IR 05000213/1982001
| ML20042C366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1982 |
| From: | Elsasser T, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C365 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-82-01, 50-213-82-1, NUDOCS 8203310294 | |
| Download: ML20042C366 (8) | |
Text
r DCS Nos.
50213-811122
-
.
50213-811204 50213-820112 50213-820120 50213-820131 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-213/82-01 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 condu ed January 18 - February 21,19 A2 Inspectors:
Mt>
k'f!8}
T.H(' Smith, Senior Resident Inspector date' signed date signed
/
date signed Approved by:
- n M
/hk T.C. Elsas er Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Section 1B,, 'ivision of Resident and Project Inspection Inspection Summary:
-
Inspection on January 18 - February 21, 1982 (Report No. 50-213/82-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections by the resident inspector of plant operations including tours of the facility; log and record review; licensee action on previous inspection findings; operating events; Licensee Event Reports; review of periodic and special reports; surveillance and fire protection.
The inspection involved 79 inspector-hours by the resident NRC inspector.
Results:
No violations were identified.
Region 'I Form 12
'(Rev. April 77)
~
8203310294 820312 PDR ADOCK 05000213 G
e
-
,
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The below listed technical and supervisory personnel were among those contacted:
G.H. Bouchard, Maintenance Supervisor R.E. Brown, Operations Supervisor T.W. Campbell, Instrument and Control Supervisor H.E. Clow, Health Physics Supervisor J.H. Ferguson, Unit Supervisor R.L. Gracie, Operations Assistant R.H. Graves, Station Superintendent G.R. Hallberg, Security Supervisor D.J. Ray, Engineering Supervisor R.Z. Test, Station Ser" ices Superintendent Other licensee staff and operating personnel were also interviewed during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Deficiency (80-18-03):
Fire protection system procedure deficiencies. The inspector reviewed several completed copies of PM 9.1-9 and also surveillance procedures SUR 5.5-18,19, 20 and 21.
The unsatisfactory items had been properly corrected by the licensee.
This item is closed.
3.
Review of Plant Operation - Plant Inspections 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 i
'
-,
--
-
.
b.
The following observations / determinations were made:
-- Radiation protection controls. The inspector reviewed or observed the following:
Radiation Work Permits (RWP) in use, personnel compliance with RWP's, routine radiation area surveys, posting of radiation and high radiation areas and use of protective clothing and personal monitoring devices. No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
-- Monitoring instrumentation.
Control room instruments were observed for proper operation, correlaticn between channels and that the displayed parameters were within technical specification limits.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
-- Equipment lineups. The inspector verified that selected valves and breakers were in a position or condition required by the technical specifications.
-- 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. On average, only one or two annunciators were lighted on each control room visit.
-- Plant housekeeping controls.
Plant housekeeping controls were observed including control and storage of flaninable material,
>
control of potential safety hazards and licensee action to control the spread of surface and airborne contamination. No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
-- Fluid leaks, piping vibrations. All areas toured were examined for evidence of fluid leaks and piping vibrations. None were found.
-- Fire protection / prevention. The inspector examined the condition of selected pieces of fire fighting equipment.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified. Combustible materials were being
controlled and were not found near vital areas.
Selected cable.
penetrations were examined and fire barriers were found intact.
Cable trays were clear of debris. Additional information is contained in paragraphs 5 and 6.
-- 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 r
security including adequacy of physical barriers, access control,
,
vehicle control, and searches. No unacceptable conditions were identifie,_
_
-
. -
.
.
4.
Shift Logs and Operating Records The inspector reviewed selected operating logs and records a.
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;
,
-- N0P 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;
,
-- Control Room Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction and restoration; l
-- Operating 0-ders do not conflict with Technical Specifications;.
t
-- Plant Information Reports confirm there are no violations of i
Technical Specification requirements; and I-
,
-- Logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specifications and the procedures noted above.
'
c The following operating logs and records were reviewed:
-- N0P 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;
>-
.
-- Jumper Log;
-- Tag log; and
.
c.
l
-- Control Room Operating. Log.
'
i:
,_.._.-,
,-4
.
..
5.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program a.
The inspector reviewed the following licensee administrative procedures:
-- ADM 1.1-56, " Control of Ignition Sources" dated January 1,1979; i
-- ADM 1.1-57, " Control of Comb stibles" dated January 1,1979;
-- Connecticut Yankee Station ra. icy CYSP-18c, " Fire Protection and Prevention Program."
b.
Based on the procedure review and frequent tours of the facility, the inspector verified that:
(1) Combustible materials are properly controlled in safety-related areas.
(2) Flamable and combustible liquid and gas usage is properly i
controlled in areas containing safety-related equipment and components.
(3) Welding and cutting operations and other activities involving open flame ignition sources are properly controlled.
(4) Housekeeping is properly maintained in safety-related areas.
(5) Fire brigade training sessions and drills are being conducted at specified intervals. The inspector witnessed a fire drill on lanuary 27, 1982, and attended the post-drill critique conducted by the licensee.
(6) Fire protection systems and equipment are functional, properly maintained and tested according to the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.
Paragraph 6 below contains additional information.
c.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
6.
Surveillance Activities a.
The inspector reviewed the eleven surveillance procedures listed below and verified that they satisfied the requirements of Technical Specification 4.15 " Fire Protection Systems."
Additionally, completed data sheets, as indicated, were reviewed to verify that the procedures had been prcperly completed and that the indicated data met the' acceptance criteri..
. -.
-
.-
- -
- -
-
' *..: :...
,
-
,
L(1) SUR 5.5-13, " Semi-Annual Testing of Smoke Detectors,"
dated. November 7, 1981.
