IR 05000029/1980008
| ML19340B357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Foley T, Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340B355 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-80-08, 50-29-80-8, IEB-79-15, IEB-79-16, IEB-79-18, NUDOCS 8010220148 | |
| Download: ML19340B357 (9) | |
Text
.
N v-U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-29/80-08 Docket No.
50-29 License No.
DPR-3 Priority Category C
--
.
Licensee:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 25 Research Drive
,
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name:
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee Rowe)
Inspection At:
Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
May 5-16, 1980 Inspectors:
A 7/4 d*6
"
T. Foley, Resident Insp6ctor date
'
date date 7/r#M-Approved by:
A T. T. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects date
.
Section No. 3, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 5-16, 1930 (Report Number 50-29/80-08)
~ Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations-including:
log and record review; tour of the facility; observation of physical security; housekeeping; radiation protection controls; followup of selected Licensee Event Reports (LERs); and, followup of selected IE Bulletins.
The inspection involved 76 inspector-hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Results:
One item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction '-
failure to control entry to an access controlled area, paragraph 2.b(3)).
- Region I Form 12-(Rev. April 1977)-
a 80102201
-
-
'
.
e
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted D. Army, Technical Assistant
- H. Autio, Plant Superintendent T. Danek, Operations Supervisor
- L. French, Engineering Assistant F. Hicks, Training Coordinator K. Jurentkuff, Day Shift Supervisor L. Laffond, Assistant Training Coordinator P. Laird, Maintenance Supervisor N. St. Laurent, Assistant Plant Superintendent R. Randall, Engineering Assistant
- J. Staub, Technical Assistant to Plant Superintendent J. Trejo, Plant Health Physicist D. Vassar, Assistant Operations Supervisor The inspector interviewed other licensee employees including members of the operations, maintenance, health physics and security staffs. Emp oyees of Mercury Contractors, who were performing the Spent Fuel Pool modification, were also interviewed.
- denotes those present at the exit interview 2.
Review of Plant Operations a.
Shift Logs'and Operating Records The inspector reviewed, on a sampling basis, the following logs and records, for the period May 5 to May 16, 1980:
Switching and Tagging Log
--
Maintenance Request Log
--
Bypass of Safety Function and Jumper Control Log
--
Operating Log-
--
Rowe Station Log Sheets
-.
Rowe Station Shutdown Log Sheets
--
Primary A.0. Log Sheets
--
Shift Relief Checklist
--
The' logs and records were reviewed to verify the following items:
Log book entries are sufficiently detailed
--
Log book reviews are being conducted by the staff
--
Instructions ~in the Special Order Book did not conflict with
--
Technical Specification reporting and LC0 requirements
r: -
t
.
,
!
!
Acceptance criteria for the above review included:
YNPS Technical-Specification
- --
!
The Code of Federal Regulation, Title 10, Part 50
--
YAEC Plant Procedure
--
l Inspector Judgment
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Plant Tour I
Inspection tours of selected plant areas were conducted at various
times, including backshifts, during the inspection. The areas were inspected with respect to housekeeping and cleanliness, physical
!
l security, fire protection, radiation controls and general operations
- compliance with plant procedures and Technical Specifications.
The inspector toured the following areas:
Control Room
--
l Primary Auxiliary Building
--
j Vapor Container
--
!
Switchgear Room
--
Diesel Generator Rooms
--
Radwaste Building
--
Turbine Building
--
(
Safety Injection Pump Room
--
i New Fuel Vault
--
The following observations /determi. nations were made:
Control room manning was observed to be in compliance with
--
regulatory requirements
' Selected valve position / equipment start positions were observed
--
'
to be in the required position applicable to niant status
Control room operators were determined to be knowledgeable of
--
the reasons for all lighted annunciators Fire fighting equipment was observed to be checked by plant.
- --
personnel and to have an operable appearance
-
.
t P
.e u
'
.
l l
4'
!
.
L
' ; Radiation ' areas-within the. controlled area were independently
--
monitored to be within regulatory requirements
. Shift turnovers. of control room operators and shift supervisors
---
were observed on regular.and backshifts to be acceptable Acceptance' criteria for the above items included the following:
.YNPS: Technical Specifications
--
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50
--
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20
--
f l
l YNPS AP-0216, Plant Housekeeping Program
--
I YNPS AP-0018, Bypass of Safety Function and Jumper Control
--
YNPS AP-0017,. Switching and Tagging of Plant Caufpment
--
YNPS AP-0222, Job Orders
--
YNPS.AP-0400, Physical Security Organization
--
YNPS DP-0437, Radiological and Portal Monitoring
--
YNPS DP-0475, Vital and Access. Control Area Entry Controls
--
--
YNPS Radiation Protection Manual Inspector Judgment
--
With the exception-of the items no'ted belos, no inadequacies were identified.
(1) Control Room Instrumentation:
The inspector found, during his attempt to verify the Steam Generator (S/G) Blowdown Monitor Alarm Setpoint, that the chart pap'er scale on the S/G Blowdown
--
Monitor was difficult to decipher.
The inspector questioned control' room operators and members of the plant staff to determine if the' chart paper was confusing to them as well.,All personnel
,
'
questioned, with the' exception of the Health Physics Supervisor, l'
found the chart paper difficult to decipher.
i
,
s-
.,-
.
+
, -.
.,
,v.-
.
,,-,
t
,.,
- ~,,-.,
o r. ~,
4-...
,
_ _
'
.
.
+
"
-
!
This= matter was brought to the attention of'the plant superinten-
_
- dent.
A memorandum was subsequently circulated to the plant operating staff providing-instructions on how to read this chart
-
. paper and how:to read the standard " Log Scale" paper which isL to
-
'
r;71 ace the' chart, paper presently installed.
