IR 05000213/1981002
| ML19347E609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1981 |
| From: | Keimig R, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E606 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-81-02, 50-213-81-2, NUDOCS 8105130122 | |
| Download: ML19347E609 (7) | |
Text
.__, ___-
-_______-
.
.
..
,p.
%
%.
- *c.%
.
Mg
.
-
4p U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,' g /,5lpf
<
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
,9 Report No. 50-213/81-02 Docket No.
50-213 Category C
License No. OpR-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:
January 19-February 27, 1981 Inspectors:
N [s, h
'///#/#/
T
. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector
' date date date Approved by:
/- /4 -8 R. y Keimig, Aft @g Chief eactor Projects date Tection18,Di/stono esident and Project Inspection Inspection Summary:
Insoection on January 19-February 27, 1981 (Report No. 50-213/81-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operati.ons including; tours of the facility; log and record review, licensee action on previous inspection findings; surveillance activities; licensee action on IE Bulletins; and periodic and special reports. The inspection involved 60 inspector-hours by the resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified during this inspection.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 1977)
gF105130 /22-
.
..
-
,
-
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 Superintandent Other licensee staff and operating personnel were also interviewed during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (80-07-01):
Radioactive gas release. After this gas release, caused by the lifting of the waste gas surge tank relief valve, the licensee modified the waste gas system to preclude similar events. A manual valve between the Volune Control Tank (VCT) and the Waste Gas Surge Tank was placed in a throttled position to limit the gas flow rate from the VCT to the waste gas system.
The Waste Gas Surge Tank relief valve setpoint was also raised from 3 PSIG to 9.5 PSIG. The inspector had no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Noncompliance (80-09-01): Radioactive gas release. The in"pector reviewed procedure NOP 2.7-3, " Purification System", which was c'.ianged to require a 45 day wait period before spent ion exchanger resin is slurried to disposal casks.
If the 45 day waiting period is not po isible, water used in the slurrying operation will be processed through Primary Drain Tank where any gases generated will be properly handled
+ht by the waste gas system. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(Closed) Noncompliance (80-11-01):
Radioactive gas release.
The Volume Control Tank sample valves, which had been improperly operated by the chemistry technician, have been locked in the closed position. Additionally, procedure NOP 2.11-1-C, " Sampling System - Normal Operation", has been modified to include warning steps to alert sampling personnel to the consequences of improper valve manipulation. The i spector had no further
,
questions on this item.
,
.
_. __
_____ _
.
-
.
3.
Survey to Determine Existence of Adequate Emergency procedures for Coping with ATWS Events at Ooerating power Reactors The inspector reviewed licensee emergency procedures in accordance with the guidelines given in TI 2515/46, concerning Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) events, to determine the adequacy of the licensee's procedures in this area. The following procedures were reviewed:
E0P 3.1-1, " Emergency Shutdown", dated May 18, 1979.
--
E0P 3.1-12, " Emergency Boration", dated February 1,1975.
--
These procedures adequately address operator action in the event of a reactor scram where the control rods actually insert, however, provisions are made for Emergency Boration if more than one rod fails to insert.
Shift operators have the authority to initiate Emergency Boration without consulting any outside authority. The licensee currently has no procedures which specifically address failure to scram when required, failure to complete scram when initiated automatically or manually, failure to auto-matically scram when a parameter exceeds its trip value, or anticip.ated transient without scram.
This information was provided to the Events Evaluation Section of"the IE Division of Resident and Regional Reactor Inspection to determine what, if any, procedure changes will be required.
,
4.
Shift Logs and Operating Records
-
a.
The inspector reviewed selected operating logs 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 Operitors;
--
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:
l r
.
--
-
,
__
..-
-
-
-- -
--
.
.
.
Control Room log sheet entries are filled out and initialed;
--
Auxiliary log sheets are filled out and initialed;
--
Control 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 I and
--
2, Primary Side Surveillance Form, Secondary Side Surveillance Form, and Radiation Monitoring System Daily Log; _.
..
Shift Turnover Sheets;
--
Jumper Log;
--
.
Tag Log; and
--
,
Control Room Operating Log.
d.
No unacceptable conditions were identified in this area.
5.
Review of Plant Operation - Plant Tours a.
During the course of the inspection, the inspector c:.artucted 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 orotective clothing and control of high radiation areas were coserved 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 verJfy that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken. On average, only one or two annunciators were lighted on each control room visit.
Valve positions. The inspector verified that-selected valves
--
were in a position or condition required by the Technical Specifications. No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
Plant housekeeping. Housekeeping was observed in all areas
--
toured, including control of flammable material. No unsatis-factory conditions were identified.
Fluid leaks. All areas toured were examined for evidence of
--
excessive fluid leaks. None were found.
Piping vibrations. all areas toured were examined for evidence
--
of excessive piping vibration. None were indicated.
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 un2cceptable con-i ditions were identified, b.
Surveillance Observation (1) The inspector reviewed the following procedures in preparation for witnessing the containment hatch leak test surveillance.
SUR 5.1-62, " Personnel Hatch P-A", dated November 20,
--
1980.
ADM 1.1-7, "Contai.iment Access", dated March 19, 1979.
--
The inspector verified that the procedures satisfied the requirements of the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, and that the procedures had been properly reviewed and approved.
No discrepancies were identified.
.
v
- _ - _ _ _ - _
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
,,..
(2) The inspector witnessed the hatch test conducted on February 12, 1981, and verified that:
calibrated instrumentation was used to perform the test;
--
the surveillance procedure, SUR 5.1-62, was completed
--
properly; test data was complete and accurate;
--
the test was conducted by qualified personnel; and,
--
the surveillance was completed according to the required
--
time schedule.
The witnessed test was completed successfully.
No discrepancies were identified.
(3) The inspector reviewed data sheets for tests completed in the past several months to ensure tests were conducted when required and that test data was complete and accurate.
.
No discrepancies were identified.
'
7.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletins a.
The Haddam Neck Plant has an open cooling water system supoly to the
.
Containment Air Recirculation fans. Action taken by the licensee on IE Bulletin 80-24, " Prevention of Damage Due to Water Leakage Inside Containment", was reviewed by the inspector. The followino documents were reviewed:
Licensee response to IEB 80-24, Counsil to Grier letter dated
--
January 5, 1981.
SUR 5.1-2, " Primary System Leakage Surveillance", dated January
--
1, 1980.
NOP 2.2-2, " Steady State Operation and Surveillance", dated
--
November 20, 1980.
ANN 4.7-10, "Incore Instrumentation Sump High Level", dated
--
October 3, 1975.
EP 1.5-2, " Communication and Outside Assistance",. dated November
--
20, 1980.
b.
Inspection Findings l
The licensee has adequately met the requirements of IEB 80-24 with i
the exception of the below listed items.
I l
l l
l
-
l
_
_
i
-
'
-
...
.
(1) The licensee does not have redundant level detectors in the containment sump or the incore instrument sump. Redundant detectors are to be installed as part of the action required by July 1, 1981 in NUREG-0737. The weekly containment inspection serves as a backup to the installed level detectors.
(2) Monthly surveillance procedures have not been written. The licensee stated that these procedures would be written at the time of the installation of the redundant sump level instru-ments by July 1, 1981.
These items will be reinspected after the licensee action is completed. (213/81-02-01)
8.
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 identif*ed 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 insnector:
Monthly Operating Report 81-1, for the month of January 1981.
--
Plant Design Change Report, January 1,1980-December 31, 1980.
--
9.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior licensee management personnel to discuss inspection scope and findings.
~
l l
,
l
,
N
- -
-
-
-
- -