IR 05000213/1982011
| ML20054M580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1982 |
| From: | Elsasser T, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M579 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-2.E.1.1, TASK-2.E.1.2, TASK-TM 50-213-82-11, NUDOCS 8207130631 | |
| Download: ML20054M580 (8) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-213/82-11 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 conduc e : 1 May 10 - June 9, 1982 Inspectors:
. ' Al '
Ih/v 6/s7/F}
T.H. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector date signed date signed
- -
date signed
~
8F Approved by: _
i T.C. Elppf 46 Chief, Reactor Projects date signed
Sectiorf Ilf, Division of Project and Resident Programs l
l Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 10 - June 9, 1982 (Report No. 50-213/82-11)
,
Areas Inspected: Routine inspections by the resident inspector of plant operations l
including tours of the facility, log and record review, maintenance, operating l
events. Licensee Event Reports, TMI Action Plan items, training and licensee (
action on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved 75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> by l
the resident NRC inspector.
Results: No violations were identified.
I 8207130631 820622 l
DR ADOCK 050002 ]
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
_ __._, __ _ _
.
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 N. A. Burnett, Operating Assistant 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 Services Superintendent Other licensee staff and operating personnel were also interviewed during the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensce Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed)UnresolvedItem(79-13-07): SUR 5.1-124, " Inservice Inspection of Auxiliary Feed Pump Discharge Check Valves and Check Valve Down Stream of FW-MOV-35" did not contain a step-by-step return of system to normal.
The inspector reviewed the current procedure dated May 11,198P, and verified that the procedure had been modified to include a step by-step return of the system to a normal lineup. This item is resolved.
(Closed) Violation Level V (81-15-01):
Failure to establish, maintain and
!
follow a system of written material control and accounting procedures to i
assure accountability of fission chambers. The licensee has instituted an i
accountability system to track fission chambers from receipt to disposal of radioactive waste in accordance with SNM 1.4-19-C, " Fission Chamber Accountability and Tracking" dated May 11,1982. Licensee action on this item is acceptable.
(Closed) Violation Level IV (82-06-01): Cable penetration fire barrier in switchgear room not properly sealed. The inspector verified that the cable penetrations had been properly sealed and that the importance of properly sealed fire barriers was reemphasized to appropriate personnel. Licensee action on this item is acceptable.
,
.
-3-3.
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 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, correlation 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 flammable 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.
-
-
.___
.
_ _ _ _
_ _.
_
_
..
.
___
. _. _ _ _. _ _ _
__
,
.
-4-
!
t
-- Fire protectio:./ 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.
a Cable trays were clear of debris.
!
-- Control room manning. The inspector verified that control room manning requirements of the technical specifications were being i
met.
-- Security. During the inspection, observations were made of plant
,
security including adequacy of physical barriers, access control, vehicle control, and searches. No unacceptable conditions were
identified.
,
4.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee i
pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 were reviewed by the inspector.
l 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 report was reviewed by the inspector:
i Monthly Operating Report 82-4 for the month of April 1982.
--
5.
Licensee Fvent Reports (LER's)
The following LER's were reviewed to verify 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 determined
whether further information was required, and whether there were generic implications. The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Station Administrative 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.
82-04 Failure of main steam trip isolation valve. On June 6,1982, while
]
shut down, the onmber one main steam line trip valve failed to close during i
the perforvence of a surveillance test. The trip valve is a power assisted swing check valve. When disassembled, the valve disc showed evidence of
having been wedged against the valve body.
It was also determined that the valve disc connecting arm was slightly bent.
It is not known if the valve would have closed if called upon during operation. While hot, the valve operated satisfactorily during a surveillance test on May 28, 1982. The valve was repaired and tested successfully.
!
- - - _. ~... _ _, _ _. _ _. _. _. _ _ _ _.., _ _ _ _ _ _,, _. _.._
_ _ _
_.. _ _
. _ _..,.. _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _
_,
,
.
-
-5-6.
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;
-- 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 abnonnal conditions provide sufficient detail to comunicate 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:
-- 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. All active entries were reviewed.
