IR 05000029/1982001
| ML20041E714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Foley T, Gallo R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E711 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-82-01, 50-29-82-1, IEB-80-04, IEB-80-08, IEB-80-24, IEB-80-4, IEB-80-8, IEB-81-10, IEB-81-11, IEB-81-12, IEB-81-13, IEB-81-14, IEB-81-8, IEB-81-9, IEC-81-08, IEC-81-09, IEC-81-10, IEC-81-11, IEC-81-12, IEC-81-13, IEC-81-14, IEC-81-8, IEC-81-9, NUDOCS 8203110270 | |
| Download: ML20041E714 (11) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No. 50-29/82-01 Docket No. 50-29 License No. OPR-3 Priority Category C
--
Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station-Inspection at: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted:
January 1, - February 1, 1982 Inspector:
k foR_
2 JS 81
'
T. Foley, Senior Resident Inspector date signed
~
~
~
Approved by:
b
'E L
R. Gallo, Chief, RP5'No. lA date signed Division of Resident and Project Inspection Inspection Summary:
Inspection on January 1, thru February 1,1982 (Report No. 50-29/82-01)-
Areas Inspected:
Routine onsite inspection by the resident inspector of plant operations including tours of the facility; log and record reviews; operational safety verification; review of periodic reports; review of plant housekeeping; review of site audit program; review of IE Bulletin and Circulars; review of surveillance testing; and, observation of physical security. The inspection involved 51 inspector hours by the resident NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8203110270 820223 PDR ADOCK 05000029 G
PDR L
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted H. Autio, Plant Superintendent E. Begiebing, Maintenance Supervisor W. Billings, Chemistry Manager B. Drawbridge, Technical Director E. Chatfield, Training Manager L. French, Technical Assistant K. Jurentkuff, Assistant Operations Supervisor L. Laffond, Technical Assistant R. Mitchell, Instrument and Control Supervisor N. St. Laurent, Assistant Plant Superintendent R. Sedgwick, Security Supervisor J. Staub, Technical Services Managcr The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection, including members of the Operations, Health Physics, Instrument and Control, Maintenance, Reactor Engineering, Security and General Office Staffs.
2.
Shift Logs and Operating Records a.
The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine the licensee established administrative requiren.9nts in this area:
--
AP-0001, Plant Procedures and Instructions, Raviden 8.
--
AP-2002, Operations Department Personnel Shift Relief, Revision 10.
--
AP-2009, Control Room Area Limits for Control Room Operators.
--
AP-2010, Control Room Access During Accidents and Operations Transients, Original.
--
AP-0018, Bypass of Safety Function and Jumper Control Log, Revision 8.
--
AP-2007, Maintenance of Operations Department Logs, Revirion 7.
--
AP-0216, Housekeeping and Cleanliness Control, Revision 2.
--
AP-0042, Housekeeping for Maintenance and Modifications, Revision 1.
--
Rules Governing In-Plant Tagging Procedures Local Control Rules, Revision.
.
The above procedures, Technical Specifications, ANSI N18.7-1972 " Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" and 10 CFR 50.59 were used by the inspector to determine the acceptability of the logs and records reviewed.
b.
Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:
Control Room logs and shif t surveillance sheets are properly
--
completed and selected Technical Specification limits were met.
--
Control Room log entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction, and restoration.
--
Log Book reviews are being conducted by the staff.
Operating and Special Orders do not conflict with Technical
--
Specification requirements.
--
Jumper (Bypass) log does not contain bypasses that conflict with Technical Specification requirements and jumpers are properly approved and installed, c.
The inspector reviewed, on a sampling basis, the following logs and records during the inspection period:
--
Switching and Tagging Log Maintenance Request Log
--
--
Bypass of Safety Function and Jumper Control Log Control Room Prints
--
--
Operating Log
--
Rowe Station Log Sheets Primary A.0. Log Sheets
--
Shift Relief Checklist
--
Primary Chemistry Log
--
--
Secondary Chemistry Log Radioactive Gasenus Release Permits
- - -
No inadequacies were identifie o
.
3.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas of the plant, including the Primary Auxiliary Building, Turbine Building, Safety Injection Building, Vapor Container, Switchgear Room, Diesel Rooms, Control Room, Spent Fuel Building, and HP Control Point Areas.
Details and findings are noted below:
a.
