IR 05000029/1974014

Insp Rept 50-029/74-14 on 741022-25.Noncompliance Noted: Approved Procedures Not Followed,Chloride Concentration Limit Exceeded, & Active Jumper & Bypass Request Review Not Documented

ML20148F829
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	11/14/1974
From:	Canter H, Davis A, Mccabe E, Sternberg D, Streeter J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148F808	List: IR 05000029/1974014 ML20148F805 ML20148F811 ML20148F816
References
50-029-74-14, 50-29-74-14, NUDOCS 8011060785
Download: ML20148F829 (18)

Text

.

f

.

'

(3

.

'sw)

.

P.0 : I l'a t " !?

(tiet l '. ) ( '1 v)

-

.

......i..,..

..

..

.

.

1..:...

.

i

,..

.

.

.

.

1p.,..,

.e....

i,,

.s,.,...

g.,...,. q,,.. ;

,.

,

.-

.

,

.

.

p,..c:, g..

.,

i..

.. -

5 0.. 2. 9./.7_4-14 Dochc t ':o : _. 50.29.._. -...-

a

,..: 7er.rt...:

'

.

.

. _ _.

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

...

._.. D P R. --.3

_ -

Yanke___..c A._t o.m i.c__E.l e.c t_r_i_c.C.o.m.p a.n.y

.

..

..

. -

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

Licenac ':0:

M.... n.,. :

.

-

20 Turnpike Road P ri or 1.t y :

___.._.

_

.

tlestboro, Massachusetts 01581 Ca t c c,o ry :

C Re.re, Massachusetts sar,:. rt:

-

.

t,.

........ _.... _.....

._.._....

_

. = -..

Cro

._.__..-.n.

-.

PWR, 600 !r..'t (tl)

r

.... ot i. <. t, t...,

,.,.

.

.

.

.

T.v,.. a f I r..e, c c t 1: n :

Routine, Unannounced D.t,r or 1: ~p..::

.: _A: t ob e r. 11-23,.19.74.... _

__

.

Dat; of Ph : cum I:

cc.'

September 18-19, 1974

.-

,,

[/ //h:

j,"'....;

..r,__,__,,.

/// ':/ /,'

H,qor:

. In.;s

': :

.

11. L. Canter, Reactor Inspector D.. u.

..,

-,

,,,

,i

..,

/

<

/,',,

' 7..

'..

M/,'s;', '/ ' *.,

'. c t.

.

'p.t,'.

.

,

.

-

.....

D. Sternhera, Reactor Inspo: tor D..a

,

J':,

//.,. *.. _.. '... _...

j,, !.

,

D,f t,., '.,

,.7$.~,....','........'___...__._

i

-

.j

,-

.~

treeter, Reactor Inspector o f, i.

f

.

'

./

. _ _. _.. _.... _.. _ _ _ _.

_..

.... _..

D.,t e

- - - = = _..

__.._. _.

...

_ _ _.. _. _ _...... _. _.

D..;e 1: None O t lw r.\\m. o.ia. ;.

P. rc,

..

,

i

.

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

_ _ _ _

_.._..

...

Date

.C.00 A. A ).

.. u.

,,,%...

aenior.,n ecJe t e r..u.spect.or...

,i lish.

P',,:

,

-

.

.

t

,,,

c.

,

Nuclear S mrt Settien, Reictor Oper.ations P, ranch

-.

.

,,

.

,$

,. -

A g

.

,

f

.

_ _

...

,,.

,.

% bk

k k

, "

k I.

.

.

-

$

IIId Sec t ion, Ev.lC ttir O Crdt(Unb Ur. inch P

80n oe o 7#5-

.

i i

.

'

l

'

,

SUM".iRY 0" FINDINGS Enforce,nt Ac t i cf-A.

In violatd.on of Criterion V, Ap.'ndix B, 10 CPR 50, corrective mair.tencuee on Seismic Clacs I pipe hangers was not accomplished in accordance with an approved procedure.

(Details 2.c. (1))

B.

In violation of Criterion V, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, modification maintencr.ee on a main coolant check valve was accomplished without any post maintenance acceptance criteria.

(Details 2.c.(3))

C.

In violation of Criterion VI, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, corrective maintenance to a coin coolant pump was accomplished with a pro-cedure containing unauthorized changes.

(Details 2.c.(2))

D.

In violation of Technical Specifications, Pa agraph B.2, primary coolant system chloride limit was exce. ded.

(Details 3.c)

.

E.

In violation of Criterion V, Appendix B, 10 CPR 50, operating personnel failed to document their review of active jumper and by-pass requests.

(Details 6.b.(2))

Lice see Action __on Previcusiv Identified Enforcement Action

,

A.

The lice.mee had tahen the actions specified in his response letter with regard to the violations reported in 50-29/73-03, Details 1.b. (1),

1.b.(3), 1. g. (1) (c), 1. g. (1) (b), 1.g.(4), 1. g. (4) (c), 1. g. (5),

1. g. (5) (c), 1. g. (6), 1.h.(2)(c), 1.h. (2) (e), 1.1. (3), 2. a. (2).

Design Chc.nles Nonc idantified Ugueuc1 Occurrences None identified Other Sicalfien~r Pi.dinin A.

Current Findiccr 1.

Non-Deficient.ircas of Inspection a.

le.rbine Stop Valves (Detail 16)

b.

Cu t le r-!!a-me r Swi t ches (Details 18)

j

,

..

.-.

i

-. --

_

i i

.

.

'

l

-

'

-2-

.

c.

Or;/.nicatten and Administration (Detail 7)

d.

Repe r t ir.

Ocquirencats (Detail 5)

2.

New t'aresej ved Iterg

'

None 3.

New open Items a.

IIPSI and LPSI Pump Testing (Detail 4.d. (3))

b.

Key Log and Maintenance Request Log (Detail 6.b. (1))

c.

Control Arca Boundary (Detail 6.c. (4))

B.

Statue of Previour. Onen nn" Unrecolved Items a.

Plant Chemistr: RoutJnc (Detail 17)

b.

Pressuricer Safe ty Valves (Detail 4.d. (4))

c.

Discharge Test of Statior Batterics (Detail 19)

Manar.cr. ant Intervie" At the conclusion of the inspection an exit meeting was conducted with the follt. ring personnal in attendance:

Mr. H. Autio, Plant Superintendent Mr.

L'. Jones, Assistant Plant Superintendent Mr. P. Laird, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. J. Shippce, Instrument and Control Supervisor Mr. J. Staub, Technit 11 Assistant The folic. ag sumarines iters discussed.

A.

Safety Related Maintenance Review (Detail 2)

B.

Abnormal occurrence Review (Detail 3)

C.

Surveillance Testin; (Detail 4)

D.

Reporting Requi.:.ents (Detail 5)

E.

Review of Finnt Operatiqnn (Detail 6)

F.

Organization and Administration (Detail 7)

G.

Revolution of 50-29/73-03 Violations and Management Item (Details 8-15)

11.

Turbine Stop Vals (Detail 16)

a I.

Cutler l'

mer Switc'..s (Detail 18)

J.

Performe a Discharge Test of Station Batteries (Detall 19)

,

.

.

--.

>

.

-

- - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i

.

.

P

'

.

DETAlfS 1.

Persene, Centacted Yankee Ate-ic "Icetric Cc many Mr. II. Au t i ', Plant SuperintenJcat Mr. G. Enird Centrol Roca Operator Mr. U. Bill;.

,3, Chariotry and Health Physics Supervisor Mr. R. Boutuall, Engineerin; Ar.sistant Mr. L. Boeck, Quality Centrol and Audit Coordinator Mr. R. Danek, Operations Supervisor Mr. S. Durfey, Engincorin; Assistant Mr. R. Eppinger, Engineering Assistant Mr. M. Ebert, Plaac neactor Engineer Mr. J. Planigan, Plant Hcalth Physicist Mr. C. Goodwin, Control Roen Operator Mr. W. Jones, Assistant Plant Superintendent Mr. K. Jurenthuff, Shift Suparvisor Mr. L. Laffond, Control Roen Operator Mr.

. Laird, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. J. Shippee, Instrunent and Control Supervisor Mr. J. St ub, Technical /-31stant Mr. N. St. Lauront, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent Mr. M. J. Thay:r, En;in;.ering Assistant Mr. M. D. Vassar, Assistant Operations Supervisor 2.

Revieu of Safety Related 'Sintenance

.,

a.

Mainten:nec evolutions en safot:. related systems ucre reviewed to verify that:

(1)

limiting cenditions for operation vero not while the systen or conponent was renoved from service; (2)

administrativo approval was obtaincd prior to initiating the work; (3) maintenance was accomplished with approved procedures; (4)

required inspections or hold peints ucro included; (5)

necess.ry functional testing and calibration was per-formed;

.

..

- - -.

- -.. - -

-

- - -

t

,

'

,

(6) quality control records were available for three of the items reviewd; and (7) maintenance was performed by qualified personnel, b.

The maintenance review included inspection.of the Jcb Order Form, the "ah.tenance Recues t Forms, Departmental and Oper-ating Proccdures, and Technical Specifications.

Discussiens with the Tcchnical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent, the Maintenance Foreman and the Instrument and Control Foreman were hald to obtain other required information.

Maintenance work reviewed is tabulated below.

Licensee Job Order Syctem Component Pacha;:e Number Reactor Coelant Systcm Main Coclant Pump #1 74-7';

Reactor Coolant System Main Coolant Check Valve 74-70

1. 1 Reactivity & Power Tav Meter 74-134 Control Reactivity & Power Suelear Recorder 74-34 Control-Power Conversion TV-411 (Atcos. Dump Valve)

74-51

-

Pouer (onversion

1. 1 Steam Cen. Level Trip 74-73 Auxilir. f Sys tem

1. 1 Charging Punp Seal 74-76 Elcetrical System

1. 2 Dattery Charger 74-5 E1cetrical System Pressuriser Cycling Heater 74-89 Relry Ener;cacy Pcwcr

1. 3 Diesel C:ncrator 74-41 ECCS

1. 1 Loop Pressure Tr::.s-74-74 mitter ECCS Loop Fill Pi,2 Hangers 74-40 ESF Safety Injecticn Tank 74-36 Level Tri.asmitter i

i

Recalibration of Tav Meter done on MR 74-13 instead of Job Order, L'ithin the inspection scope the fo11 ewing deficiencies were c.

identified.

(1) During June,1974 corrective maintenance to Scismic Class I pipe hangers in the Safety Injcetion systcm was accomplished

.

...

- -

.

-

-

t

.

.

l

'

,

-5-

,

folicwing an op. atten of th..tafety injection system.

This was dene :c J05 Order 74 'O but instead of a Plant Operatic"4 Review Cc =ittee (PORC) appre"ed preesdure as requi-I by AJninistrative Procedure, AP 0214, a meno from the "echanical En;irecring Group was used to perform the evolutien.

Failure to use an approved procedure is a violation of Criterion V, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.

(2) OP-5204, Main Coolant Pump 1 Inspection And Repair, in-cluding, Attachment A with an issue date of April 24, 1974 was used to perform an inspection of lil Main Coolant Pump and necessary repairs completed on June 14, 1974. The Report of Inspections form 0FF-5204.1 includes the following statement: " Torque values have been changed due to "est-inghouc past experience and rescarch".

This is evi.'enced by pen and iah changes to both torque value and clearance limits in the following par graphs of Attachment A to OP-5204:

Paragraphs 12, 21, 32, 38, and 42.

A revicu of Job Order Form 74-79 indicates that the section

" Plant Procedurca affcceed" is marked ""A."

.

This is contrary to the require.nents of AP-0001, Plant Procedures dated October 4, 1973 which states that,

"... Operating and Adr.inictrative Procedures may be ten-porarily changed with the sic,ned approval of two Senior Reactor Opera' rs.

Such chan;es shall be documented and subsequently revicued by the PORC and approved by the plant superintend.:nt or the Assistant Plant Superintendent..."

Unauthorized changes to a PORC approved procedure is a violation of C iterion VI Appendix B, 10 CrR 50.

(3) During June, 1974 medi.ication maintenance to #1 main coolant chech valve was performed on Job Order 74-70 and Plant Design C!iange 73-16.

In this package there was not j

any requirement for a post maintenance test or other acceptance criteria as required by Administrative Prncedure AP-0214 Perforr.ing safety related naintenance without acceptance criteria is a violation of Criterion V, Appendin E. 10 CFR 50.

+

e e

-,

..t

.

-6-

.

.

3.

Revicu of Abnormal Occur. 2nces (A0's)

a.

Abnor. mal occurrence review included inspection of plant records and lv,a, Technical Spceifications, Job Orders, Plant Operations and Review Consittec minutes and correspondence to the AEC.

b.

The below listed AO's wer revieced to verify that:

l)

the cause was identified and details clearly reported; (2)

the corrective action described was taken to prevent recurrences; (3)

each event was reviewed and evaluated by the licensee; and

.

(4)

safety linits, lititing safety settings, and liniting conditions for operations were not exceeded.

.__

Systen AO 74-4 Reactor Coolant System 74-5 Au::iliary Systen

.

c.

Primarv Se ten Ch3 arid: Limits (AO-71-4)

Records indicate that the action taken by the licensee (replac-ing the ion exchanSe resin train) breu;ht the chloride concen-

,'

tration

' thin specificatic, 11 thin 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after discovery.

'

Technical Sp 2cif icc..i n.

Paragraph 3.2 (F'.:SR Paragr ph 106:2)

limits are.lers th - 0.1 pp1.

The reacter was in a cold shut-doun condi.;on at the time of the occurrence.

4.

Surveillance Testine.

a.

The in 'ector verified that the following surveillance pro-cedurc' were preperly approved; Area er System Tested Proct !ure (1)

Reactor Ceolant Syr.ts.

OP-4220, " Primary Systen Water Balance" OP-4503, " Test of Pressuriser Cod. Safety Valves" OP-4232. "Vauor Con ainer Insocetion While Oceratina at Power"

-

-.

--.

e...ev m

ep-

.

.

p:. 7,-

i )

i l

'

,

i-7-

.

.

(2) Peactivity and Pcwer OP-4202, "Centrol Red Operability Control Chech" OP-4214, "Cht=ical Shutdeun Syster Check"

.(3) Core and Internals OP-4703, " Control Reds-Rod Drop Times" OP-4704, "Het Channel Calculations" (4) Pcwcr Conversion System OP-4230, " Steam Generator Safety Valve Tests with the Plant in Hot Standby" OP-4502, " Determination of the Steam Generator Safety Valve Setpoints Using the Crosby Test Device" (5) Auxiliary System OP-4210, " Fire Pump Operabilit:. Test" OP-4226, "Testir.g of Fuel Mr.nd:In3 Equipment with the Dur.y Fuel Assc.nbly" (6) Electrical System OP-5755, " Inspection and Maintenance of Saf ety Relat d /.C3 cnd.'cr Contceter" (7) Emergency Pcwor OP-4500, "'..ec.y Check of the Statica Dat:crics" OP-4207, "PericJic Tec ing of Energ_n;7

,

Diesel Gcncrators" (8) Erarr acy Core Coolin;;

OP-4203, ""e:hly Valve Check" System OP-420', "Menthly Test of Safety Injection Pumps" (9) Other Enginscred Safety OP-4205, " Safety Irfection System Feature Operatic: Zheck" OP-4203, " Flew Test of Two LPSI Pur;;

en Nerral A.C. Pcuer" OP-4206, " Flow Test of Two HTSI Pur;.:

'

on Nor=al A.C. Pcuer" b.

The inspector exnmined the above listed procedures to deternire if they included the follcwing:

(1) Prercquisites and preparations for the test.

(2)

Identification of instrumentation calibration.

(3) Acceptance criteria.

(4 Operational checks prior to returnin?, c uipment to service.

,.

..

--.

w a

---

i i

.

.

'

'

-S-c.

The inc-ect ve ri f icii that all test results examined (1) were in cerf. - *nc.

techn!eal specifications and precedure re-

quircrente, (.'

vere reviewed by socconc other than the

..

tester or in.:iviJ.s. :. a:rectir7, the test.

d.

The inspector had the follruin; cent.ct.*s concerning the sur-veillance' procedures and tests reviewed:

(1) The inspector stated that the accept----

.s ria for OP-4230 and OP-4502 would be cicarer if they included numerical values rather than referencing the operator to other documents or sections of the precedure.

For exampic, OP-4230 acceptance criteria referencesSection I of tha.iS"# Code and 0?-4502 state that " safety valves to be cheched have been casted and their setpoints *.are found acceptable." The licensec stated that the precedures would be reviscd to include numerical acceptance criteria.

The inspecter h d no further questions concerning these procedurcs.

(2) The inspector stated that the acceptance criteria of OP-4500 refers to vendor manuals rather than giving ex-pifcit acceptance criteria. The licensee stated that the

.

procedure could be revised to include nunerical acccptance criteria.

The inspector had no further questions con-cerning this procedure.

(3) The inspectcr stated that while both OP-4206 and OP-4203 only include 'he ch- ;c in shield tank cavity IcVel in

.

calculating the Hi;

'.'ressure Saf ety Injection (HPSI) and Low Prescurc Sciety injcatien (LP.11) purp f.ev rates, bc:h procedures include a statement in the Discuscion sectien that reads: "The annunts of unter injected as indicated on the flow meters vill be compared to that calculated from level changcs in the shield tank cavity to determine accept:nce values fer purp flev."

The licensee stated that the flew =cter accur.cy was not goed enough to pernit the rendings to be used in determining, pump flew rate accept-abilit and that these procedures veuld be revised to renovo that statement in the DISC'JSSICS section.

The licenace also stated that he would probably include the

,

core accurate Safety Injection Tank lev.' change data to be cenpared to the shield tuuh cavity datn in the revised procedure.

G

-

..

-.

i

.

.

.

'

.

-9-

,

The inspector state' that if the Icyc1 change in the shield tank envity bal been 1/4" less for the LPS1 test enurir:d, the pu p fic. rate veuld have been unacceptabic.

!!e cuestienti the licen.ne.s to the ability of the operators to read the icvel this precisely by a measuring device on the side of the cavity. The licensee stated that the operators were abic to read the icvel to within 1/8" of the actual level.

The licencoe inforced the inspector that a recent calcu-lation of the shicId tank cavity indicered that a one inch change in icvel uns equivalent to 403 gallons versus 440 gallers/inc! used in OP-4206 and OP-4203.

The licensco does nct h:c.' ct this ti.c which is the correct neubcr.

Ilouever, l.

has deter.i: d that even by using the 103 gal./it. value that he pr.wcntly encecds the peeped ECCS flew ussursa in his rcviscd CCCS analysis (Figure all-23C, F 'SR 411:61) submitted on July 31, 1974, pursuant to the requirements of 10 crn Part 50, Section 50.59.

The in.pector requested that the liccusee bring this subject before the Plant Operations Review Cor.mittee at its nent no tinc. The licensee agreed to this and also s:cted that

.

he veuld att: rt to detern.n2 ":ich of the cavity voir.c i

versus level nurburs is correct.

In any event, the license 2 stated he intends to conduct a test during the ncnt re-fueling shutde.:n to verify the accuracy of the volura versus icvc1 nur.bcr.

(4) The irspector verific? thct both the high end leu set cede prese i:;r 'nfut. v:1ves had.: en rs mccd :nd react to

,

meet t e Technical Specificarica limits.

The preccdure had also beca revised to refice: Technical Specificatien limits. The con:crn identified in R; Inspection Report 50-29/74-06, Detail 4, is resolved.

.

5.

Renorting Recuiremants The inspector reviewed the shutdevn scetion of the July-a.

December 1973 and January-June 1974 s(21-annual repcrts to verify that the reports accurately reflect information docu-mented in facility records. The inspecter verified that tha reports and records ucrc consistent and had no further ques-tions concerning this natter.

.

..

-.

I e

%d,-

i tm

,

-

i l

'

i

-

j-10-

.

.

b.

The shutdown sect:enn of the reports were also reviewed tu identify LC'the inferr:tien recuire.' to be reported by the techi. al specificatiens has be.:n rcperted.

The inspecter stats th.t none of the tcn s'ut,9 u exc.ined listed infer-m;. tion.on corrective action taken to prevent repetition. The licensec ccknowicdaed the inspecte 's corment and stated that this matter would be revicued with the L'estboro of fice. The inspector had no further questions concerning this matter at this time.

The scheduled shutdowns listed were as follows:

1-11-74 7-28-73 3-16-74 10-20-73 5-10-74 11-4-73 The unscheduled chutdc ns listed vere as follows:

t 4-16-74 8-2-73 8-10-73 8-31-73

,c.

The inspector reviewed facility records relating to the infor-nation discussed in the Primary Contair'.:ent Leak Rate Test (PCLRT) report deted August 29, 1974 and verified that the

.

reported infer,atien accurately reflects test results docu-mented.

Two type "B" tasts (YC persennel access hatch and 30" air purg,e cut panctratic- ) were revicued and found to be in con-

,

,

ferc uwe eith Ta hnica' S ecif# atien rucyir e.ents.

~hree type "C" tests (VC heating, "C vent, A"P nir p eticulate) were revicued cn! fcund te 5e in cenfern:x c uith Technical Spec-ification requireme:

.

d.

The inspector revic:Nd the f ailure to open of valve CS-:DV-504 as stated in m:-e to file !!-30 dated October 24, 1973, entitled

" Scheduled Plant S/D for Rod Prop Time and Training." The cause of the problem was found to be an electrical malfunctic which was repaired by electrical maintenanac.

The failure was not safety related.

The inspect:r had no further questions concerning thic matter.

,

+

. *

.

,

\\

'

i

.

-

.

'

-11-

-

.

6.

Rev ! c'

of_ Plant Operaj y ns a.

The in.4pcetar reviewed the folicwing logs and operating records:

Shift Supervisor Log 6/15/75 - 10/23/74 Control Raor Log Sheets 10/1/74 - 10/23/74 Pricary Picat Log Sheets 10/4/74 10/14/74 Key Log 3/8/74 - 10/25/74 Maintenance Request tog 5/9/74 - 10/23/74 Shutdown and Refueling Log 5/1/74 - 8/25/74 Electrical Suitching Log Book 10/21/74 - 10/24/74 Bypass of Safety Functions and Nos. 74-4 through 74-39 Jump * Centrol Requests Plant Information Reports Nos. 20 throu;h 23 The above records tierc revicued to detcenino if :

(1)

Control Reca Log Shoots were filled out and signed.

(2) Au:<iliary (prinar;. plant) log sheets ucre filled cut and signed.

,

(3)

Shift Superviamt Log contained sufficient details to

.

cornun': ate equipacnt status, lo c'c c u t stet

, correction and rettora:lon.

(4) Log boek revicws were being conducted by the plant sr ff.

(5)

Jurrers or hypaarcs did not centcin bypassing discrepencies with *i.chnical Specificatica requiremants.

(6)

Plant Infornation Reperts confirn: that reported probic=s do not involve violations of Technical Specifications.

b.

The inspector had the following comments on the above listed logs and rccerds:

(1) The Key Log and Maintenance Request Log both had several entries n.

i

pencil and several Ma Log entrics tiero scratched out and made illegible. The licensee stated that this tatttr would be corrected by assuring that operators are remindtd of the necessity to keep neat logs. This item is open.

...

--.

a.

.

i

.

.

S-12-

.

(2) Administrative Pro edure Ap-0015 states in part "...To innure that all d Shift Sun::vis ra and control ree-operat.'rs are cornicant of all Slecl.c/ cr bypassed safety functiens, they shall revic'.: and initial all. Active

' Bypass of Safety.i. actions and Ju ;cr Conttal Requests,'

APF-00lS.2, 'pri: r to relievin ?, the off-goins chift."

Contrary to the procedure requircrenta, individuals failed to document their revieu of t:.; following requests:

Request Missine InitiaJ, 74-4 Shift 1 SS 74-15 Shift 2 SS 74-27 Shift 3 C"1 74-31 Shd't 2 CE0 The inspector stated thm this fnik.rc to follev an approved prece re for a que.lity aflectir; activ':y was in violation or Criteriva V, Appendit. 3, 10 CFR 50, c.

The inspectors conJucted t,,ure of the ;:neral plant accessible areas on October 22, 24, and 25 and tou cd the Vapor Containment on Oct.ber 25.

Observations inci

'.e d :

,

(1) Monitoring instrunantatica confirned that pcuer icvol, reactor coolant cystem pressure, main coolant flow, and pressurince icvel were within Technical Specification limits.

,

(2) Control rcen operators dozenstrate their understanding of all control roce annunciators.

(3) The number of on duty shift parsennel uns consistent eith the Technical Specificatica requ rcrents.

(4) Radintion controls care properly established; heuever, a general control arc

hat the 11eense.2 had established as a supplemental radL icn and conteninction control reasure was not adequately posted and the repe barrier was dcwn in two ceparate areas.

The licensee stated that, although the neca uns not required to be estah11shed by 10 C n 20, he would correct t! a pr. len. This itca is open.

(5) Plant hounckeeping conditions ucre acceptable.

The inspector stated that teols were Icft near the bottom of a ladder in-side the vapor containment.

The licensoc stated that these would be prop?rly st;ored.

..

..

.

.

.

.

i l

.

.

-

.

-13-

.

.

(6) :;o flui,' lechs were churved;

wever, the closed shear va.v c in the ine re in.;t rt.rrnt

. tion systen had n build :p

of b. r.

en it m.

t1e valve wac not tag wd.

The licanace ack.cul, d;yd the inspecter's ccr ents and stated that the valve would be tagged.

(7) No unusual piping vibrations were noted.

(8) A pipe hanger observed chewed no evidence of oil leakage.

(9) Valves MOV-4, MOV-533, and MOV-534 in the safety injection systcr were confirned to be in the proper position and the phys 4 cal position (open/close) agreed with the centrol roc = board position sc1ceted and board indicatien.

(10) Dates and autherJ:-tiens wer exanin i for tags on the teleflex motor brev.:ct, the Vapor Contain cnt personnel hatch netor brccher, and the waste gas surgo drum san;1c valve.

The tag ing uas consistent with the plant tagging syster, (11) Centr roca operators ducenstrated a knowledge of th:

facility training program includir, hou they are informed

of and schcJc1cd fcr upconin sescicas.

(12) The inspector verified that the Assistant Plant Super-intendent had teured the general plant areas en Octeber 25 and that the duty Shi~t Supervisor toured the areas on Octc?er 24.

7.

Orcnnization and /..!ninis trc tion a.

The inspector verified that the licencee's onsite organization str :cture for hoy cupervisery personnel is es:entially the saac as the structure described in Figure 1 of the Technal Specificatiens. The organization is supplomanted by a Technical Assistant to the Superintendent and a Quality Control and Audit

'

Coordinator.

The insrecter verified throu h the review of Plant Operatiens b.

Revice Cc: - i t tee r e tina, minutes t'aat the onsite safety revicw cont.:i t t c v is teeting with a quorum present.

'

i

..

..

...

J l

-

.

!

.

$

.

.

.

-

c.

The inspeccor v:rified through the review of Nuc1 car Safety Audit & T.,_vta. C.

. t v *.ce t in,; ninutes tha t the off.<ite safety revic ccc It;ec is functioning as required by Te.

nical Specificatien D.1.

.

d.

The inspecter verified that changes in key supervisory and technical persennel have b,en reported in accordance with Technical. Specification E.1.a.7.

l The inspector notcl that personnel perforning nondestructive c.

testing had satisfaccarily completed trainirg set forth in the standard S"T-TC-1A, " Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualificatien and Certification."

8.

Submir.nion of Irm.n!ic te Depory References:

(1) RO Inspection Report 50-29f *3-03, Details 1.b. (3)

1.g.(4)(c).

(2) Licensce letter to DRO dated Septc bor 4, 1974.

The inspecter c afiracd that the licensce's actirn was as stated in licensce's letter of September 4, 1974. These itens are resolved.

.

9.

k' elder O mitf' nt.!c, References:

(1) RO Increction Report 50-29 /73-c 3, Detail 1.b. (1).

(2) Lie nsee letter to DRO dated Scptember 4, 1974.

The ir?.pector confirr.ed that the licensce's action uns as stated in licensec's letter of September 4, 1974 Additicnally, the inspector veri: icd that p redu re AP-5 f 05, "S t andard '..' eld in; Procedure."

had been issued c Februarv 23, 1974, and this procedure provides for welder qualificetions as a prercquisite and requires a ucid data sheet for cach veld made on a safety classified systes of compencnts.

This item is : esolved.

10.

Unprepared * ocedureq References:

(1) RO Inspection Report 50-29/73-03, Details 1.g. (1)(a),

1. g. (1) (b), and 1.h. (2) (c).

(2) Licensee letter to Dno dated September 4, 1974.

The inspector confirn..! that the licensce's action was as stated in licensee's letter of Septer.ber 4, 1974 The inspector verified that all of tb

.u'a j e c t procedures hid final licensee approval as of Oct-er 25.

Thcae itens are Jesolved.,

_,

.

i.

.

.

.

.

-15-

.

.

11.

Review of Procca'ures References:

(1) RO Irnpcetion Report 50-29/73-03, Details 1.g.(4),

1.g. (6), and 1.h. (2)(c).

(2) Lice: wee letter to DRO dated Septc=ber 4,1974 The inspector confir cd that the licensce's action was as stated in-licenuce's Iceter of Septeuber 4, 1974. The licensec stated that his entire facilities procedures program has been under revisien for scue time and the co=pletion of the revision effort is scheduled for March 1, 1975.

T: a licensee glans to hava all Operating "ecos reviewed and reissued, as necessary, by December 1, 1974.

These items are resolved.

12.

Un?ntine of Pro. 4ures References:

(1) RO Inspection Report 50-29/73-03, Detail 1.g.(5).

(2) Licensee letter to DRO dated September 4, 1974.

The incpecror confitted thet the licensee's action uns as stated in licencee's letter of Septer. bot 4, 1!74. These itcas are resolved.

13.

Operatinc n ctor f,nerr'> to Ranctor Operatin

.

Limits Refert es:

(1) Ro Inspcction Report 50-29/73-0? Detail 2.a. (2).

(2) Licencee letter to DRO dated Septe.-Ser 4, 1974 (3) DR0 letter to licensec dated Sept :bcr 13, 1974.

The inrpec ar confirncd that the licenace's action uns as stated in licensec's letter of Septe ber 4, 1974 This itca is resolved.

