IR 05000213/1980023
| ML19345G620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1981 |
| From: | Keimig R, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345G618 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-80-23, NUDOCS 8104070627 | |
| Download: ML19345G620 (6) | |
Text
.
.
e
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-213/80-23 Docket No.
50-213 License.No. DPR-61 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 01601 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection at: Haddam, Connecticut Inspection conducted:
November 8 - December 15, 1980 Inspectors:
dd
/w A
8/
v T. H. SmO4tT 5eni6r Resident Inspector date signed date signed
.
date signed.
.
Approved by:
,N
- h tz,o
///f/
'R. R. Keidiff, Chiff, Reactor Rrojects date signed Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 8 - December 15,1980 (Report No. 50-213/80-23)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations including:
tours of the facility; log and record review; licensee action on previous inspection findings; design changes and modifications; operating events; and review of
-
periodic and special reports.
The inspection involved 44 inspector-hours by the resident inspector.
-Resul ts : No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8104'070627
...
. -.
--..
. -
.
.
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 Physics Supervisor J. H. Ferguson, Station Services Superintendent R. L. Gracie, Operations Assistant R. H. Graves, Station Superintendent G. R. Hallberg, Security Supervisor J. M. Levine, Operations Supervisor R. Z. Test, Engineering Supervisor R. P. Traggio, Unit Superintendant During the course of the inspection, other licensee staff and operating personnel were also interviewed.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (213/79-02-03):
Replacement of hydraulic snubbers with mechanical snubbers.
Amendment 31 to Facility Operating License DPR-61, dated March 2,1979, deleted the eight feedwater system hydraulic snubbers from Technical Specification 3.19 and approved their replacement with mechanical snubbers.
This item is considered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (213/76-09-12):
Leak rate testing of containment personnel hatch.
The inspector reviewed procedure ADM 1.1-7, " Containment Access", dated March 19l 1979.
Hatch testing requirements of that procedure are in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, paragraph III.D.2. This item is considered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (213/77-19-06):
Switchgear room ventilation system. PDCR 246, installation of switchgear room ventilation supply filters, was completed by the licensee.
Plant tours by the resident inspector have not identified any instances where foreign material appeared to be carried into.the switchgear room by the ventilation system.
This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (213/77-20-10): This unresolved item referred to hydraulic snubbers and associated surveillance tests. The subject snubbers have since been removed and. replaced with mechanical snubbers.
The unresolved item is no longer applicable and is, therefore, resolved.
(Closed) _ Unresolved Item (213/78-02-02): The eight hydraulic snubbers in the feedwater system were replaced by mechanical snubbers.
Reference to the subject snubbers, and the associated test and inspection requirements, were removed from the Technical Specifications by Amendment 31 dated March 2,.1979.
This item is resolved.
.
T V
.
.
3.
Facility Design Changes The inspector reviewed the details of a proposed facility design change which would provide additional temporary storage space for spent resins prior to shipment for off-site disposal.
Details are contained in Plant Design Change Request (PDCR) number 387.
In brief, the storage facility would consist of a reinforced concrete structure with dimensions of ?2'x29'x10'
high containing eleven cylindrical cells 5'10" in diameter, each capable of storing one spent resin liner. The storage facility would be located inside the protected area in an area which is already used to process and store spent resin liners.
The licensee has conducted an evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, including a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
The inspector had no questions concerning the PDCR or the adequacy of the accompanying safety evaluation.
4.
Operating Events For the events noted below the inspector determined that the licensee had made the proper reports to the NRC and had adequately advised the NRC of the circumstances of the transient. Additionally, the inspector reviewed applicable plant parameters, determined facility status, and reviewed the planned corrective action to be taken by the licensee.
a.
Plant trip November 18, 1980.
At 7:11 a.m., November 18, 1980, while at 100 percent power, the reactor was manually tripped, tar the operator after two rods dropped.
A manual reactor trip is required by E0P 3.1-14, " Rod Drop at Power",
and Technical Specification 3.10 if more than one rod is dropped during power operation.
