IR 05000213/1979004
| ML19273B634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Caphton O, Kalman G, Rekito W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19273B617 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-79-04, 50-213-79-4, NUDOCS 7906120066 | |
| Download: ML19273B634 (7) | |
Text
,
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND enc 0RCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-213/79-04 Docket No.
50-213 License No.
DPR-61 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Haddam Neck Plant Inspection at:
Haddam, Connecticut Inspection conducted: Fe uar.y 12 - 14,1979 3/5/77 Inspectors:
,
-
G ~Kalman,' actor Inspec or
' ddte' signed
$
l
/W
<
V 'Rek tW Eagto Inspector
/ date signed 5b A
$ / h)
'
T.Mfat%yRea r rg ector
/dat'e signed Approved by:
S/ 347)
d!7f
,
D. L. Caph~ ton', Chief, Nuclear Support
/ date ' signed Section No.1, R0&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 12-14,1979 (Report No. 50-213/79-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of refueling activities, outage maintenance, outage recovery procedures, radiation protection and follo. cap on unresolved items.
The inspection involved 58 inspector-hours on site by three NRC regional based inspectors.
Resul ts:
Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in four areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (deficiency -
failure to follow procedures, paragraph 3.c).
2350 096 19061ggC66 d Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Mr. R. Blewett, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. J. Delawrence, Engineer
- Mr. R. Eppinger, Reactor Engineer
- Mr. J. Ferguson, Engineering Supervisor
- Mr. R. Graves, Station Superintendent Mr. J. Levine, Maintenance Supervisor
- Mr. P. Steinmeyer, Health Physics Foreman
- Mr. R. Traggio, Assistant Station Superintendent The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel including control room operators and contractor personnel.
denotes those present at the exit interview
2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (213/76-09-05): The licensee has issued in-structions which establish controls for venting potentially contaminated gases during Local Leak Rate Testing.
This matter is considered to be resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (213/76-09-13):
The Local Leak Rate Test Pro-cedure, SUR 5.l-47, was revised to provide appropriate conservative calculations of the leak rate for penetration P-60.
This matter is considered to be resolved.
Closed) Unresolved Item (213/77-20-22):
The licensee has issued in-
uctions to measure and record the temperature of the gas or test
'
for Local Leak Rate Tests using the pressure decay method.
These t
'tures will be used in calculating the leakage rate in lieu of n
as_
1 the temperature to be a constant 70 F.
This matter is con W ed to be resolved.
2350 097
.
.
,
e
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (213/79-02-01):
The inspector verified that neutron flux was being monitored during core alterations and that the inverse count rate was being plotted.
A licensee representative stated that the refueling procedure would be revised to include the requirement to reverify prerequisites after an interruption in fuel handling.
This revision was not completed prior to the conclusion of the inspection.
2.
Refueling Activities a.
Scope The inspector verified that refueling prerequisite plant conditions, tests and inspections were satisfied during the course of the re-fueling operations.
Refueling activities were witnessed and com-
,
pliance with Technical Specifications and applicable procedures was ascertained.
As part of the above inspection, fuel status boards were inspected for accuracy and the manning in the control room and on the refueling floor was compared to procedural requirements.
Fuel sipping operations were observed and the sipping procedures and results were discussed with the associated contractor.
A contractor completed analysis of the core physics parameters for the reload core was reviewed.
This analysis was performed to support the licensee's safety evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 to as-certain that operations with the new core would not constitute an unreviewed safety question or violate the Technical Specifications.
b.
Documents Reviewed FP-CYW-R8, Revision 0, Refueling Procedures for Cycle VIII -
--
IX, Connecticut Yankee QA 1.2 - 6.4, Revision 5, Temporary Procedure Change (TPC)
--
QA 1.2 - 6.5, Revision 4, Procedure Review and Approval
--
Technical Report Supporting Cycle 9 noeration
--
Polar Crane Inspection Report, dated January 30, 1979
--
Polar Crane Hook NDT Test Report, dated February 13, 1979
--
2350 098
.
.
.
,
.
'
'
c.
Findings No discrepancies were identified during the review of documents which established that prerequisite plaat conditions were satisfied prior to refueling.
During a review of the refueling procedure, FP-CYW-R8, being used for actual performance of refueling war.', the inspector noted that handwritten revisions had been made on several pages and that these " revisions" were not documented on the revision page.
Licensee representatives explained that the handwritten changes were made prior to formal acceptance of the procedure and that the handwritten portions were technically not changes, but actually part of t.Se original procedure.
