operations Shift Supervisor J. Hill, Operations Shift Supervisor T. Jones, Senior Reactor Operator N. Lauato, Reactor Operator

• J. Mihalcik, Nuclear Fuel Management Engineer N. Millis, General Supervisor, Radiation Safety

• L. B. Russell, Plant Superintendent R. P. Sheranko, Maintenance Superintendent R. Wenderlich, Performance Engineer L. Wenger, Senior Engineer, Operations Licensing and Safety Unit 1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• R. Architzel, Senior Resident Inspector

• S. Reynolds, Jr. , Reactor Inspector

• denotes those present at exit meeting on May 7, 1982.

2.0 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings 2.1 (0 pen) Unresolved Item 318/80-15-09, 317/80-16-10, Control Room Air Conditioning. The licensee had submitted ten LER's reporting control room air conditioning out of service during the period November 11 -

April 30, 1980. Four of these occurences resulted in a complete loss of air conditioning to the Control Roo Licensee engineering studies combined with studies conducted by a consulting firm, produced updated heat load calibrations which indicated that the system was about 10%

(10 tons) deficient in cooling capacit The licensee is installing a new 220 ton air conditioning unit which is expected to have sufficient capacity by itself to provide normal control room air conditionin The licensee does not consider this unit safety related. The two existing 100 ton units will be maintained operable, but kept on standby to satisfy TS requirements. The only components of this new system that will be considered safety related are those physically located near the existing components. The licensee performed a safety evaluation to verify that the installation of this new unit would not degrade the safety related units, but has not completed a safety evaluation which addresses the op: cation of this uni The licensee plans to complete this prior to ',~1

. ng or operating the syste _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

. .

I

The inspector noted that TS 4.7.6.1 states "The control room emergency ventilation system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE ... at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> by verifying that the control room air temperature is greater than 120 F". Considering that the control room will normally be cooled by the new non-safety related air conditioning unit, this surveillance requirement no longer provides a valid way to verify

'

operability of the safety related air conditioning unit The licensee's representatives agreed to reevaluate and if necessary amend TS 3/4.7. to reflect equipment modification This item remains open pending completion of the safety evaluation and amendment of technical specification .2 (Closed) Noncompliance 318/81-04-0 Core reload procedure did not require verification of vendor supplied final core load program.

)

The inspector reviewed FH-6 " Core Reloading Procedure" and noted that step 6.9 now requires the Nuclear Fuel Managemer,t Shift Engineer to verify that the final core configuration agrees with the vendor supplied final core load progra This item is close .0 Pre-fuel Handling Activities 3.1 New Fuel Receipt The inspector reviewed Fuel Handling Procedure FH-1 "New Fuel Assembly and Control Element Assembly Handling, Inspection and Storage" for technical adequacy and conformance to Technical Specifications (TS).

The inspector also reviewed the completed inscettion checkoff sheets for thirty of the seventy-two new fuel assemblies installed during this reload. The inspector verified that deficiencies found during the fuel inspections were resolved satisfactorily. Most of the reported deficiencies involved minor bowing of fuel rods. These fuel rods were straightened and reinspected satisfactoril No violations were identifie .2 Refueling Preparations j

Fuel handling procedure FH-6, " Core Reloading Procedure", Rev. 7, was reviewed by the inspector to confirm that the surveillance prerequisites of TS 3/4.9, Refueling Operations, were addressed through checkoff lists and required supervisory signatures. The following Surveillance Test Procedures (STP) referenced by FH-6 requirements were also reviewed:

-. -- - -- - - _

. _ _ _ _ _

-. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

--

0-55A-1, Containment Integrity Verification, Rev. 4 approved January 6, 1982, performed on April 28, 198 , Containment Purge System Isolation Test, approved March 25, 1981 performed on April 22, 25, 28 and May 2, 198 , Source Range Instrument Functional Test, approved October 14, 1981, performed on April 20, 27, 29, 30 and May 4, 198 The inspector also verified that the licensee submitted a proposed core reload technical specification amendment to NRR on February 17, 1982 to allow operation of Unit I for a sixth cycl This amendment is under review by NR Technical Specification 3. requires a boron concentration sufficient to ensure either a k f 0.95 or less, or a concentration greater eff than 1720 ppm, whichever is the more restrictive. The NEP 5% shutdown calculation yielded an 1768 ppm boron concentration. For added conser-vatism, a minimum boron concentration of 2300 ppm was specified by the nuclear engineer. This was confirmed by a review of the refueling boron concentration calculation summary shee The inspector verified that the pre-fuel handling requirements were met by interviews with reactor operators and senior reactor operators, review of the licensee's Technical Specifications and surveillance test procedures, and direct observation of operating conditions in the control room and on the fuel floo No violations were identifie .0 Fuel Handling Operations The inspector witnessed refueling operations during portions of the night (12-8) shift and dayshift on May 7, 198 These direct observations were made on the refueling floor and in the control room to verify that:

--

Crew makeup was as required;