-(2) SUR 5.5-18, " Cable Vault Fire Protection System
<
i Weighing of C02 Bottles," dated January 28, 1982.
-
,
L
.(3) SUR 5.5-19, "PAB Charcoal Filter Fire Protection System
'
Weighing of CO2 Bottles," dated January 28, 1982.
-(4) SUR 5.5-20, " Cable Vault C02 System, Flow Test, Valve and
' Ventilation Damper Test," dated January 28, 1982.
(5) SUR 5.5-21, "PAB Charcoal Filter Fire Protection System
,
System Test," dated January 28, 1982.
(6) SUR 5.5-22, "Switchgear Room Fire Protection System Checking
~ Halon Bottles _ Full," dated January 28,.1982.
-
(7) SUR 5.5-23, "Switchgear Room Fire Protection System System Test," dated January 28, 1982.
t (8) SUR 5.1-117, " Pressure Testing of Fire Hoses and Fire System Checks," dated July 1, 1981. Completed data sheets dated: 3/25/81 and 11/7/81.
-
(9).SUR 5.1-119, " Flow Test ~of Diesel and Electric Fire Pumps,"
dated October 27, 1978.
Completed data sheets dated:
8/21/81.
<
4-(10) SUR 5.1-15, " Fire Protection System Tests," dated March 3,
-1981.
Completed weekly data sheets ~ dated:
2/11/82,
'
2/4/82,1/28/82,1/21/82, and 1/14/82.. Completed monthly
data sheets dated: 2/4/82,1/7/82,12/3/81,11/19/81,and-9/30/81.
'
~
-(11) PM 9.1-9, " Fire Protection Equipment Inspection," dated February 6,'1981.
Completed data sheets dated:
2/10/82 and.1/14/82.
'
- b.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified with the exception that
,
L out-of-date data sheets were' used to cc.nplete SUR 5.1-15 on 1/7/82,.
11/19/81, and 9/30/81.. The inspector _ informed the licensee of these -
items. ~
~
+
l The' inspector had'no.further-questions in this area.-
- -
,...
,
,
'.
>
t 1'
D
,,
,. - -
., - ~,,, - -,,,
,,,
-
l~n :;,.
,V,
, - -
,.,.-,,,,.,-.L..--
,
-l J,
-
-.
.
.
-
-
f.-...
(
. ' 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 require-L ments; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified
problems; determination whether any information in the report should be
.
i classified as an abnormal occurrence; and the validity of reported information. Within the scope of the above, the following periodic l
reports were reviewed by the inspector:
I Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report dated Januar; 27, 1982.
--
--
Inservice Inspection (1981) Data Report dated January 21, 1982.
!
8.
Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
' j
!
The following LER's were reviewed to ve.rify that the details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of the cause and the adequacy of the corrective action. The inspector
,
i determined whether further information was required, and whether there.
>
were generic implications. The inspector also verified that the report-
ing requirements of Technical Specifications and. Station Administrative.
j and Operating Procedures had been met, that appropriate corrective
)
action had been taken and that the continued operation of the facility was conducted within Technical Specification limits.
,
81-20 Unexplained decrease in steam flow indication. A leaking drain valve, on one of_ the four differential pressure transmitters which sense steam flow, caused the indication ~ to decrease about 15 percent, resulting in one channel of the steam flow-feed flow
- _
. mismatch circuit to be inoperable. The valve whs repaired.
l l
81-21 ' Control rods inserted below the minimum insertion' limit. A i
spurious turbine load runback caused an automatic rod insertion
.
~
resulting in the control rods being inserted one step below the l
minimum rod insertion limit. The resident inspector was in:the
~
!'
control. room during the entire transient' and observed the operator withdraw the control rods above the minimum limit.. Rods
were below the limit for l_ess than one minute.
.
82-01 Both station battery chargers powered from the same' emergency diesel generator, During an engineering evaluation, the-licensee identified that both station ' batteries were powered from_ the."B" diesel generator..With a loss of offsite power and. failure of:
.i the "B" diesel generator, both battery chargers would be unavail-
able until manual electrical realignments were performed by plant -
operators. Loss of both battery chargers.for about _four hours
=i would also cause the "A" diesel. generator _ to fail. A design
'
'
change has been completed, separating the battery charger power
!
supplies.-
'
l
,
,
,
I j.
t
,
-.
_ - _. _
. ~., _. _
_ - -
-, _. - _.
-.,__--,.,_.
..
..
82-02 Feedwater flow transmitter failed. The number two feedwater line flow transmitter failed high, rendering the steam flow-feed flow mismatch logic inoperable. The flow transmitter was repaired.
9.
Operating Events At about 6:00 a.m., on January 31, 1982, a turbine trip / reactor trip occurred when the main generator exciter field breaker opened on fault.
Loss of generator excitation resulted in a total load reject from 100 percent power. All systems functioned normally after the trip except that the turbine oversped to 2375 RPM,132 percent of rated speed.
Post-trip testing failed to identify the cause for the excessively high turbine speed. Analysis performed by the licensee and the turbine vendor indicated that the turbine was not adversely affected by the overspeed condition.
Inside the exciter enclosure, the licensee discovered a loose piece of shiming material. The approximately one square foot shim was apparently left inside the enclosure at the completion of the last maintenance outage. Small pieces of the shim material were also found inside the exciter diode wheels. This evidently caused short circuits as several diodes and their heat sinks were found burned and melted. The reactor was taken critical at 12:35 p.m.,
and power maintained in the intermediate range while repairs to the exciter were in progress. On February 7,1982, the repairs and testing were completed and at 10:30 p.m., the generator was phased to the grid.
No unacceptable conditions were identified during the review of this event.
10.
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.
.