Monitoring Instrumentation and Annunciators On several occasions during the inspection, control board annunciators were checked for abnormal alarms.
The following monitoring instrumenta-tion was checked to verify operability and, where applicable, values indicated were verified to be in accordance with Technical Specification requirements:
--
Pressurizer pressure, level and temperature
--
Charging flow path
--
RCS temperature, pressure and flow SI tank level and temperature
--
--
PWST, DWST and BAMT levels
--
Vapor container drain tank level
--
Primary vent stack radiation monitors
--
Containment air particulate radiation monitor
--
Nuclear instrumentation No inadequacies were identified.
b.
Review of Technical Specifications The requirements of the Technical Specification were verified by the
,
inspector at various times during routine tours of the control room.
l The following requirements were routinely checked.
T/S Requirement 2.1.1 Core Thermal Power 2.1.2 Main Coolant Pressure 3.1.1.1 Shutdown Margin 3.1.1.3 Main Coolant Flow 3.1.2.6 Operable Charging Pumps t
l l
l l
l
,
-
.-.
- __
-
- _ - -
.
..-
__
.
.
3.1.2.11 Operable Boration Paths 3.1.1.1.2 Operable Main Coolant Loops 3.3.3.3 Operable Meteorological Instruments
'
3.4.4 Operable Pressurizer 3.4.5 Leakage Detection System 3.4.6 Main Coolant Chemistry 3.5 Operable Accumulator 3.5.2 Operable ECCS System 3.6.1.1 Containment Integrity 3.7.1.3 Minimum Water Inventory 3.8.1.1 Operable AC Power Sources No inadequacies were noted.
c.
Radiological Controls Radiation controls established by the licensee, including posting of radiation areas, radiological surveys, condition of step-off pads and disposal of protective clothing were observed for conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20 and OP-8100, " Establishing and Posting Controlled Areas," and OP-8101, " Plant Radiological Surveys."
<
No inadequacies were identified.
d.
Plant Housekeeping Plant housekeeping conditions, including general cleanliness and storage of materials to prevent fire hazards were observed in all areas toured.
Housekeeping and cleanliness were acceptable.
e.
Fluid Leaks and Piping Vibrat'ons Systems and equipment in all toured areas were observed for the existence of fluid leaks and abnormal piping vibration.
No inadequacies were. identified.
f.
Pipe Hangers / Seismic Restraints Pipe hangers and restraints installed on piping systems through the plant were observed for proper installation and tension.
g.
Control Room Manning / Shift Turnover Control Room manning was reviewed for conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 (k) and Technical Specifications.
The inspector verified, several times during the inspection, that appropriate licensed operators were on shift. Manning requirements were met at all times.
Several shift turnovers were observed during
,
' -
-,-
.-.---
---
- -. -
-. ---..-
-.
-.
. _
._.
. - - _ _. _.
- - - -
.-.
.-
.
.
.,
the course of the inspection. All were noted to be thorough and orderly.
No inadequacies were identified.
4.
Surveillance Testing The inspector observed portions of the following surveillance tests to verify that testing was performed in accordance with technically adequate procedures, that results were in conformance with Technical Spec!fications
'
and procedure requirements, that the results were reviewed by perscnnel
other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during testing were properly reviewed and resolved by management personnel.
The following surveillances were reviewed by the inspector:
--
OP-4202, Control Rod Operability Check.
OP-4204, Monthly Test of the Safety Injection Pumps.
--
OP-4637, Containment Isolation System Valve Operability Check.
--
--
OP-4638, Functional Test of PS-SI-14, Low Main Coolant Pressure Safety Injection Actuation.
No inadequacies were identified.
5.
IE Bulletin Followup
.
For the IE Bulletins listed below, the inspector verified the following:
that the written response was within the time period stated in the bulletin,
that the written response included the information required to be reported, that the written response included adequate corrective action commitments
based on information presented in the bulletin and the licensee's response, j
that licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to the
- ~
appropriate onsite management representatives, that information discussed in the licensee's written response was accurate, and that corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response. The following bulletins were reviewed:
i
--
IEB 80-04 PWR Main Steam Line Break with continued feedwater addition.
l This item was addressed in inspection report 50-29/81-06. The inspector
!
additionally reviewed the licensee's response WYR 80-50 dated May 8, 1980 and verified that the commitments identified in the response were l
in fact implemented. The licensee has installed a boiler feed pump
!
trip at power levels greater than 15 MWe and a condensate pump trip l
which both actuate on a high containment pressure (5 psig) coincident with low steam line pressure (greater than 200 psig). Discussion with t
!
operators indicate that they are aware of revisions of emergency procedures which reflect these changes. The information presented in j
the response to the bulletin has been implemented on site.
