IR 05000293/1985012

Insp Rept 50-293/85-12 on 850521-24.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Plant Mods & Operations & Followup on Previous Findings

ML20126C803
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	06/07/1985
From:	Casella F, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126C788	List: IR 05000293/1985012 ML20126C784
References
50-293-85-12, NUDOCS 8506140529
Download: ML20126C803 (4)

Text

-

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-12 Docket N License N DPR-36 Licensee: Boston Edison Company Facility: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection At: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Dates: M 21-2 , 1985 Inspector: -

U 86 g . A. Ca (la, Reactor Engineer Date Approved b (. 74hd 7[86 E. E. Tri # Chief, Reactor Projects Section 3A Ddte Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 21-24, 1985 (Report No. 50-293/85-12)

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of plant modifications and opera-tions, predominantly as followup of previous finding The inspection involved 27 inspector-hours onsite by one region-based inspecto Results: No violations were identified. Concerns were expressed regarding the long reporting time and over reliance on the vendor for lubrication oil sample dat hG y

,

- se *

,

DETAILS

• Persons' Contacted L.'Beckwith, Compliance

. P.,Cormier, STA

• J. Crowder, Compliance

• F. Famulari, ISI/QC Group Leader C. Hulteen, Construction Management Group

.

D.~ Lange, STA

~C.'Mathis, Station Manager D.~ Mills, Construction Management Group L. Oxsen, Vice President, Nuclear Operations R. Reardon, Maintenance

'.*J. Seery, Manager, Operations Review

• R. Snerry, Maintenance Engineer

• P.. Smith, Chief Technical Engineer-M. Williams, ISI Engineer

• E. Ziemianski, Manager, Nuclear Operations Support The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel including members of the engineering, maintenance, operations, and quality assurance organization * Denotes those attending the exit meeting on May 24, 1985. Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (84-17-02): Evaluation of Control Rod Drive (CRD)

collet housing cracking. The inspector interviewed licensee personnel re-

.

I garding progress on this evaluation. The original discrepancy between the

^three dye penetrant test results on CRD 8321 has been tentatively attributed to varyin'g levels of cleaning before application of the developer. The ad-

' vent of positive circumferential linear indications on the outside surface may have been due to bleed out at the toe of the wel The questionable sec-tion of CRD 8321 has been shipped to General Electric and the final evaluation is pending General Electric's metallographic' analysis. -This item remains ope (0 pen) Unresolved Item (84-21-02): Need for more detailed procedure specifi-cally adopted for dye penetrant ~ testing and acceptance of CRD. The inspector reviewed Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Procedure 3.M.4-1.1, "Disassem--

ibly and Reassembly of a CRD," Revision 7, dated February 22, 1985. Attachment L C to that. document provides general reject criteria and refers to PNPS

_

3.M.4-17, " Liquid Penetrant Testing." The inspector reviewed Revision 4 to-the latter document, dated October 10, 1984, and found it to be a generic l_ -penetrant testing procedure with no specific reference to CRD acceptance cri-t-

teria.- It appears-that this unresolved item has not.been addressed. The item therefore remains open.

L

,

,

i

)

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

'

. . . l

,

l (0 pen) Unresolved Item (84-21-03): Proper disposition of ultrasonic examina-

'

tion reports. The inspector reviewed the format of the ultrasonic inservice i inspection data report form 22.10.6, Attachment I to TP84-105A-1, Revision ~

2.~ There was no provision for specific acceptance or rejection status to be

, indicated by a responsible reviewer. This is contrary to the implication of ASME Section XI, Paragraph IWA 1400(L). The licensee had committed to incor-porate this change in August of 1984. This item remains open until the test

. report format is revised. The licensee committed to completion by July 1, 198 (Closed) Open_ Item (84-15-03): Fire hazard due to lubricating oil leak on B Emergency Diesel recirculating pump. The area surrounding the recirculating pump was inspected for oil leakage; none was found. The pump had been re-

-placed the day before. This item is closed.

I .(0 pen)'Open Item (80-CI-07): Problems with HPCI Turbine Oil System. The in-spector reviewed the licensee's response to this Circular. The f.-st problem area was. addressed under Maintenance Request (MR) 80-1589, dated 0,'tober 13, 1981, which provided.for both the replacement of leather stop valve seals with Buna-n material and a full inspection of the hydraulic control valve cylinder The second recommendation from the Circular was to increase lubricant sampling frequency to once every 3 months. The inspector reviewed PNPS 3.M.4-17.4,

" Lubrication Sampling and Change Procedure," dated August 17, 1984. The pro-

,

cedure does require a 3 month sampling frequency for the HPCI oil system and the inspector found.that this requirement is being implemented by the Preven-tive Maintenance scheduling system. However, maintenance personnel could not

produce any HPCI oil analysis results later than July of 1982. Further ques-

, tioning' revealed that it is not unusual for Pilgr.im to receive a report of

.

test results up~to a year after the oil sample was drawn. The maintenance

group relies upon the outside laboratory to call them if there is an immediate problem with the analysis results. Moreover, the analyses are performed at no cost to the_ licensee by the vendor who supplies their lubricating oi ~

~

During the exit interview, the inspector exprest.ed concern that the extensive delay between oil sampling and receipt of test results coupled with a total reliance on the outside laboratory to flag a problem is not an effective utilization of the predictive capability of oil analysi Further, effective trending is impeded by the lengthy delays in reporting. The licensee agreed

. that this area should be reviewed further. This item remains open pending L establishment that HPCI oil is adequately shown to be suitable for the servic . Plant Modifications As a part of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix-R compliance modifications at Pilgrim, the. licensee is rerouting 65 cables from areas where they could be lost due to an exposure to fire. One of the new routes for some of these cables is through an underground ductline on the seaward side of the reactor buildin The inspector: reviewed the controlling document for this modification: PDC 84-03A, "Ductline Installation of Appendix R Modification," Revision 1, Is-

__ __ _ . _ _ . . ._ -

a

. ;.

sued for Construction. The inspector also observed construction in progress, including excavation'and concrete placement, and compared observations to the <

requirements of PDC 84-031A and Arrangement Drawing F344, Sheet 6, Revision There were no discrepancies note PDC 84-013A, Section 5.1 calls for careful excavation of the ductline area with hand excavation as required to prevent damage to any unknown pipe or utilit The inspector interviewed a lead engineer in the Construction Man-agement Group to determine the methods used in-locating the interferences that did not appear on the as-built drawings. Construction personnel first use a " Pipe Horn" or metal detector, followed by a radio frequency transponder to locate items at dept As a final precaution, shallow exploratory cuts are made by hand shovel prior to using machinery, and the machinery only digs to the depth of the exploratory cu This process is repeated until specified trench dimensions are attaine The inspector was satisfied that sufficient precautions are being taken to prevent damage to plant systems during excavation.

.. Management Meeting The inspector met with licensee management personnel denoted in Paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 24, 1985. The scope,. observations, and findings of the inspection were summarized at that time. No written mate-rial concerning inspection results was provided to the licensee during this

'

inspection. No proprietary information was identified as being included in

, this repor ,

a

,

,, - ,.we ,we-~. , r n- , ~ ~ - 4-w ---n n ,, --,-------m- 4 - --ww n ~ w