Chart paper on the Primary Vent Stack Monitor will be replaced,
'
along with the paper presently used on the four.S/G Blowdown Monitors.
(2) JHousekeeping: _The inspector noted an accumulation of miscel-laneous materials throughout-the Spent Fuel Pit general area.- It was also noted that the step-off pads at the entrance to the
~
~
,
Spent Fuel Pit were not being maintained.
These items were
brought to the attention of plant staff and were subsequently
,
corrected.
+
.!
!
!
.
4
5
%
v
--+
,
,
.-%
--
c m
-
r-r
, - --,--r
-
w
,
-v
- - -, -- - ~ + -
,
-_
-
..
.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, IT CONTAINS 10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATION, NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
.
m
-
-
.
7
,
3.-
IE Bulletins-The-inspector reviewed licensee actions concerning the response to IE
-
'
Bulletins to verify that:
The bulletin was forwarded to appropriate onsite management
--
A review for applicability was performed
--
The information submitted in the licensee's response was accurate
---
.
. Corrective action (if required) was adequate
--
The following IE Bulletins.were reviewed:
IEB 79-15, Deep Draft Pump Deficiencies
--
The licensee currently has three pumps similar in design to those mentioned in the bulletin.
The licensee maintained that the trouble-
.
free operating and maintenance history indicated no problems 'of the
type, described in IE Bulletin 79-15.
The inspector witnessed portions of the_ overhaul of a service water pump, similar in design ~to those mentioned in the bulletin and observed none of the indications described in the bulletin.
IEB 79-16,- Vital Area Access Controls
--
The inspector reviewed ~the licensee's response, WYR-79-102, dated September-12, 1979, and compared it to the licensee's Procedure DP-0475, " Vital and Access Control Area Entry Control".
The procedural requirements appeared-to meet the requirements cf the bulletin.
Tours of the facility indicated that, in general, access to controlled areas are in accordance with IEB 79-16 requirements. The inspector reviewed Daily Order 79-282, dated November 7,1979, posted at entrance to vital areas, which prohibits " Tailgating" through vital area access
,
doors.
IEB 79218,. Audibility Problems Encountered on Evacuation of Personnel
---
From High Noise Areas-The licensee's response to IEB 79-18 did not detail all the actions required by lthe bulletin.
However, additional correspondence in WYR-79-148, dated November 28, 1979, described the actions to be taken by
the licensee to upgrade the plant. communications system; including i -
. installation of additional speakers and a new evacuation tone signal in high noise areas.
Flashing warning lights have also been installed that are actuated when evacuation is required.
The inspector _ witnessed _ testing 'of the ~ plant evacuation communication system.
The inspector noted that the GaiTronics was not functioning in-the Emergency _ Boiler-Feed Pump area (a high noise. area); however, a maintenance request is outstanding'on this item.
.
.
-_ -
-
-
..
,
4.
Maint$enance Activities i
a.
The inspector observed licensee personnel involved in maintenance
. activities on No. 3 Service Water Pump.
This observation was performed to verify that the activities were performed in accordance with the licensee's procedures and technical specifications.
- The following determinations were made:
appropriate QC hold points were included
--
radiological controls were established
--
activity was accomplished in accordance with approved procedures
--
administrative approvals were obtained prior to commencing work
--
,
The inspector toured the associated work area and reviewed the following documents:
YNPS AP-0214, Maintenance and Change of Safety Classified
--
Systems, Components or Structures YNPS AP-0205, Maintenance Request
--
YNPS OP-5650, Maintenance of Service Water Pump No. P6-3
--
No inadequacies were identified.
b.
Fuel Pool Modification: The licensee has completed half the instal-lation of a new metal liner and new fuel storage racks in the existing spent fuel pool.
The inspector reviewed procedure SP-N-49730-703,
" Concrete Drilling and Anchor Bolt' Installation Procedure", and SP-N-49780-705, " Sidewall Base Plate Location Procedure, Yankee Rowe Fuel Pool Liner", which were developed by Mercury Company of Norwich,
'
Incorporated.
The inspector noted that all the bolts were tightened to exactly 200 foot pounds as required by one-of the procedures; however, the other procedure required the concrete anchor bolts to be tightened to 250 foot pounds.
During discussions with Mercury Contractor personnal about the discrepancies noted in torque values, another discrepancy concerning the positioning of the base plates was noted.
It appears that the bolt positions within the base plates are off-center by as truch as one-half inch.
The contractor personnel were questioned whether a nonconformance report was generated. At the time of the inspection, l
no nonconformance report had been generated; however, the contractor
'
l
... *
.
representative. stated that they would consider issuing a report.
This matter was discussed with the licensee representative, who was following the job and with' additional licensee representatives at the exit interview.
This matter will.be readdressed during a subsequent in-spection (50-29/80-08-02).
5.
In-Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
The inspector reviewed LERs received from the _ licensee to verify that the details of the events were clearly reported, the description of the cause was accurate _and the corrective action was _ adequate.
- The. inspector also determined whether further information was-required from the licensee, whether generic implications were indicated and-whether onsite followup was warranted.
The following LERs were reviewed:
--
80-07, SI Accumulator Level Switch Failero 80-09, SI Accumulator Tine Delay Relay Setpoint Drift
--
80-10, Fire Detection System Loss of Voltage
--
No items 'of noncompliance were identified.
6.
In-Office Review of Monthly Statistical Repcrts The inspector reviewed the licensee's Monthly Statistical Reports for the period February-May 1980 to verify 'that reparting requirements were being met.
No reporting inadequacies were identified.
7.
Exit Interview
,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (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.
.
I
r
,
-
- - -