-- Tag Log. All active entries were reviewed.
-- Control Room Operating Log.
d.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
l l
'
-6-7.
Plant Maintenance During the inspection period, the inspector observed various maintenance and problem investigation activities. The inspector reviewed these activities to verify: compliance with regulatory r.equirements, including those stated in the Technical Specifications; compliance with the adminis-trative and maintenance procedures; compliance with applicable codes and standards; required QA/QC involvement; proper use of safety tags; proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers; personnel qualifications; radiological controls for worker protection; fire protection; retest requirements and reportability as required by Technical Specifications.
The following activities were included during this review:
Repair and testing of number one main steam line trip valve.
--
Repair damaged main generator exciter.
--
Performance of SPL 10.1-18-C, " Removing and Restoring Bus 4", dated
--
May 24, 1982. All loads on Bus 4 were deenergized to allow additional connections to be made to the bus.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
6.
Training On May 20, 1982, the inspector witnessed the annual medical emergency drill.
One plant worker was simulated to be both injured and contaminated as the result of the simulated dropping of a full spent resin liner. The injured man was transported by the local ambulance company to Middlesex Memorial Hospital where the hospital's ability to treat an injured contaminated person was exercised. The radiological emergency portion of the drill, the simulated spent resin spill, continued after the medical portion of the drill. The licensee's emergency organization and facilities were activated. No additional outside agencies were involved, although drill i
messages were sent out on the licensee's radio page system.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified by the inspector.
I 9.
TMI Action Plan Items I
a.
Item II.E.1.1 Auxiliary Feedwater System Evaluation 1.
Requirement This item required a reevaluation of the auxiliary feedwater system (AFW)toinclude: a simplified AFW system reliability analysis; a deterministic review of the AFW system using the acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan Section 10.4.9; and a reevaluation of the AFW system flowrate design bases and criteri '
-7-2.
Inspection Findings The inspector reviewed the following documents related f.o this item:
-- Counsil to Crutchfield letter dated August 27, 1981
-- Counsil to Crutchfield letter dated May 19,1980.
-- Crutchfield to Counsil letter dated July 1,1981.
The above documents demonstrate that the required AFW system reviews have been completed by the licensee and the NRC. Several modifications to the AFW system have been accomplished as a result of these reviews. A review of the Haddam Neck Plant AFW system by NRR has detennined that the system does not meet the power source diversity requirement of SRP 10.4.9.
System modifications which would allow the electric AFW pump to be operated from the control room would satisfy the power source diversity requirements. The licensee has stated and provided justification that further modification of the AFW system is unnecessary. This item will receive further NRC review.
b.
Item II.E.1.2.1.B.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Automatic Initiation and Flow Indication 1.
Requirement Implement previous submittals to provide automatic AFW system flow initiation and AFW system flow indication.
2.
Inspe-tion Findings The Haddam Neck Plant was originally built with a manually initiated AFW system. The licensee installed a control grade automatic initiation system and flow indication which were subsequently upgraded to safety grade. The licensee has satisfied the requirements of this item.
10.
Operating Events At 1:40 p.m., on June 4,1982, a turbine trip / reactor trip occurred due to loss of field to the main generator. The loss of field resulted in a total l
loadreject from 100 percent power.
Investigation revealed that loose pieces of bedplate shiming material inside the main generator exciter enclosure shorted exciter diode wheel components. A similar trip occurred on January 31, 1982. Turbine overspeed was limited to 125 percent. All systems functioned normally after the trip with the exception that the number four feed regulator valve failed open overfilling the number four steam generator. The valve was subsequently repaired.
No ECCS equipment
.
..
.
_8-actuated. The reactor was taken critical at 6:20 p.m., on June 4, 1982, and power maintained in the intermediate range while repairs to the exciter were in progress. On June 10, 1982, the repairs and testing were completed and at 2:20 a.m., the generator was phased to the grid.
No unacceptable conditions were identified during the review of this event. The inspector will review the final event report when available from the licensee.
11.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior licensee managetent personnel to discuss inspection scope and findings.
.
!
!
!
I