IR 05000029/1979011
| ML19260C414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1979 |
| From: | Keimig R, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260C413 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-79-11, 50-29-79-11, NUDOCS 7912260302 | |
| Download: ML19260C414 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-29/79-11 Docket No. 50-29 License No.
DPR-3 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee-Rowe)
Inspection at: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection conducted: October 17-19, 1979
[7f Inspectors:
- 4//GC
//
W. J.cLi'zarugReactor Inspector date signed date signed date signed
,
,
NCV>rst f
//- 7-7 9
'
Approved by:
-
/. R. Keimid, Ch,ief, Reactor Projects Section date signed No. l., R6&NS Bednch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 17-19, 1979 (Report No. 50-29/79-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of plant operations; followup on selected Licensee Event Reports (LER's); and, followup on selected IE Bulletins. The inspection involved 22 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncc{igliance were identified.
1618 282 Region I Form 12 ggg60 30g (Rev. April 77)
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- H. Autio, Plant Superintendent B. Brown, Earthquake Engineering Services M. Ebert, Reactor Supervisor L. French, Engineering Assistant P. Laird, Maintenance Supervisor D. Long, Technical Assistant
- L. Reed, Operational Quality Assurance Coordinator
- N. St. Laurent, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- J. Staub, Technical Assistant to the Plant Superintendent
~
The inspector also interviewed other employees, including operators and members of technical and administrative staffs.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Plant Tour The inspector toured acossible areas of the plant, including the Turbine Building, Control Room, Primary Auxiliary Building, Safety Injection Building, Diesel Generator Rooms, Radwaste Building, Switchgear Room, and HP Control Point.
During the tour the inspector witnessed portions of the major maintenance being performed during this outage, including:
Replacement of se.ctions of boiler feedwater piping;
--
Replacement of a section of the Low Pressure Safety Injection piping;
--
and, Rebuilding work on one emergency diesel.
--
The inspector reviewed the status of health physics controls, housekeeping and cleanliness, presence of fire and safety hazards, condition of piping supports, and existence of fluid leaks.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.
Low Temperature Overpressure Protection Technical Specification Amendment 59, issued September 14, 1979, incorporates limiting conditions for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements for assurance of proper operation of the overpressure protection equipment for the reactor coolant system.
1618 283
,
The inspector reviewed the following licensee procedures to verify that the requirements of this amendment had been incorporated:
OP2105, Plant Cooldown from Hot Standby, Revision 11.
--
OP2162, Operation of the Shutdown Cooling System, Revision 4.
--
OP2653, Removal of Emergency Core Cooling System from Service, Revision
--
12.
The completed check-off lists for the above procedures, dated September 9, 1979, for the outage in progress at the time of this inspection, were reviewed to verify that the required steps had been taken to insure opera-bility of the overpressure protection system.
No inadequacies were identified.
During a plant tour, the inspector verified that the circuit breakers for the high and low pressure safety injection pumps were tagged open (tag-out nos.79-711, 715, and 768), and racked out as required by Technical Specifi-cation 3.5.3.
4.
In-Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
The inspector reviewed LER's received in RI office to verify that details of the events were clearly reported including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector also determined whether further information was required from the licensee, whether generic implications were indicated, and whether the event warranted on site followup.
The following LER's were reviewed:
79-15, Missing External Radiation Monitors.
--
79-16, Steam Generator Blowdown Radiation Monitor Failure.
--
-- 70-17, Steam Generator Blowdown Radiation Monitor Failure.
- -- 79-18, Exxon Fuel Rod Pre-Pressurization Error.
- -- 79-20, Missed Surveillance Test on a Vapor Container Isolation Valve.
Except for those selected for on site followup (denoted by *), the inspector had no further questions in this area.
1618 284
5.
On Site Licensee Event Followup
,
For those LER's selected for on site followup, the inspector verified that reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.16 had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the licensee as required, and that continued operation of the facility was conducted within Technical Specification limits.
The review included discussions with licensee personnel, review of PORC meeting minutes, Plant Information Reports (in-house reports), and applicable logs. The following LER's were reviewed on site.
79-18, Exxon Fuel Rod Pre-Pressurization Error.
--
79-20, Missed Surveillance Test on a Vapor Container Isolation Valve.
