IR 05000213/1980015
| ML19340F057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Caphton D, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340F048 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-80-15, NUDOCS 8101160604 | |
| Download: ML19340F057 (7) | |
Text
,
-
.
.
.
..
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-213/80-15 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 Neck, Connecticut
.
Inspection conducted: August 25-28, 1980 Inspectors:
>> /Jd J.@.Wiggink@eactorInspector
'dat( 51gned i
date signed date si ned Approved by:
I,
,
T
80 D. L. Caphton, Chief. Nucleaf Support Section late (1gned No. 1, RO&NS Branch
!
l Inspection Summary:
!
Inspection on August 25-28, 1980 (Report No. 50-213/80-15)
i Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of the general employee training i
program, non-licensed personnel training program and the licensed operator requalification program and an independent plant tour.
The inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations l
were identified in three areas.
Two items of noncompliance were identified in the remaining area (Requalification Program:
Deficiency - three licensed per-sonnel were exempted from 1979 annual examination; Deficiency - no evidence available to document review of all emergency procedures by all operators -
Pa ra. 2).
l l
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
FJO1,16060[
..
,
_
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Blewett, Quality Assurance Supervisor N. Burnett, Technical Assistant to Engineering Supervisor J. Chiarella, Instrument and Control Foreman
- J. Ferguson, Station Services Superintendent R. Gracie, Operations Assistant R. Graves, Station Superintendent
- C. Libby, QA Engineer, NUSCO E. Musil, Maintenance Foreman
- 'D. Packer, Training Coordinator C. Sloane, Senior Clerk Nuclear Station
- denotes those present at the exit meeting conducted on August 28, 1980.
2.
Requalification Training References:
(1) 10 CFR 55, Appendix A (2) Haddam Neck Plant Operator Requalification Program dated December 21, 1977 (3) Haddam Neck Plant Operator Requalification Program dated July 23, 1980 a.
Program Review In response to the March 28, 1980 letter from Mr. H. Denton, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), to all licensees, Connecticut Yankee revised the Haddam Neck Plant Licensed Operator Requalification Program and implemented this revised program on July 23, 1980.
The inspector verified that the revised program did not decrease the scope, time allotted or frequency of conduct of any portion of the program from that specified in the December 21, 1977 NRR approved requalification program.
The revised program contains:
an established, planned, continuing lecture schedule including
--
lectures on heat transfer, fluid flow, thermodynamics and miti-gation of accidents involving a degraded core; documentation of personnel atterAance;
--
required reactivity control manipulations;
--
reviews of changes in facility design, procedures and facility
--
license;
.
.
..
review of emergency procedures; and,
--
evaluation processes with applicable acceptance criteria.
--
The revised program did not list as allowable control manipulations, loss of instrument air and loss of electrical power.
These two exer-cises are contained in Enclosure 4 to the March 28, 1980 Denton letter.
The licensee's representative stated that these two operations were omitted because the simulators now utilized by Conrecticut Yankee do not adequately duplicate the reference plant's responses to these situations.
He agreed to include loss of instrument air and loss of electrical power in the list of allowable control manipulations when a suitable simulator becomes available.
This item will be followed during a future inspection (213/80-15-01).
The licensee's representative statm that the revised requalification program has been fully implemented and forwarded to Operator Licensing for approval.
The licensee intends to comply with the requirements of the revised program while awaiting NRR approval.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
The inspector reviewed the 1980-1981 lecture schedule and examined lesson plans for OP-R0-L33, L40 and L14.
Simulator training was accomplished in 1979 and all operators except one attended.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Record Review The inspector reviewed records of the requalification program contained within the Operator Attendance Log, the Document Acknowledgement Form Distribution Log and th.e Individual Training Folders of eight operat~ rs.
o The individual records contained:
completed course and yearly examinations with answers;
--
manipulation of controls for reactivity changes required by the
--
program; and, evaluations of the last annual drill.
--
__
_
_
_
__
__
e
.
,
'
Records of operator reviews of changes to plant procedures and tech-nical specifications are maintained by the Station Clerk in the Docu-ment Acknowledgement Form Distribution log.
Records of participation i
in the annual examination, the annual drills, simulator training,
,
Emergency Operating Procedure reviews, and lecture attendance are maintained in the Operator Attendance Log.
Three persons did not take the 1979 annual examination and were members of the training department who participated in the preparation, review, administration and grading of the examination.
The approved requalif-ication program in effect during 1979 allowed a maximum of two exemptions from each annual examination.
Exceeding the maximum number of allowed exemptions constitutes an item of noncompliance at the deficiency
level (213/80-15-02).
.
I The approved requalification program specifies that all Emergency Operating Procedures (E0P's) be reviewed by all operators on an annual basis. The inspector was unable to find evidence that indicated that all licensed operators and senior operators reviewed all E0P's in 1979. This constitutes and item of noncompliance at the deficiency level (213/80-15-03).