Most of the handwritten portions were initialed and dated.
Some changes were initialed but not dated. Handwritten changes of the otherwise typed procedure con-stitute a breakdown of document control in that there is no as-surance that the changes were authorized or properly reviewed.
The facility quality assurance procedures specifically require that procedures be typed, all pages must be dated, and any changes must be appropriately documented.
Failure to follow the specified re-quirement: is an item of noncompliance (213/79-04-02).
4.
Post Refueling Startup Procedure Review The following procedures were reviewed for technical and adniinistrative adequacy te ensure compliance with technical specifications and to verify compatibility with the latest facility modifications.
NOP 2.1-1, Revision 5, approved November 23, 1977, Cold Shutdown
--
to Hot Standby.
N0P 2.1-2, Revision 4, approved August 25, 1978, Reactor Startup.
--
N0P 2.4-1, Revision 3, approved November 23, 1977, Filling and
--
Venting of Entire System.
N0P 2.9-3, Revision 2, approved May 18, 1978, Refueling Cavity
--
Filling and Dewatering.
N0P 2.10-1, Revision 0, February 1,1975, Spent Fuel Pit Cooling
--
Syctem Placing In/ Removing From Service, Normal Operation.
SUP 5.1-1, Revision 4, approved November 23, 1977, Hydrostatic Test.
--
2350 099
-
.
.
,
.
The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the need to raview post refueling startup procedures to ensure that any pro-cedural chsnges necessitated by system modifications are incorporated prior to startup.
Specific system modifications were discussed and the licensee representative indicated that startup procedures would be reviewed and revised, if necessary, prior to startup.
The inspector did nct identify any discrepancies during his review of the procedures.
5.
Maintenance Activities a.
Documents Revjewed CY Special Maintenance Procedure SPL 10.5-157, Long Term
--
Cooling Modification, Installation Procedure for FCV-110A.
CY Special Maintenance Procedure SPL 10.5-155, Welding and
--
NDE Requirements for Nuclear Piping and Pipe Supports.
CY Quality Assurance Procedure QA 1.2 - 8.1, Identification
--
of Materials, Parts and Components.
CY Quality Assurance Procedure QA 1.2 - 9.1, Control of
--
Special Processes.
--
CY Quality Assurance Procedure QA 1.2 - 10.1, Installation Inspections.
b.
Maintenance Witnessed The inspector witnessed work performed to install flow control valve (FCV-110A). The work was visually observed to be accom-plished in accordance with the above listed procedures.
The in-spector also verified that the personnel performing the work were qualified and that a material traceability control was being implemented.
6.
Radiation Control During Refueling The inspector examined the radiation control measures which were in effect during the refueling operation and discussed several concerns with licensee representatives.
2350 100
.
.
_
.
a.
Spent Fuel Buildina The inspector noted that the local readout of the radiation monitor located on the fuel handling bridge was inoperative.
The stepoff pad at the spent fuel pool radiation area boundary was not attached to the floor and there were no health physics personnel in the spent fuel building while refueling operations were in progress. The personnel response in the spent fuel building to a high radiation alarm which initiated at 15 mr, appeared to be indecisive in that personnel appeared confused and failed to act until instructions were relayed from the con-trol room.
Licensee representatives were informed of the above items and responded by assigning a health physics technician to the spent fuel building.
b.
Friskers The inspectors observed that workers routinely failed to utilize radiation friskers located in the spent fuel building and change room.
Licensee representatives stated that plant policy was to use the friskers for special contamination problems and that nor-mal contamination was controlled by portal radiation monitors at the exit from the change area.
c.
Contaminated protective Clothing
' Protective cloting which was obtained from the c;ean clothing racks and worn by the inspectors was found to have sufficient contamination to cause the friskers to register full scale.
It appeared that the articles of protective clothing (coveralls and hoods) had been contarinated prior to issue.
The radiation protection findings were discussed with licensee personnel.
No specific items of noncompliance were identified, however, the findings raised questions concerning the adequacy of the licensee's radiation protection program.
A request was made by the inspectors for an NRC radiation protection specialist to evaluate the licensee's program.
The specialist arrived on site unannounced on February 14, 1979, to conduct an independent in-spection.
2350 101
'
.
,
/
7.
Exit Interview
.
,
The inspector met with licensee representatives (see Detail 1 for attcndees) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 14, 1979.
The ' inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection et that time.
2350 102