--
79-21, Unacceptable Code Defects in Feedwater Nozzle Welds.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
6.
Followup on IE Bulletins Licensee action concerning the following IE Bulletins was reviewed by the inspector to verify that:
The Bulletin was forwarded to appropriate on site management;
--
A review for applicability was performed;
--
Information submitted in the licensee's response was accurate and
--
complete; and, Corrective action or performance of required inspections was adequate.
--
IE Bulletin 79-11 Facility Over Current Trip Devices in Engineered a.
Safety Feature Breakers.
Response: WYR letter 79-77 of July 7,1979.
The inspector inspected the 480 volt distribution breakers in the switchgear room and the safeguards bus breakers in the Safety) Injec Building. The inspector identified that the normal (off site 480 volt supplies to each of the three safeguards buses were fed through two circuit breakers in series.
The three bus tie breakers closest to the 480 volt buses were Westinghouse DB-50 type breakers, and although 1618 285
not classified. as lE, were of the type addressed by the bulletin.
The bus tie breakers closest to the safeguards buses (Class 1E) were General Electric.
The inspector verified that even though the Westing-house breakers were not classified as lE, that they had been satisfac-torily inspected by the licensee.
No inadequacies were identified, b.
IE Bulletin 79-13, Cracking in Feedwater System Piping.
Responses: WYR letter 79-83 of July 16, 1979, and WYR letter 79-119 of October 10, 1979 Since the previous inspection of licensee action on this item (IE Inspection 79-10), the licensee decided to volumentrically examine all the feedwater line welds inside the vapor container.
At the time of this inspection, unacceptable code defects had been identified in 54 welds and 38 had been cut out and rewelded. No cracking had been identified.
The inspector witnessed weld repair work being performed during an inspection tour of the Vapor Container. A review of the volumetric examination documentation for the repaired / replaced welds will be performed in a subsequent inspection.
c.
IE Bulletin 79-14, Seismic Analyses of As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems.
Response: WYP,79-84 of July 18, 1979 Since the Yankee-Rowe plant presently does not have a rigorous analysis for the effects of seismic events, the Bulletin requires the licensee to perform inspections of piping and supports in safety-related systems to verify that system design requirements are met. The inspector reviewed work which was being performed by a contractor, Earthquake Engineering Services (EES), to determine if the Bulletin requirements were being met.
The inspector reviewed EES Procedure BM9004/WI-1/ Revision 0, " Vapor Container Piping and Pipe Support Systems, Field Data," dated October 18, 1979.
No inadequacies were identified in the technical content of the proce-dure, however, the procedure had not been approved by the Plant Super-intendent.
This item is unresolved pending the licensee's review and approval of the procedure (29/79-11-01).
1618 286
.
The inspector accompanied one of the field verification teams on an inspection of feedwater piping inside the Vapor Container, and reviewed documentation of completed inspections.
No inadequacies were identified.
A final review of documentation will be performed when all inspections have been completed and the report received in the RI office.
d.
IE Bulletin 79-F, Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water Lines.
Response: WYR letter 79-93 of August 24, 1979 To verify that required inspections were being performed, the inspector reviewed the following documentation:
ISI Work Plan Project No. 79-17.
--
Procedure YA-UT-10, Appendix A.
--
Calibration Sheet Nos. 79-17-017 and 79-17-018.
--
The records indicate that no cracking was identified, but that unaccept-able code defects had been indicated in the ultrasonic examination of
'
welds: SIL 17-3 and 17-4 in the Low Pressure Safety Injection piping.
The inspector observed the work which was being performed on this section of line to replace the unacceptable welds.
Work had not been completed by the end of this inspection.
Completion of the corrective action will be verified in a subsequent inspection.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
7.
Unresolved Items An unresolved item is an item for which additional information is necessary to determine if the item is acceptable.
Detail 6.c contains an unresolved item.
8.
In-Office Review of Monthly Statistical Reports The inspector reviewed the licensee's Monthly Statistical Reports for the period April-September,1979, to verify that reporting requirements were being met.
No reporting inadequacies were identified.
1618 287
.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee represen'.atives (see Detail 1 for attendees)
at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection as detailed in this report.
1618 288