!
!
!
l I
__ _, _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _
-..
_
.. _ _
.
. _ _ _. _.. _ _
_. _
_
-. _
.
-
- - -.
_
-
.
.
.
!
4
The NRC's consultants however, have requested that the licensee provide additional information; D. Crutchfield (NRC) to J. Kay (YAEC) dated January 2, 1982, in order to complete a safety evaluation of the licensee's response to IEB 80-04.
,
i t
IEB 80-08 Examination of Contaiment Lines Penetration Welds.
--
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated June 25, 1980.
The information presented in the response addresses the requirements in the bulletin however, the technical adequacy of the response is presently under review by NRC specialist.
This item will be reviewed during a future NRC inspection.
(50-29/82-01-01)
IEB 80-24 Prevention of Damage Due to Water Leakage inside Containment
--
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated January 5,1981, and discussed it with the licensee.
The discussions resulted in the
.
licensee committing to verifying the operability of the Vapor Container i
Drain Tank level meter on a daily basis, until a redundant means of detective quanities of water in the VC is installed.
The licensee committed to installing a redundant Vapor Container Drain Tank level monitor by January 1,1982.
The inspector has witnessed
'
the installation and operability of this device.
The licensee now has two redundant means of detecting water in the Vapor Container Drain Tank. This item was also addressed in Inspection Report 50/29/81-04.
I This Bulletin is closed.
6.
IE Circular Followup i
For the IE Circulars listed below, the inspector verified the ' circular was
!
received by the licensee management, that a review for applicab!11ty was performed, and that if the circular was applicable to the facility, appro-priate corrective actions were taken or were scheduled to be taken. The following circulars were reviewed:
.
'
--
IEC 81-08 Foundation Materials
--
IEC 81-09 Containment Effluent Water that Bypasses Radioactivity
'
Monitor
--
IEC 81-10 Steam Voiding in the Reactor Coolant System During i
Decay Heat Removal Cooldown
--
IEC 81-11 Inadequate Decay Heat Removal
--
IEC 81-12 Inadequate Periodic Test Procedure of PWR Protection System i
,-r~
-
-
,a
,,., -
,,
-
r >,---,,
- - -,, -
.-
,r.---
,..,,-
--,.
.v-w-,,r-o--.
-_
_
_
-. - -
.. __
,
-
.
.
.._ --
._.
-.- _
,
.
1
'
'
,
IEC 81-13 Torque Switch Electrical Bypass Circuit for Safeguard
--
Service Valve Meters
.
!
IEC 81-14 Maine Steam Isolation Valve Failures to Close
--
The licensee had no record of receiving IEC 81-11.
The inspector provided
the licensee with a copy of the circular and noted that it was routed and i
reviewed by the Plant Operating Review Committee at the next scheduled meeting. No further discrepancies were identified.
7.
Licensee's Audit Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's audit program to ascertain whether the licensee is conducting routine audits by qualified personnel, that
,
activities are in conformance with regulatory requirements, commitments in the Quality Assurance Program and guides or standards.
The inspector reviewed the following documents.
0QAC 81-13 Document Control dated May 2, 1981
--
'
0QAC 81-3A Health Physics dated December 3, 1981
--
,
--
0QAC 81-3B Health Physics Shipment and Receiving dated December 3, 1981 Plant Position Report 81-13 dated May 29, 1981.
--
"
--
Plant Position Report 81-3A dated December 23, 1981.
'
Plant Position Report 81-38 dated December 17, 1981.
--
Yankee Atomic Elect-ic Company Quality Assurance Manual.
--
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) N18.7 - 1972 Administrative
--
j Controls for Nuclear Power Plants i
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) N45.2 - 1971 Quality
--
Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants.
The inspector determined that personnel conducting the audits were qualified in the area which they were auditing and that they had no direct responsibility in that area.
That the frequency of areas audited did not exceed the frequency specified in the Quality Assurance manual; that appropriate followup action was taken or was initiated, and that the audited organization's response to the audit findings was in writing, was timely, and adequately addressed the findings of the audit.
