IR 05000029/1975007
| ML19347C464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1975 |
| From: | Mccabe E, Ruhlman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347C463 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-75-07, 50-29-75-7, NUDOCS 8011190508 | |
| Download: ML19347C464 (16) | |
Text
O
.
IE:I Form 12 (.*
75) (Rev)
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!E!ISSION OFFICE OF INTPECTION AND DiTORCDIEYr
REGION I
50-29/75-07 50-29 IE Inspection Report No:
Docket b'm DPR-3 Yankee Atomic Electric Company Licensee:
20 Turnpike Road Priority:
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 C
Safeguards Gr UP'
Location:
Rowe, Massachusetts PWR, (W), 600 Wt Type of Licensec:
Routine, thannounced T,,a of Inspection:
May 19-21,1975 Dates of Inspection:
May 6-7, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection:
Reporting Inspector:
/d d u[ 9..e a.., )
6/1 c ),f f,
'
.
DATE W. A. Ruhlman, Reactor Inspector l
l Acco=panying Inspectors:
NONE DATE i
l l
DATE
!
r l
i DATE
,
NONE l
Other Accompanying Personnel:
DATE l
Sd F:/ ? C
Reviewed By:
ws-u DATE ffVE.' C. McCabe, Jr., Senior Reactor Inspector
-- -
Nuclear Support Section, Reactor Opetatifons Branch L
i
l l
80y1190fo[
.
r e
r
-
,
,
--
,
-
g e-
.,...
w-
-
,
_. _ _
.
_.
_
_.
. -
-.. - -
- _.
.-
f s
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncompliance None Identified B.
Deviations None Identified Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action A.
Report 50-29/74-16 The licensee's action on the item identified in Detail 13b was reviewed with no further questions at this time.
(Detail Sc)
Unusual Occurrences A.
A0 75-5
.
Licensee's actions on this occurrence were reviewed with no further questions at this time.
(Detail 5)
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings 1.
Plant Status During the inspection the plant was operating at an average power level of ninety-five (95%) percent with a gross elec-trical generation of 184 MWe.
2.
Acceptable Areas These are areas which were inspected on a sampling basis and findings did not involve an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation, or an Unresolved Item.
.
...
.-.
ov-
,
,..,..
.,.,
,.
-
-
e
~
w
_
.
_ _
___.
_
_
_. _ _ _ _ _ _. _
_
. _ _ _
f
'
.
-2-
a.
Training and Qualifications.
(Detail 2)
b.
Welding.
(Detail 3)
c.
Plant Procedures.
(Detail 4)
,
!
d.
Rrview of A0 50-29/75-5.
(Detail 5)
e.
Safety-Related Maintenance.
(Detail 6)
<
f.
Boron /Burnup Curve.
(Detail ')
g.
Calibration.
(Detail 8)
h.
Review of Plant Operations.
(Detail 9)
3.
Unresolved Items None Identified B.
Status of Previous Unresolved (or Open) Items 1.
The Open Item identified in Reports 50-29/74-03, Detail Sa; and 50-29/74-09, Detail 10 is now closed.
(Detail 2a)
2.
The Unresolved Item identified in Reports 50-29/74-03, Detail
'
4ag 50-29/74-09, Detail 6; and 50-29/74-16, Detail 13b(7) is now resolved.
(Detail 2d)
3.
The Open Item identified in Report 50-29/75-01, Detail 3a is now closed.
,
4.
The Unresolved Item identified in Report 50-29/75-03, Detail 2b, is now resolved.
(Detail 7)
Management Interview An exit management interview was held en site May 21, 1975, at the conclusion of the inspection with the f ollowing licensee personnel:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company Nk. H. A. Autio, Plant Superintendent Mr. R.. L. Berry, Training Coordinator Mr. W. G. Jones, Jr.,- Assistant Plant Superintendent Mr. P. E. Laird, Maintenance Sapervisor Mr. N. N. St. Laurent, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent
,
l
,
.
