IR 05000213/1980011
| ML19350B111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1980 |
| From: | Keimig R, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350B104 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-80-11, NUDOCS 8103190672 | |
| Download: ML19350B111 (7) | |
Text
.
.
Ci U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f41ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-213/80-11 Docket No. 50-213 Category C
License No. DPR-61 Priority
--
Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Comoany P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection at:
Haddam, Connecticut Inspection conducted: Au us 3-22 and September 10-26, 1980 Inspectors:
N
// -N~- O H. Smi Se r
ident Inspector date signed Approved by-
- -E9 N-/4 M
.
R.' Keim', Chie Reactor Projects date signed Section RO&NS ranch i
Inspection Summary:
,
Inspection on August 3-22 and September 10-26, 1980 (Recort No. 50-213/80-11_)
Areas Inspected: Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspection by the resident inspector (55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br />) including plant operations; licensee action on previous inspection findings; operational events; Licensee Event Peport review; meeting
,
with local officials; and, review of periodic and special reports.
i Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in the remaining-area (Infraction - Exceeding Technical Specification noble gas release limit, Details, '<aragraph 3).
8103190672
_
-
.
.
.
t DETAILS'
1.
The below listed technical and supervisory personnel were among those contacted:
G. H. Bouchard, Maintenance Supervisor N. A. Burnette, Technical Assistant T. W. Campbell, Instrument and Control Supervisor H. E. Clow, Health Ph9 sics Supervisor J. H. Ferguson, Station Services Superintendent
.
R. L. Gracie, Operations Assistant R. H. Gravas, Station Superintendent
-
G. R. Halloerg, Security Supervisor J. M. Levine, Operations Supervisor R. P. Traggio, Unit Superintendent The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including management, clerical, maintenance, operations, health physics, and er.gineering.
2..
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-213/79-04-02): Handwritten, undocumented changes to refueling procedure. The inspector reviewed the refueling procedure, FP-CYW-R9, dated May 5,1980, which was used for the Cycle IX-X refueling.
All changes made to this procedure were done in accordance with approved plant procedures.
Licensee corrective action on this item is satisfactory.
>
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-213/79-10-04): Not properly documenting actual run time on' fire pumps.
Procedure SUR 5.1-15-C, dated July 10,
1980, has been revised and presently requires that actual pump run time be
!
recorded. The procedure requires a minimum run time of 15 minutes, which i
satisfies Technical Specification 4.15. This item is considered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-213/79-14-01):
Design change required to
- prevent freeze-up of fi-e pumps.
A ' plant design change has been completed which provides a small, continuous flow of service water through the fire l'
pumps to prevent freezing during severe weather. This item is considered resolved.
3.
Radioactive Gaseous' Release from Plant Site
.
.
l On Septembzt 26, 1980, at about 11:00 a.m., an inadvertent release of l.
radioactive gas occurred. A Chemistry Technician was obtaining the' monthly i
sample-from the Pressurizer Relief Tank in accordance with procedure NOP 2.11-1.
The technician opened the Volume Control Tank (VCT) Gas Space
'
Sample valve instead of the Pressurizer Relief Tank Vent Header Sample caused the Technical Specification (TS)gher ctivity levels of the VCT gas valve. The higher prersure and much hi instantaneous gaseous release rate
to'be exceeded. The release flow path was from the sample hood v-the Primary Auxiliary. Building ventilation system to the main stack. The
.
r o
-~a s, ~,
p..,3-,
ec.- < -,,
-y, w
,
,-,.,y-y-7,
,,.,,,
,
e+
,,,w, e-w,--
,m.,-
,
.
.
.
release exceeded the TS limit by a factor of 3.38 and la ted about three minutes. This is an item of noncompliance (213/80-11-01). The licensee has red tagged and lockwired the sample valves and has committed to add warning steps at appropriate places in the sampling procedure. The procedural revisions will be reviewed by the inspector when they are completed.
(213/80-11-02)
4.
Review of Plant Operation - Plant Inspections During the course of the inspection, the inspector conducted multiple a.
tours of the following plant areas:
Control Room
-
Primary Auxiliary Building
-
Vital Switchgear Room
-
Turbine Building
.
-
Control Point
-
Security Building
-
Yard Areas
-
b.
The following observations / determinations were made:
Radiation protection controls. Step-off pads, storage and disposal
-
of protective clothing and control of high radiation areas were observed for adequacy in all areas toured. No unsatisfactory conditions were observed.
Monitoring instrumentation. The inspector verified that selected
-
instruments were functioning properly and that the displayed parameters were within Technical Specification limits.
Control room annunciators.
Lighted annunciators were discussed
-
with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken.
Plant housakeeping.
Housekeeping was observed in all areas
-
toured.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
Fluid leaks.
All areas toured were examined for evidence of
-
l-l excessive fluid leaks. None were found.
!
Piping vibrations. All areas toured were examined for evidence
-
l of excessive piping vibration. None were indicated.
-
,
t
!
f-
.