The inspector attempted to review records indicating that facility design changes completed during 1979 were reviewed with all licensed operators and senior operators as required by 10 CFR 55, Appendix A.
No evidence was available to ensure that all pertinent facility design changes were reviewed by all operators.
Coincident with this inspec-tion, a Quality Assurance Engineer from the Corporate Office was onsite conducting an audit of the handling of design modifications at the Haddam Neck plant.
The audit, designated A60139, was requested by the Station Superintendent in a memorandum to the corporate office dated August 5,1980.
The audit produced findings similar to those found by the inspector.
In a telephone conversation between the inspector and the licensee's representative on September 3, 1980, confirmation was received that the corrective action report addressing the corporate audit findings, would specify that a mechanism be developed to assure a timely review of all pertinent facility design changes by all licensed operators and senior operators.
The failure to provide evidence that substantiates review of design changes has been termed a licensee identified item of noncompliance.
The fulfillment of.the corrective action commitment in this regard will be the subject of a future inspection (213/80-15-04).
. _ _ -
- _
_
.. _ _ _
. - _
_
-
.
.
.
While reviewing the records discussed above, the inspector noted some
'
indications of the need for a more adequate review of records documen-ting full participation in the requalification program.
These indica-tions included:
one senior operator missing his annual drill;
--
one senior operator not participating in the 1979 Simulator
--
Training Program; disagreements between lecture attendance documented in the
--
Operator Attendance Log and that shown in Individual Training Folders; and, Document Acknowledgement Forms (which forward procedure and
--
technical specification changes to the operators for review) not returned to the Station Clerk in a timely manner.
The inspector discussed a need for review of these records on a regular basis.
The licensee's representative stated that the requalification program records would be reviewed by the Training Supervisor, or his designate, on a regular basis.
The subsequent actions by the licensee in regard to this matter will be followed during a future inspection (213/80-15-05).
c.
Personnel Interviews i
The inspector interviewed two licensed personnel in order to obtain a subjective appraisal of the adequacy and quality of the program and to confirm the information documented in the program records, The inspector found no inconsistencies between the interview results and the program records.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
General Employee Training References:
Connecticut Yankee Training Programs
CO-IND-I, Revision 3, April 16, 1.980 - Basic
--
CO-IND-II, Revision 2, June 1,1980 - Radiological
--
C0-IND-III, Revision 2, September 19, 1978 - New
--
Employee
_
.
.
.
CD-IND-IV, Revision 1, January 1,1979 - Experienced
--
Visitor CO-IND-V, Revision 0, May 26, 1978 - NUSCO Employees
--
a.
Program Review The inspector reviewed the above training programs to verify consis-tency with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II, and ANSI N18.1-1971. The programs set forth pertinent training in plant administrative controls, plant design and facility description, radiological safety, industrial safety, fire protection, quality assurance, station security and emergency plans. The training is provided to new and temporary employees.
Formal training is also provided to female personnel on the contents of Regulatory Guide 8.13.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Program Participation The inspector reviewed records and interviewed eight individuals to verify that the documented training was conducted in accordance with program requirements and that the training conducted was adequate and meaningful for the participants.
The individuals interviewed con-sisted of:
one female and one male employee, with less than one year of
--
service; and one female and five male employees, with more than one year of
--
service.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Non-Licensed Personnel Training Reference: ANSI N18.1-1971 a.
Program Review
The inspector reviewed the training program for technicians and crafts-men.
This review identified that no major changes had been made in the training program since the last inspection in this area.
The program consists of structured on-the-job training commensurate with job description, review of pertinent Licensee Event Reports, attendance at selected vendor schools and lectures.
i No items of noncompliance were identified.
!
,
.-
-
..
i
b.
Program Participation The inspector reviewed records and interviewed one Electrician, one Mechanic, one Instrument and Control Technician and a Health Physics Technician.
The inspector discovered no inconsistencies between the training documented in the individual records and that actually re-ceived.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Plant Tour The inspector independently toured the control room, turbine building and the exterior areas of the plant within the protected boundaries observing normal operating and maintenance activities.
While in the control room, the inspector reviewed selected E0P's.
The inspector noted that E0P 3.1-5, " Steam Generator Tube Failure" dated August 8,1980 contained phrases in steps 5.9 and 5.10 that described the use of steam generator power operated relief valves to assist in plant cooldown subsequent to discovery of steam generator tube damage.
The Haddam Neck plant does not now have, nor has it ever had these relief valves installed.
The inspector found that the licensee was already aware of this problem. A representative of the licensee agreed to make appro-priate changes to the procedure by September 28, 1980.
This item will be followed during the course of a future inspection (213/80-15-06).
6.
Exit Meeting On August 28, 1980, a management meeting was held by the inspector.
The attendees are indicated in Detail 1.
The inspector reviewed the scope of the inspection and discussed the inspection findings.
The inspector also received confirmation of the commitments discussed in Details 2.a 2.b and 5.
l
.
.