The dropped rods were from a group of rods which were being operated to adjust RCS temperature. All systems operated normally after the trip. A relay in the rod control circuitry
,
associated with the moveable gripper coils of the two dropped rods was
!
found to be defective and was replaced.
The reactor was taken critical L
at 5:49 p.m., and the generator was phased onto the grid at 8:58 p.m.
b.
Plant trip November 20, 1980.
At 3:38 a.m., on November 20, 1980, a turbine and reactor trip occurred from 100 percent power. The cause of the trip was the actua-tion of the turbine mechanical overspeed trip due to drift-in the setpoint. All systems operated normally after the trip. The turbine mechanical overspeed trip setpoint was adjusted and the reactor was
'
taken critical at 5:01 a.m.
Return to full power was delayed until l
early on November 22, 1980, to repair an oil seal leak on the turbine number five bearing pedestal.
l-
!
.
m w
-.
_ _..
_
.
-
5.
Shift Logs and Operating Records a.
The inspector reviewed selected operating legs and records against the requirements of the following procedures:
ADM 1.1-5, Control Room Operating Log;
--
QA 1.2-14.1, Bypass and Jumper Control;
--
ADM 1.1-43, Control Room Area Limits for Control Operators;
--
NOP 2.2-2, Steady State Operation and Surveillance;
--
ADM 1.1-44, Shift Relief and Turnover;
--
QA 1.2-2.4, Housekeeping Requirements,
--
QA 1.2-16.1, Plant Information Reports; and
--
QA 1.2-14.2, Equipment Control.
--
b.
. Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that :
Control Room log sheet entries are filled out and initialed;
--
Auxiliary log sheets are filled out and initialed;
--
Contrcl Room Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide
--
sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction and restoration; Operating Orders do not conflict with Technical Specifications;
--
Plant Information Reports confirm there are no violations of
--
Technical Specification requirements; and Logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical
--
Specifications and the procedures noted above.
c.
The following operating logs and records were reviewed:
NOP 2.2-2, Log sheets, which consist of Control Room, Part 1 and
--
2, Primary Side Surveillance Form, Secondary Side Surveillance
. Form, and Radiation Monitoring System Daily Log; Shift Turnover Sheets;
--
.
V W
-
y e
Pt y
'w
-
A-p -
w
-
g w
eCrv
_
.
.
Jumper Log;
--
'
Tag Log; and
--
Control Room Operating Log.
--
d.
No unacceptable conditions were identified in this area.
6.
Review of Plant Operation - Plant Tours a.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector conducted multiple tours of the following plant areas:
Control Room
--
Primary Auxiliary Building
--
Vital Switchgear Room
--
--
Diesel Generator Rooms Turbine Building
--
Intake 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 unsatis-factory 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
--
r with control room operators to verify that the reason for them
'
.
were understood and corrective action, if required, was being l
taken. On average, only one or two annunciators were lighted on each control room visit.
i Valve positions.
The inspector verified that selected valves
--
were in a position or condition required by the Technical Specifi-cations.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
,
t-Plant housekeeping. Housekeeping was observed in all areas
--
toured, including control of flammable material.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
,
!
l-
!
.
4-r.
.-r
- a.
,w-
-
c v
,
.
.
Fluid leaks. All areas toured were examined for evidence of
--
excessive fluid leaks.
None were found.
Piping vibration. All areas toured were exami?ed for evidence of
--
excessive piping vibration. None was identified.
Control room manning.
The inspector verified that control room
--
manning requirements of the Technical Specifications were being met.
Security. During the inspection, observations were made of plant
--
security including adequacy of physical barriers, access control, vehicle control, and searches.
No unsatisfactory conditions were noted.
The inspector had no questions relative to plant tours.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of-Periodic and Special Reports Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 were reviewed by the inspector.
This review included the following considerations:
the report includes the
'
information required to be reported by NRC requirements; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified problems; determination whether any information in the report should be classified as an abnormal occurrence, and the validity of reported information. Within the scope of the above,- the following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector:
Monthly Operating Report 80-11, for the month of November,1980.
--
8.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings wera held with senior management to discuss inspection scope and findings.
.
O
,_
~
w T