-, -,, - -
w-
.-
,y n,
e
,
,
. - - -, - _
y
,,---
e
,,-,,n
-..
.
.
.
Cor, trol room manning.
The inspector verified that control room
-
manning requirements of the Technical Specifications were being
,
met.
In addition, the inspector observed several shift turnovers to verify that continuity of plant status was maintained.
Security.
During this inspection, observations were made of
-
plant security including adequacy o# physical barriers, access control, vehicle control and searcnes. No unsatisfactory conditions were noted.
The inspector had no questions relative to plant tours. No items of noncompliance were idectified.
5.
Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
The inspector reviewed the following LERs to verify that the details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action. The inspector determined whether further information was required, and whether generic implications were involved. The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Station Administrative Procedures had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken and that continued operation of the facility was conducted within the Technical Specification limits.
a.
Operations Technical Spet.ification Event Reports 80-1U, During completion f as-built verification inspections, performed in accordance with IE Bulle'in 79-14, a total of seven seismic restraints were found to be mist,ing fcon High Pressure Safety Injection and Charging System litas. Seismic supports were subsequently installed.
80-11, Missed surveillance on containment hatch due to management
!
oversight.
Existing procedural requirements to test the hatch are
,
adequate. A satisfactory surveillance was performed when the oversight was discovered.
00-12, Reactor coolant system (RCS) identified leakage greater than l
'
the 10 gpm Technical Specification limit. RCS loop #2 was isolated and depressurized.
In attempting to more tightly close the reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal water supply bypass valve, the stem was broken allowing the valve to fully open.
Resulting flow through the RCP seal exceeded the 10 gpm leakage limit. The seal water supply bypass valves for all RCPs were subsequently replaced with valves of a of fferent design.
i
.
7-g
,
re--
a e
p
--twy w
--
W
-
pUW v7Tyep--'v-F'-
t
-==yvgyrr h
w Vy
%wwF'
- t-p-
y
_
_
.
.
.
b.
Environmental Technical Specification Event Reports ETS 80-05, Radioactive gas release from plant site. A control room operator manually vented the gas space of the Volume Control Tank (VCT) ovei-loading the waste gas system, causing the Waste Decay Tank relief valve to lift, resulting in a release. Subsequent to this event, system modifications were made to preclude similar events.
A manual valve in the flow path was partially closed to reduce the flow rate of gas from the VCT to the waste gas system, and the Waste Decay Tank relief valve setpoint was raised.
80-06, Activity level of water in the Refueling Water Storage Tank TE5T) was greater than the Environmental Technical Specification limit. Water in the refueling cavity was pumped to the RWST without purification based on a refueling cavity water sample which was not representative of actual activity levels. The RWST was put on purification as soon as the error was discovered, and was within limits about two days later.
80-07, Radioactive gas release from plant site. While attempting to
'.
draw the monthly sample from the Pressurizer Relief Tank (PRT) gas space, the chemistry technician inadvertently opened the Volume Control Tank sample line valve.
(See paragraph 3 above).
6.
Meeting with Local Officials A meeting with officials of the town of Haddam, Connecticut, was held the evening of September 10, 1980.
Personnel who participated in the meeting included: Haddam First Selectman, other interested Haddam Selectman; Haddam Neck Plant Resident Inspector.and NRR Project Manager, Ragion I l
Reactor Op~erations and Nuclear Support Branch Nief, and Region I Deputy i
Director.
During the meeting, a description of the missions and functional
!
organization of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and its relationship to l
the local comunity was given. Additionally, items of interest and of-cor.cern to local officials regarding the operation of the Haddam Neck Plant
'
were discussed. At the conclusion of the meeting, local officials were encouraged to contact the NRC, through the resident inspector, anyt.Em they
,
had.any questions or concerns regarding the Haddam Nec.k Plant.
'
7.
' Review of Periodic and Special Reports Upon receipt, periodic and special reports, submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specifications 6.9.1.d, 6.9.1.e, and 6.9.3.d, were reviewed by the inspector. This review included the following considerations:
the report includes the inforetion required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or supporting infomation are consistent with design
,
predictions and performance specifications; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of idr.ntified problems; determination whether any infomation in the report shculd be classified as an abnomal oc:ur snce; and the validity of reported information. Within the scope of the above, the'following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector:
.
, --
o
-,wm,,
-<m-e,
,n>
e w
w.,
y m
e=ww
-
.
.
.
Monthly Operating Report 80-4, for the Month of April,1980
--
Monthly Operating Report 80-5, for the lionth of May,1980.
--
Monthly Operating Report 80-6, for the Ibnth of June,1980.
--
Monthly Operating Report 80-7, for the Month of July,1980.
--
_
Monthly Operating Report 80-8, for the Month of August,1980.
--
Steam Generator Tube Report, dated June 5,1980.
--
Conr.ecticut Yankee 10 CFR 50.59 Report-1979, dated April 1,1980
--
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
8.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and findings.
.
.
--
b.__