.
_
.,._._,,
m.
, - -,..
. _ _
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_-._.-.-_--_me-.,
..,.
,___.,._..m_.
,_______...-,.._m..
_ _ _ _ __-__. _
,
-
The inspector noted that the scope of the audit was not clearly defined in the audit reports. Additionally, the inspector could not adequately verify the thoroughness of the audit by a review of the previously mentioned audit reports.
This matter is unresolvsd-pending further review of Licensee Audits.
(50-29/82-10-02)
8.
Plant Housekeeping and Cleanliness Program The inspector reviewed the licensee's housekeeping program to ascertain whether the licensee is implementing adequate housekeeping and cleanliness controls.
The inspector reviewed the following documents.
AP-0040 General Plant Housekeeping and Cleanliness Control Survey
--
--
AP-0042 Housekeeping for Maintenance and Modifications AP-0216 Plant Housekeeping Program
--
Operations Department Guideline No. 5, Policy for Control of Work
--
Practices and Fire Protection within operating plants
--
Audit Report YR-81-9 of Housekeeping and Cleanliness, May 26, 1981 The above documents were reviewed to determine that the licensee; established housekeeping zones; controlled housekeeping during work activities; that debris and combustible material were promptly removed from the facility and that the responsibility for these controls was established.
The inspector soured all accessible areas of the facility to verify that controls were established for:
Cleaning safety related components and systems
--
--
Cleanliness classifications for plant systems Material accountability in critical clean areas
--
Maintaining cleanliness of previously cleaned systems
--
The inspector noted that the procedure AP-0216 specifies minimum requirements that must be met for various housekeeping zones.
The procedure however, does not define what areas of the plant are considered to be in any particular housekeeping zone. This matter was discussed with the Technical Director who stated that the procedure would be revised to clarify the housekeeping zones.
The inspector also noted that during routine tours of the plant, housekeeping controls were adequat. -.
. - _ =.. _ _ -.
__.... -.
.
- -.
-
..-- _. -
.
.
s i
9.
Review of Periodic Reports i
The inspector reviewed the licensee Monthly Statistical Reports for
-
January thru November 1981. The reports were reviewed to verify that:
The report included information required to be reported by NRC
--
requirements The report results are consistant with design predictions and
--
.
performance specifications j
--
the information presented in the report was accurate.
No inadequacies were identified.
.
10. Operational Safety Verification
r A detailed review of the chemical shutdown system was conducted to verify that the system was properly aligned and fully operational in the standby
,
mode. This review was performed utilizing system Flow Diagram 9699-FM-83A,
,
l OP-4203 Monthly Valve Check, and OP-2652 Preparation of the Emergency Core Cooling System for Normal Operation.
Review of the above system included
,
i the following:
Verification that each accessible valve in the flow path was in the
--
correct position by either visual observation of the valve or remote position indication.
,
!
--
Verification that power supplies and breakers were properly aligned
'
for components that are required to actuate upon receipt of a safety
injection signal.
--
Visual inspection of major components for leakage, proper lubrication,
!
cooling water supply, general condition and other factors that might
'
prevent fulfillment of their functional requirements.
Verification by observation that the instrumentation essential for
--
system actuation and performance was operational.
I No inacequacies were identified.
I 11. Observations of Physical Security i
<
The inspector observed, witnessed and/or verified, during the regular and offshift hours, selected aspects of plant physical security to ensure they were in accordance with regulatory requirements, the physical security plan and approved procedures.
i l
.
r-,-
_ --,
,,w c -,i m-
,
-.,.r
.,,
-~,-...-,7
,--,
--4
,_.6-e
.
.,.. -. -. - - --. -
-
.-+
.
a.
Physical Protection Security Organization Inspecticq observations indicated that a full-time member of the
--
security organization with authority to direct physical security action was present as required.
Manning of all shifts on various days was observed to be as
--
required.
b.
Physical Barriers Selected barriers in the protected area and vital area were
--
observed, and random monitoring of isolated zones was performed.
c.
Access Control Observations of the following items were made:
--
Identification, authorization and badging; Access control searches, including the use of compensatory measures
--
during periods when equipment was inoperable; and, Escorting.
--
No inadequacies were noted.
12. Management Meetings At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and preliminary findings of the resident inspector.
l l
f i
l l
l I
i
i i