14.

Arme- :.) of '!,n-Ce n f or-.__nc e Re r ts References:

(1) RO Inspection Report 50-29/73-03, Detail 1.1.(3).

(2) Liccasec letter to DRO dated September 4, 1974 The inspector confirmed that the licensec's action was as stated in licensee's Icttc r et Septet.ber 4,1974. This item is resolved.

15.

Manancnent C, tral - Operation and Admini tra tive Asnects References:

(1) R0 Insptation Report 50-29/73-03.

(2) Licensec letter to RO:I dated September 4, 1974.

The inspector confirmed that the licencec's action was as stated in licensec's letter ot September 4, 1974..This item is resolved.

-.

.

.

.

.

'

,

.

.

m-16-

.

16.

---.b.i.-

N m V 1.

Tm

- - - -

The ir. 7..c t e-s t..t c.! t ha t two othe r facilities recently noted that s-e of their tur-fre step valves did not clese as c.<pected wl.

they wsre called upon to do so.

The licennee stated that he had not experienced any such probica at this facility. _The inspector had no furthcr questions concerning this catecr.

17.

P1nnt C't-Intr / Rou~ino References:

(1) RO Inspection R: port 50-29/73-04, Detail 5.b.

(2) RO Inspection Report 50-29/74-06, Detail 7.

The licensre previded the inspector with the folleuing procedures which describc frt.quncion c~! specificatiens for prinary cad i

secondary chtnistry surv ill.; ace tests:

AP-9001, "Frirary Cheuistry Test Frequencico and Specifications,"

issued 9/17l74 AP-9000, "Secc.ndary Chemistry Test Frequencies and Specificatiens,"

issr. ' 5/1ll7:,

AP-S011, "Ch;nistry Tect Frcqu.ncies and Specifications for Extended Shuth un," isrued 4/00/!?

CP-4!00, "Chanistry Surecillance Tests," issued 9/17/74

.

The cencern documented in the chove refercnced reports is resolvad.

18.

Cutler-!!c mtr Suitch Mcdel !:o. 10250T!.023 The inspceter inforced the liccnrce of a recent occurrance involcing the faf'ure of an cmerLenc'. diesel generator to start upc. re::1cin; an auto-st;rt sicnal.

The inspector stated that the cause wcs traced to a Cutler-h nmer Evi;.ch M del

"o. 10:30TJ.0:3 used as centr:1 switt. on the dicsel generator control panel.

The inspector asked the licensee if this codel switch was used in a safety-related system at Yanhec Rowc. The licensee stated that he did not hcve this Cutlet-H : er titch insta17ed in a safety-related systen. The inspector hcd no further con =cnts concerning this catter.

19.

Perform nce Dischnrce Test of Station Earteries The licenser stated that his current procedures provide for cen-ducting performance (rated load) discharge tests of station battetics

.

..

-.

.

,

I

.

.,

.

.

.

.

-17-

.

c/ cry five.. ra In ac

..c w!th Terr P..per W. 71 I:'0-r:T:1, " Pre-

-

'

pesed Rcec- -

'. d Prnctice for "iintsnance. Testin and 1;cphet. cat I.arne S t a t '.. e. T: p' j's - r Pit:nt and Febstation I.c.d Sterg,e 13at t r l,

," pul'11r4,d n b ru.:ry 19, 1971. The licenece aise stated that he is in the prea r. of revisinq hin procedurt s to change the test interval to every third refueJine, but not to exceed three years. The in; pector noted that the taree year, interval is con-sistent with the provisicns of IEEE Std 450-1972, "IEEE Reco== ended PractJcc cr ".:intenance, Tt -ing, and Replacecrnt of Large Stationary Type Pou, r PJ: nt and Substation Lead Storage tatteries," published

.

December 1., 1972, but inconsistent with the one year interyc1

. a c : r.e; J in IEEE Std 303-1971, "IEEE Standard Criteria for Class 1E Electr e Systens for Nuc1 car Power Generating Stations,"

published Septer,.er 16, 1971. The inspector also reted that the licencec's Technical Speciticatiens cnd propcsed Technical Sptei-ficctioc do net r quire periedic rated 1 cad diccht.rge tents of the batteries. This item, identified in R0 1,,pcetion Rcpert 50-29/"4-06, D:t:11 5, rcnains open pending the licensee's revicica of his procoderes and P.0:I review of the thrce year surveillance interval.

.

e d

+

e

==

p

'm

O