>e
g F
~
~
.-
-
-_.-
-
-
.-..
..
..
.
. -.
,
.- -
- -.
.._
- _
_ _ _.
. _ -
-
i
!
.
-3-
The following sucmarizes items discussed.
l i
A.
Training and Qualifications.
(Detail 2)
B.
Welding.
(Detail 3)
.,
C.
Plant Procedures.
(Detail 4)
>
D.
Review of A0 50-29/75-5.
(Detail 5)
E.
Safety-Related Maintenance.
(Detail 6)
F.
Boron /Burnup Curve.
(Detail 7)
G.
Calibration.
(Detail 8)
H.
Review of Plant Operations.
(Detail 9)
',
'
.
.
i
!
!
i l
!
.
!
.
...
_.
,
l
r~
<v
,-
r-.-
.+
, re n,-,,-,-
r,v,,,
-,,,.
v-.,,
.+.,.gr.~,.s-armn
.,,a,..,
---v.,
-.. -. - -.,. -,. -
p
,--e,
,+,
a -
-. -...
-r
.. - - - -,,
i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted On Site Mr. D. A. Army, Engineering Assistant Mr. H. A. Autio, Plant Superintendent Mr. R. L. Berry, Training Coordinator Mr. R. L. Boutwell, Engineering Assistant Mr. R. M. Cooney, Technical Assistant to I&C Sunervisor Mr. T. P. Danek, Operations Supervisor Mr. M. W. Ebert, Plant Reactor Engineer Mr. J. A. Flanigan, Plant Health Physicist Mr. L. H. Fritz, Acting Control Room Operator Mr. R. A. Herzog, Shif t Supervisor Mr. W. G. Jones, Jr., Assistant Plant Superintendent Mr. L. J. Laffond, Control Room Operator Mr. P. E. Laird, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. S. G. Racz, Instrument and Control Clerk Mr. I. R. Seybold, Engineering Assistant Mr. J. H. Shippee, Instrument and Control Supervisor Mr. J. L. Staub, Technical Assistant to TAPS Mr. N. N. St. Laurent, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent (TAPS)
Mr. R. H. Streeter, Storekeeper Mr. D. B. Vassar, Assistant Operations Supervisor 2.
Training and Qualifications a.
Licensed Operator Requalification The implementation of the NRC accepted Operator Requalification Program, documented by the licensee's procedure AP-0500, Revision 1, dated June 31, 1974, was reviewed with the following results based on documentation furnished by and discussions held with licensee personnel.
(1) Twenty-eight (28) persons held active RO or SRO Licenses as of December 17, 1974.
Two (2) of these licenses are held by pers state 1 transferred to positions where licerses are not required and the licenses will not be renes ec.
.
..
--.
,
e-w
-
i-5-
,
Two (2) of the twenty-six (26) active licensed operators took their first annual examinations in May of 1974 at the completion of their participation in the training program which prepared two (2) of the remaining twenty-four (24) personnel to sit f or and receive licenses on October 11, 1974.
Since these two (2) persons were licensed for the first time on October 11, 1974, they did not take another examination in 1974.
The Training Coordinator, one of the twenty-two (22) remaining licen-sees, prepared and administered the first annual examina-tion to twenty-one licensees between September 4 and November 11, 1974.
(2) Of the twenty-three (23) persons taking the annual exam during 1974, seventeen (17) secured less than 80% on one or more sections. However, none of the participants secured less than 80% overall.
The average grade on the examination was 91.2%.
(3)
Seven (7) persons scoring less than 80% have attended the required requalification lectures when assigned to the five (5) week training shift.
The remaining personnel will be assigned to the training shif t in normal rotation according to the licensee.
(4)
The established Requalification Program, as administered by the full-time Training Coordinator includes:
U (a) established lecture schedules for required items; (b) use and documentation of videotape training aids; and (c) distribution and documented review of procedure changes to the operating staff.
(5)
Records of three (3) inspector aelected operators were reviewed to confirm program participation with respect to:
(a) documentation of required reactivity control manipula-tions; (b) documentation of both actual and simul'ated use of emergency and off-normal procedures;
,
..
--.
f-6-(c) results of supervisory evaluation of program participants; and (d) documentation verifying accomplishment of additional training, when required.
(6)
The inspector stated that, according to the licensee's documentation, neither the Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent (TAPS) nor the Plant Superintendent had completed any of the ten (10) Reactivity Control Manipulations required by June 15, 1975, for the TAPS and by November 15, 1975, for the Plant Superintendent in order to comply with 10 CFR 55 Appendix A, Item 3a, 10 CFR 50.54(1-1) and the NRC accepted Operator Requali-fication Program.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's statement.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
b.
General Employee Training / Retraining The records of three (3) persons employed at the facility during the preceeding year were selected by the inspector for review.
The licensee's documentation indicated that initial training had been received in the areas listed below.
.
(1) Health Physics Training was documented for areas listed below:
(a)
10 CFR 19.11, 19.12, 19.13, 19.14, 19.15 and 19.16.
(b) Basic Radiation and Contamination Control.
(c) Use and care of dosimetry devices.
(d) Use and care of survey instruments.
(e) Use of protective clothing.
(f) Acces: to and egress from the Control Area.
(g) Tour of the Control Area.
(h) Radiation Alarm Systems and Energency Plan.
(i) Use of Vapor Container personnel hatch during integrity.
(j) Health Physics Manuals and Forms.
(2) Security Training covered the areas listed,below:
(a) Physical Security Plan.
(b)
Security Responsibilities of Plant Fersonnel.
.
...
-_.
"
m
_,
a
'
O-7-(c)
Emergency Security Procedures.
(d) Plant Controlled Access Areas.
(3) Quality Assurance Training was documented for the follow-ing items:
(a) Pertinent Plant Quality Assurance Procedures.
(b) Workmanship, Documentation, Personnel Attitudes Toward Quality Assurance.
(c) Quality Assurance Ibnual, including Company policy.
(4)
Industrial Safety Training included the following:
(a) Plant Fire Protection System.
(b) Occupational Safety and Health Act Standards.
(c) Yankee Atomic Electric Company Safety Standards Book.
(5) Annual retraining was accomplished in the following areas according to the licensee's records:
(a)
Radiological Health and Safety.
(b) Plant Security.
(c) Appropriate Plans and Procedures based on employment positions.
,
-
(d)
Industrial Safety.
(e) Operational Quality Assurance.
(f) l*se of protective clothing and equip =ent.
The inspector identified no inadequacies in these areas of
'
training / retraining.
!
c.
Regulatory Guide 8.13 Training The four (4) female employees regularly employed at the site
!
had received documented instruction in the health protection problems associated with prenatal radiation exposure as outlined I
At the conclusion of the instruction, each of the femal a employees was given a copy of Regulatory Guide 8.13 according to the licensee.
The inspector identified no inadequacies with this area of training.
.
...
-.
' W ewemo
. -
~. _ _ _.. _ _ _. _
f
-8-d.
Instrument and Control (I&C) Department Training The previously identified (Reports 50-29/74-03, Detail 4a; 50-29/74-09, Detail 6; and 50-29/74-16, Detail 13b(7) Un-resolved Item with this area of training was reviewed with respect to the pertinent requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteria II, V, and XVII; ANSI N18.1; ANSI-N45.2.6 as modified and endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.58; and, the licensees Internal Procedure AP-6006, Revision 1, dated April 8,1975 titled " Initial and Review Qualfication Training of I&C Personnel".
The results of that review are summarized below:
(1) Levels of capability and certificates of qualification meeting the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 - 1973 were documented.
,
(2) An Initial Qualfication Card covering seventy-seven (77)
l subject areas was completed for two (2) individuals selected by the inspector.
(3) Personnel Yearly Review Qualification Forms encompassing sixteen (16) items (four (4) of these items were covered-by General Employee Retraining described in Cetail 2b(5))
.
were completed for 1974 for the individuals selected and appropriate progress was documented for 1975.
The inspector identified no inadequacies and the previously Unresolved Item is resolved.
e.
Personnel Qualifications The inspector reviewed the education, experience, training and special skills possessed by personnel currently filling
~
the positions listed below with respect to the standards established for the position in ANSI N18.1,Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and SNT-TC-1A.
(1) Assistant Plant Superintendent.
~
(2) A Licensed Reactor Operator.
(3) A Licensed Senior Reactor Operator.
'
-(4) An I&C Technician.
(5) A Maintenance Technician.
,
(6) Two Certified Welders.
(7) Two Certified (Level II) NDE (Liquid Penetrant) Inspectors.
.
...
__,
E-
-
-.
, ~ ~
.-
- -
_ _.
.-
--
--
5c
,
-9-
The inspector identified no inadequacies in the qualifications of personnel selected based on the licensee's documentation.
3.
Welding The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentation to verify that requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteria II, V, IX, and XVII and selected aspects of Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code were implemented.
For items selected, the results are summarized below:
a.
Records The licensee's records indicated that:
-
(1) welders were certified as required; (2) welder performance is recorded to determine the need for recertification; and (3) appropriately certified welding procedures are maintained.
The inspecotor identified no inadequacies in the areas reviewed.
4.
Planc Procedures
,
A previously identified (Report 50-29/75-01, Detail 3a) Item indica-ting that the licensee had not completed the conversion of ten (10)
procedures from the old to the new (consistent with ANSI N18.7)
format. The same Report Detail documented the licensee commitment to write one additional procedure.
Current status of these items is indicated below, a.
Current Status (1) The licensee agreed to draft a procedure for the recall of standby personnel. Procedure AP-2009, RECALL OF 0FF-DUTY PERSONNEL, was approved by the PORC on May 1, 1975.
(2) The following procedures have been revised into the new format:
,
(a) OP-2156, OPERATION OF THE COMPONENT COOLING SYSTEM, dated February 27, 1975;
-
...
._,
f
/
-.,,
-- -
w-,
,.n
-
.
. - -.
, -,
-
, -.. - -.,. -
-
-
.._
_-
.-. _ _.
.
.-
.
. _.
- -
- -
,
-10-(b) OP-2477, OPERATION OF THE VAPOR CONTAINER HEATING
"
AND COOLING SYSTEMS, dated February 27, 1975; (c) OP-2479, VAPOR CONTAINER ATMOSPHERE CONTROL SYSTEM, CHARGING, dated April 4, 1975; (d) OP-2476, ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING NORMAL VAPOR CONTAINER PRESSURE, dated February 27, 1975; (e) OP-2502, OPERATION OF THE 120 VAC VITAL BUS SYSTEM,
,
dated February 14, 1975; (f) OP-2503, OPERATION OF THE 125 VDC SYSTEM, dated j
February 14, 1975; (g) OP-2504, OPERATION OF THE STATION PCWER SYSTEM, dated February 27, 1975; (h) OP-2130, STARTUP AND CUT-IN OF AN ISOLATED LOOP, combines old Procedures OP-2130 and OP-2131 and, while rewritten and revised into new format, has not yet been issued; and
,
(i) one-hundred and eighty (180) alarm procedures have
been written, approved and issued as follows:
Ninety (90) for Turbine Section Alarms; aa.
bb.
Fifty-four (54) for Nuclear Section Alarms;
,
Eighteen (18) for Waste Disposal Section Alarms; cc.
dd.
Twelve (12) for Safety Injection Section Alar:s; and
.Six (6) for Water Treatment Section Alarms.
ee.
I IE:1 has no further questions, at this time, on the items
,
described in Details 4a(1) and (2) above.
5.
Review of A0 50-29/75-5 The loss of control power to the No. 3 diesel generator was dis-covered on April 13, 1975 and reported to IE:I on April 14, 1975 as A0 50-29/75-5. The actions of the licensee with respect to this item were reviewed with the results summarized below.
-
...
._,
,
---o--.-
,
m
,-
~
,-
.y-r
-,,
,r,
-,,
-
,
,-m-
. -,-
-- -
.
.
-11-a.
Reporting The licensee twenty-four (24) hour and ten (10) day reports accurat 21y described the conditions associated with the occurrence and both reports were filed within the required time frame.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
b.
Corrective Action The licensee's immediate corrective action appeared to be both appropriate and timely.
Although no supplementary corrective actions were specified in either the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or 10 day report, the PORC recommended (meeting 75-22, April 14,1975) that an alarm system (sensing undervoltage on control circuit) be in-stalled. This recommendation was approved by the PORC in Plant Design Change Request (PDCR) 75-10 on May 19,1975.
Howeve; this PDCR has not been approved by Westborough and has not yet been installed.
The inspector had no further questions on this item at this time.
6.
- Safety-Related Maintenance The inspector reviewed the circumstances associated with the main-tenance of two (2) safety-related Items:
No. 3 Charging Pump Gland (MR-75-239); and replacement of the light socket in control circuit on No. 3 Diesel (MR-75-219).
The inspector identified no inadequacies in this area.
7.
Boron /Burnup Curve A previously identified (Report 50-29/75-03, Detail 2b) Unresolved Item was reviewed concerning the plotting of both actual and pre-dicted boron concentrations versus core burnup to verify that predicted values correspond.
The inspector determined that: Actual boron concentration values were plotted within three (3) days af ter determinations and, the actual valves corresponded, within 47., to the predicted values at current burnup of approximately eight thousand (8000) hours.
This item is resolved.
...
.
$'
e
._
'
.
_
-12-8.
Calibration Calibration activities were reviewed in the areas listed below with respect to the apropos requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criteria II, V, XII and XVII; ANSI N18.1; and the licensee's internal procedure AP-6002 Revision 2, daced May 16, 1975.
a.
Personnel Oualifications The qualification records of two (2) individuals having respon-sibility for performing calibration of equipment were selected and reviewed by the inspector. No inadequacies were identified.
b.
Components.
Three (3) instruments, listed below, were selected by the in-spector for review to determine that: calibration frequency was met and accuracy verified as required; that accuracy was ultimately traceable to the National Bureau of Standards; and, that storage, control, and instrument markings / stickers was in accordance with procedural requirements.
(1) YAEC-2081, RCA - DC Microammeter, Model WV-84B.
(2) YAEC-2142, RCA - Vacuum Tube Volt Meter, Type WV-98A.
.
(3) YAEC-2943, Yankee - Decade Resistor, Model 1.
No inadequacies were identified.
c.
Previous Enforcement Action An Item of Noncompliance was identified in Report 50-29/74-16, Detail 13b as documented in the letter dated January 10, 1975.
Additional telephone conversation, held between IE:I and Mr. Autio, formulated the licensee's proposed corrective action on this item as documented in a letter from IE:I to the licensee dated February 25, 1975.
The corrective action, fadification of Procedure AP-0215 to include plant requirements to record "as-left" and "as-found" conditions, was satisfactorily completed with the inclusion of Item 6 in Revision 2 of the Procedure as approved by the PORC on March 5, 1975.
IE:I has no further questions on this item at this tide.
,
.
...
.-.
i
--~.-....
..
(
.
.
.
-13-9.
Review of Plant Operations The areas summarized below were reviewed with results as indicated.
a.
Shift Lags The below logs aere reviewed to ensure that entries were filled out and logs were signed and reviewed as required.
(1)
Rowe Station Log i for period from April 19, 1975 through May 19, 1975.
(2) Rowe Station Log 2 for the period from Aprf.'. 19, 1975 through May 19, 1975.
(3) Primary Plant Log Sheets for the period from April 1,1975 through May 1, 1975.
(4) Secondary Plant Log Sheets for the period from April 1, 1975 through May 1, 1975.
(5) The Shif t Supervisors Log, reviewed for the period from April 19, 1975 through May 19, 1975, when combined with the Operation Supervisor's Memos to File, provided suf-
ficient detail to determine plant status.
(6)
The Operating !!emos, issued for the period from February 27, 1975 through May 16, 1975, listed below, were reviewed to determine that they, as well as the Special Orders (see (7) below), did not conflict with the intent of Technical Specification requirement.
(a)
2A-3, April 8, 1975, Notification Policy to the Manager of Operations for Non-Routine Operations.
(b)
2K-4, March 18, 1975, Vital Area Access List.
(c)
2R-8, April 1, 1975, Transformer No. 1 Panalarms.
(d)
2R-15, May 16, 1975, Phasing Generator to 115 KV lines.
(e)
2S-9, April 7,1975, Station Service Air Ccmpressors.
(f)
2S-2, March 21, 1975, Apparatus In-Service Record.
(7)
Special Orders numbered from 208-to 237 were reviewed, only numbe's 232 and 237 were still in force.
(8) The Jumper Control Requests and Jumper Control Log was reviewed for 1975 up to May 20, 1975.
-
-
-
--.
= _ _ -
- -
--
f
.
i l-14-(9) Plant Information Report #28, the only report issued
since the last review, was examined to confirm that there were no violations of reporting or operating
'
limit requirements.
The inspector had no further questions on these items.
b.
Plant Tours The inspector made three (3) tours of parts of the facility; with a Shif t Supervisor, the Plant Health Physicist, and an Engineering Assistant.
Collectively these tours allowed the inspector to verify that:
(1) Selected monitoring instrumentation was recording /indicat-ing properly, specifically:
(a) Vapor Container Pressure; (b) Heise Gauge for Pressuriser Pressure; and (c) Turbine Hydrogen Purity and Pressure; (2)
Operators on duty met the manning requirements (Technical Specification Table 5.1.2) and they were aware of the reason for Lighted Annunciator Alarms, specifically:
.
(a) High Startup Rate (due to noise in startup range channel during operations) and,
(b) Vapor Container Booster Pump Low Pressure (due to l
pump being shut off);
i (3)
Radiation and high radiation areas were properly (in j
accordance with OP-8100) posted; (4) Plant housekeeping conditions were adequate for safety; j
(5) Fluid leaks were noted, and, where required, scheduled i
for maintenance; l
l (6) There were no excessive piping vibrations identified; l
(7) A selected (charging line, lower pipe chase) hydraulic inubber had sufficient oil;
.
..
--.
l
!
l
.. _
-
_,..__.
-
.
_ _ _ _. __ _._ _ - _
__ _
_
._. _ _
_.__ __
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ -
_.
_. -
.- --
,
,,
.
I a
1-u-
>
!
(8) Selected valve position indications and equipment switches
,
were correct;
'
l (9) Equipment, where tagged, was correct.
I The inspector determined by direct observation that the Shift Supervisor made at least two (2) complete plant tours each watch.
The Plant Superintendent informed the inspector that he had made a complete plant tour within the preceeding five
'
(5) days.
'
As previously documented (Report 50-29/74-16 Detail 4c(4))
>
some radiation signs exposed to weather are faded; however,
'
as noted before, the licensee has ordered new signs. The
'
inspector identified no inadequacies in areas reviewed.
,
.
e
7
4
0 t
I
!
!
-*
- * *
,,
e h
n
--
g-e w + c g,- w y-v-v.
yp--v,----,
,r.,3
,,,
w y
wm,
,
,ww-w.,-
---, - -. -
--e==
y,---=
,.c
<
.w.
..,-- - >-
,-.,-
--m-
,--r se-c=<ve