--

Dedicated communications existed between control room personnel, the refueling machine, and the spent fuel pool (T.S. 3.9.5);

--

Flux monitoring in the control room was ccnsistent with procedures (T.S. 3.9.2);

--

Containment integrity was maintained (T.S. 3.9.4);

--

Housekeeping around the fuel floor was acceptable, and loose parts controlled;

-

- - - . . - -

. .

l

--

Refueling pool level was greater than 21.5 feet above top of assemblies (T.S. 3.9.11);

--

Refueling machine interlocks were checked (T.S. 3.9.6);

--

Shutdown cooling was in operation with a flow rate greater than 3000 gpm (T.S. 3.9.8);

--

Baron concentrations were as required (T.S. 3.1.2.7 and 3.9.1); and,

--

Fuel accountability was in accordance with procedure The inspector performed independent 1/M calculations (where 1/M = base count rate / current count rate) during fuel loading to verify the licensee's

.

calculations. The calculations were in agreement. The inspector had no

'

further questions at this tim No violations were identifie .0 Surveillance

. 5.1 Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's " Monthly Surveillance Test j Schedule" for the months of April and May, 1982, and reviewed the j results of STP 0-8-0 " Diesel Generator Weekly Test", performed during the previous nine weeks. The inspector also reviewed the results of STP 0-87-1 " Borated Water Storage Operability Verificatien" performed weekly for the previous six week These procedures were reviewed for technical adequacy and conformance to technical specifications. All data entries and verification signoffs were made satisfactoril .2 Surveillance Observations

.

The inspector witnessed selected portions of the diesel generator weekly test performed May 5, 1982 on diesel generator No. 21 and verified that:

I j

--

Minimum crew requirements were met,

--

Test prerequisities were met, j --

Special test equipment required by procedure was calibrated and in service,

--

Required data was recorded and reviewed by proper personnel,

--

Procedure was available and in use by test personnel, l

!

i i

!

s

_..-w , ,-

. .

--

Test personnel were qualified, and

--

Test results were satisfactor During the running of the diesel generator, the inspector noted that

smoke was being produced as oil burned off the outside of the diesel exhaust manifold. This smoke was carried up and out of the diesel generator room by the ventilation system. The inspector questioned maintenance personnel, the diesel vendor representative, and the maintenance superintenden They indicated that a certain amount of leakage was normal with this type of diesel generator and that there had been problems in the past, including fires. These fires occurred when oil, which had accumulated during the shutdown period, was heated when the diesels were run for the surveillance tests. The licensees representatives stated this problem had been solved by running the diesels for a minimum of one hour to allow any accumulation of oil to burn off, preventing any buildu The inspector also observed that a considerable amount of oil absorbent material had been spread around the floor of the diesel generator rooms to control the puddles of oil under the diesel generators. The diesel generators themselves were streaked with oil leaking from various parts of the diesel. The inspector discussed these observations with the maintenance superintendent and the plant superintenden They stated they would have these areas cleaned and enforce stricter

,

'

housekeeping control in the future. During a subsequent tour of the No. 21 diesel generator room the inspector noted that a maintenance request (MR-82-1853) had been written to repair an oil leak which drips on the exhaust manifold. The inspector had no further questions at this tim .0 Maintenance Activities 6.1 Procedure Review The inspector reviewed maintenance procedures for " Diesel Generator Inspection", " Disassembly and Reassembly of MSIV", and " Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Replacement". The inspector reviewed there procedures to insure they included:

--

Administrative approvals for removing the system from service and returning it to service;

'

--

Appropriate hold points for inspection, audit and signoff by QA personnel;

--

Provisions for operational readiness inspections following main-tenance; I

, _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _

- . - . - - - - - __

.

--

Provisions for assuring that LC0 requirements of the Technical Specifications were satisfied during the repair period;

--

Provisions for the control of housekeeping;

--

Provisions for cleaning safety related systems and components following maintenance;

--

Provisions for assuring that system valves, breakers, etc. are aligned for normal service; and,

--

Provisions for reporting to licensee management details concerning design or construction related deficiencies identified during maintenanc No violations were identifie .2 Maintenance Observations The inspector observed the performance of portions of the annual maintenance on the No. 11 emergency diesel generator. The maintenance was being performed by licensee mechanical and I&C personnel with assistance from vendor personnel. The inspector noted that the work was being performed using an approved written procedure, tools and gages were calibrated, the work was being performed by experienced technicians, and a QC inspector was present observing the activities and performing the required verification No violations were identifie .0 Facility Tours On several occasions during the inspection, tours of the turbine and reactor buildings were conducted. During the tours the inspector discussed plant operations, and observed radiation control measures, monitoring instru- l mentation, and housekeepin In addition, the inspector observed control

~

room operations for control room manning, and facility operation for admini-strative and Technical Specification requirement No violations were identifie .0 Exit Interview >

At the conclusion of the inspection the inspector met with licensee repre-sentatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on May 7, 1982. The inspector summarized the findings, purpose, and scope of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's finding _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _