-

. ,- -----_--

.

*

,

.

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY2301 M ARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 8699

PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101

'SHIELDS L. DALTROFF

nacTaicPn c on

March 29, 1985

Docket Nos. 50-35250-353

Inspection Report Nos. 50-352/05-0250-353/85-01

Mr. Richard W. Starontecki, DirectorDivision of Reactor ProjectsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRegion I631 Park AvenueKing of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Starostecki

Your letter dated February 28, 1985, forwarded combinedInspection Report 50-352/85-02 and 50-353/85-01. Appendix Aaddresses two items which do not appear to be in full compliancewith Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. These items arerestated below along with our response.

Finding

A. Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that procedures bemaintained to implement the requirements of NUREG-0737, ItemI.C.6.

,

Administrative Procedure A-41, the procedure for the controlof safety-related equipment, implements Item I.C. 6 of NUREG-0737 and requires that, prior to removal of safety-related,

equipment from. service for maintenance, permission to releaseL the affected equipment'shall be granted by shift. supervision.

+ >. .-

,.

contrary to the ' a bo've, on January 23, '198 5, safety-related ;

equipment was removed from service without permission being I

granted by shift supervision in'that, during performance ofmaintenance activities controlled by Maintenance Request Form8501192, the Loose Parts Monitoring system was renderedinoperable in that the alarms on all its modules were

8504120008 850329gDR ADOCK 05000352 I O -

- _ _ - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- --------------------

/c hj ^.PDR-

..

. , ' n.g m ; - . -. , , _ (- .

4

, ; ;,y ..,-n - >- o ,, ,

f, , i:#

-

*

. < - 9 a.

,,.' s

~ '

, ,

+,

f s . ..,f... .. . , ' ,; . s - s'

4;s * 'Mr.; Richard.W.~ Starostocki ' - March 29,.:1985,

'/3 ''

.

' ~ ~Pageg2_,

w 7- y |'

.

t ;:n-

.~

~.0 : r . , , . . .

. . . ..

.,,

S ' - ' defeated, without'first obtaining the permiss' ion of the shift,

r~j laupervisor. '

~,w.. - .: .

-.

.

Pf " , This[is :a Severity - LevAl IV -Violation (Supplement ~ I) .,

:9 . ;-

,

4:?u

~

x.

-

>

01 : , Resdonse'+

V , . -+,

. ,..

eon January 23;;1985,sa maintenance request: form.was~ issued to;.U

wm .-~sperform; adjustments to the. Loose Parts. Monitoring ~. System.;,j ,

,

'The scope of the work. authorized was not intended to render<.

" >< _ "tlie v ays temJinoperative . ; Durin'g the. course of'the work the6. technicians defeated'theialarms' locally at the system-

..

~ *

'

modules, rendering the systes inoperative. Shift. supervision, ,

{was . not' aware of' the changed ' status. -~

u , , 7,

0nLJanuary 24', 1985, when operating: personnel werennotified,,

. *;+s -- of?the~ system status,;the Loose Parts' Monitoring System was 1,-~

'-- n, .. logged"in the LCO' tracking. log as inoperable,'as was;;1 p appropriate with'the alarmsfat the. system'modulen defeated.r >

- .This ensured that the' correct status of ~ the system wan'. .

apparentfto~ operators.. ,

. ~,,

. .

'

' shift operating personnel were instructed by-the Operations, '

,,' Engineer-to~make equipment'" INOPERATIVE" during maintenance ~

_

''

'if<any' possibility existed that the* Work would. render the.

'qsystem' inoperative W The Operations Engineer also. requested

'' ~~

,V . that :the MaintenanceiEng1neer| a'nd ' Technical Engineer rc-.

~

einphasizo to their personne'l' the lre'spohsibility to keep shif t"

t. = ' supervision? informed about changes to equipment' status which '

-* '

'

foccur'during; work. ? m cq> s.x , ,_

t Addidional'lf, can tongoing itrain5ng s,p, ogr; nt for[,'h .kilc.I''

+ 'M V a v e"

i * ir i'

1 m. r g<~ r a all ensed',t .,

O -'~.

<operato'rs specifically re'garding.the Technical 4 Specifications', '.has. been. implemented.. - This . consists of. 24 hours of training

'~

~

', .on' Technical? Specifications'i!and;is expketed to enhance7, . Soperator; awareness"of Techn'ical Specification requirements as u- -

wellEas emphasise~the Importance of' evaluating equipment--

operability / status'in' light'of Technical Specification~

m .<

' ~

;' ' requirements. ,As a part of the program,'all licensed'

' ".,

- operators _ have .been provided with a personal copy of the. _

Technical Specifications'for'their use.. , .wV, ' * Plant / personnel have also-developed and' implemented a

.

tprocedure which assists control' room personnel in verifying:that| plant system-status;and parameters" indicated _in the"

. control; room-are within Technical Specification' requirements.:

,

L

-}'~'

'5,[

. = ,~ ''

*m /

ry, 3 - .

.y _ ,+

, .g,-

,- -

,

e,.

- '

fMr~.'Richar'd W.[Starostecki '

,

' March 29,-1985,

,,

_ Page-3u

-

. <

ea ,

i n' t - Management attention has been focused on the upgrading of allpersonne171n standards of plantioperationJand.has-resulted11n:

c a: plant-wide prograa .of improved " operational | Excellence".This -has included meetings with all parsonneli by senior sitemanagement., Improved performance'in.the area of control oft

. Technical-Specification related parameters and equipment'has-- <' ;been notedsin recent weeks.=

FullLcomp1iance was achieved on January-24, 1985~

when the.inoperable' status of the' Loose Parts. Monitoring System wasN

'

; properly, logged, thus assuring Shift-Supervision awareness of"p, + the system ~ status.,

e

,

Finding:

,

;~

15 . ~ 10.CFR :50.59 states that changes to procedures described ;in.the safety -analysis report can be made without prior.

--

'

Commission approval provided these changes ~do:not involve an- '

'

unreviewed safety question. .J

,;- . Final Safety Analysis Report' (FSAR) sections 2.2.3 and.6.4~describe ~ the analyses used to demonstrate that .the control,

room.would remain habitable after accidents which' involve'

L. releases of. radiation,1 chlorine or; toxic gas.'1These sectionsindicate.that'a' positive air pressure is assumed to exist'

.within 'the control room,to licit air les.kage into the contro11-

room during the ' initial stages of the above described 1accidents. t , . "

, -<

.;y .,

. ; 3. --

'

.a s ..FSAR :section 9.4.1.2.2 and' Figure 9.4-1 describe the,

". ; procedures;for operation'of;the control room heating,.'n ~ ventilating and . air conditioning -(HVAC) system such that a '. , ,,

: positive. air pr'e,ssure t n'the control room would;.bei i 4 ii+ ' ' maintained'. >p : 2 ' t, ie'

> 4^ '*-

" ",'. +

t,-

- Contrary ,to the .above, between about '9:30.a.m. and 11:30L ,a.m., January 24, 1985',';the pr'ocedures,forLoperation of.the

~

control room HVAC system'were changed, such that a positive'

air pressure was not being maintained, without prior) Commission approval and.without an evaluation to' demonstrate,

.that the effects of this change-on the control roomhabitability. analyses did not involve an unreviewed-safety.question. ' ~~-

'

.

LThis .is a -Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) .!'.

,

,,. -

t

4

s5'

44

, ..n

p '$;; }|/ -}f:} O

Qif.[,, y .,( j ' : c; ' y T '

b , $ ;'~j |4,,,'L s !<, . .. _. ..- :. ..c 1:

[ , ''' ' .~

' ~,

% '

,,

' ~ m. ' ' f c;.. -. s , . . . ,. .

.

,~

. j'f , . .

Lj J~ .Mr~. . Richard - W. ;Starostocki_ March 29,-1985--( y p # 3.-4 1

_ Page 4L - *- '

,

. ;wn y:- . : 2 ; r : , ,,.a x ( '. : .,;,~

, s& # * ' . y.vcnpw -' , , j'4'?g, ,j " . 4. | >; |N

,.';*,p_,*r >

n s s.., .. . .;

g? ~y ..

'

,

'p - Response'.,fn , , , , a f .; x;y ,-. ,, .

.~ + . , , , n 3,

~

^ % ion ; January 24,r 1985, withx Unit' 1 at :4 percent power, the' main - t

..

#

% | control roomoventilation system'was operat'ed outside of its,

<

, , (design . basis forDa two hour period. .T '

a*" .. y .

_ ..

~, i The contro1(room-_v_entilation_ system inlet and outlet

..* ' ' ' { isolation ' valves had 1been . blocked"in1the closed position fory

h |mainten'anc'e... Theicontrol room' toilet'. room' exhaust.-fan was J+

v . Tlef t :inf operationnwhich. caused . the ' control room atmosphere to -"~ 1 # be negative =with respect to the turbine enclosure.... The -

' 'cor' trol room is ~normally. maintained .st a positive pressure''

i._

'; with respect.to the turbine; enclosure.s m - .s. ..

.

'".

When.the| significance.of thelabnormal: pressure condition:was'

>;*'y, fdiscoverediat 11:30_a.m.|on January 24, 1985, the control;'Jroom' ventilation ~ system was immediately placed in~the ;,,

'radiationLisolation'modeiof operation. This isolated the,

"' t'

! toilet.' room exhaust fan 'and allowed .the pressuref differential'. ,

[^"i to? return to.an< acceptable.value. The radiation isolation <'e

- . mode supplies' filtered outside air _to pressurize the control,,

, room.,

,.

, , - ~. - .

. . .

7 S.hif t operators have been; advised to initiate a radiation'.. ; ~

1S/. .. Isolation, manually in the event ofva-low control room.

N" pres;sure condition. : A modification is being designed tor# '

. actuate an alarm when an abnormal control room / turbine.

w q .en' closure 7 differential: pressure condition exists.,

,m<-

K AddiIlonally,theblockingsequences'for:thecontirolroom' ~

4.

'-.ventilat'lon ; system have'- been reviewed and : are being revised .-

-

- to-includeEthe toilet > room' exhaust' fan and isolation valves. a-+.. .-

. _ _ __

-~ Full compliance wasfachieved on, January 24,'1985 when the:~i .,y ! control. room ventilatioA system was restored to a mode of

"?~ : operation (radiation ' indication) which falls within.the

'~,.

. _ ; design basis. ,

.>,

s,

a.ss.,

H' ,_'information~, please contact'us.

'

. fShould;you'havecany questions,or require additional. 4m

.

V y

" ' '

; ~very truly yours,Origins signed byg

.h'"' S. L. DALTROFB ',~ -

. ,:t-

N .;t*

fcc'a' Dr.,T..E..Murley,,hdministrator, Region l', USNRCmn'

5~< :J..T. Wiggins, Resident Site Inspector'>

r ; e. _' -See Service List!R'

-

F

*ejs 4.

.

r

,- f,

s - .,t ., .

,, .n - - - - ,

.* .

% %

.

cc: Judge Helen F. HoytJudge Jerry HarbourJudge Richard F. ColeTroy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.Mr. Frank R. RomanoMr. Robert L. AnthonyMs. Phyllis ZitnerCharles W. Elliott, Esq.Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.Mr. Thomas GeruskyDirector, Penna. Emergency Management AgencyAngus Love, Esq.David Wersan, Esq.Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.Martha W. Bush, Esq.Spence W. Perry, Esq.Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.,

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal BoardAtomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel

James Wiggins -

(3 Copies)Docket & Service Section

Timothy R. S. Campbell

January 16, 1985

.

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