IR 05000213/1987019
| ML20236P704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1987 |
| From: | Briggs L, Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P700 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-87-19, NUDOCS 8708130019 | |
| Download: ML20236P704 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _
_.
,
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
l Report No.
50-213/87-19 Docket No.
50-213 License No.
DPR-61 Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 l
Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At: Haddam, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: July 6 - 10, 1987 F P 87 Inspectors [:L. Briggs,KadReactorEngineer date
.-
Approved by:
-
_,5
_
8-(' F7 P.Eselgroth,pfief,TestProgramsSection date
OB, DRS
//
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 6-10, 1987 (Inspection Report 50-213/87-19)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by one region-based inspector of preparations for refueling, QA/QC refueling activity involvement, independent verification and plant tours.
Results:
No violations were identified within the scope of this review.
i 870GJ30019 G70807 DR ADOCK 03000p33 PDR
- _ _ _ _ _
__
-
_ _ _ _.
. _ _ _.
..
-
l DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted R. Brown, Operations Supervisor
- H. Clow, Health Physics Supervisor C. Dean, Reactor Engineering Technician E. Fries, Staff Engineer G. Lamatie, QA/QC Inspector l
- D. Miller, Station Superintendent D. Ray, Engineering Supervisor
- R. Rogozinski, Engineer J. Stamford, Assistant Engineering Supervisor (Acting)
Other NRC Personnel A. Asars, Resident Inspector
- P. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other members of the licensee's operating, engineering and QA/QC staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting conducted on July 10, 1987.
2.0 Preparation for Refueling 2.1 New Fuel Receipt Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the receipt inspection records of 56 new fuel assemblies and 48 Rod Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCA).
Licensee inspections were conducted in accordance with procedures SNM-1.4-3, Detailed Inspection of New Fuel Assemblies and RCCAs, Revision 10.
Inspections of the 5 new fuel shipments were conducted from February through April, 1987.
The following procedure records relative to fuel receipt were reviewed:
-
SNM 1.4-1, Receipt and Removal of New Fuel from Carrier, Revision 11.
SNM 1.4-2, Removing New Fuel from Shipping Containers, Revision
-
14.
Work Orders (WO) CY 87-01072, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77,
-
inspection of new fuel and RCCAs.
B&W Technical Document Operating Procedure 65-1000220-08, Fresh
-
Fuel Shipping Container Operations, Connecticut Yankee Cycle 15, NSC 124P (January 27,1987)
__
_
_
_
..
_. _ _ _
. - _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - __
__
_
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
..
,
1
.
l Findings All records reviewed by the inspector were completed and documented per procedure SNM 1.4-3.
2.2 Refueling Procedure Review Scope A review of the refueling and startup testing procedures were
. performed.
The review included verification of procedure adequacy and comparison with Technical Specification (TS) requirements. The following procedures, although the latest revisions, did not contain the latest core XV reload specific numbers. These numbers will not be available until final fuel burnup numbers are provided to the corporate office (at shutdown) for incorporation into the Core Nuclear Design Report calculations. The following procedures were reviewed:
-
FP-CYW-R14, Refueling Procedure for Cycle XIV - XV Connecticut Yankee, Revision 0 (Draft).
-
SUR 5.3-3, All Rods Out Just Critical Boron Concentration, Revision 9.
-
SUR 5.3-5, Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement, Revision 9.
-
SUR 5.3-6, Control Rod Reactivity Worth Measurements, Revision 15.
SUR 5.3-19, Boration Requirements for Reactor Shutdowns,
-
Revision 14.
-
SUR 5.3-23, Determination of Excore-Incore Correlation and Verification of LHGR, Revision 14 SUR 5.3-24, Verification Exore-Incore Correlation and LHGR,
-
Revision 8.
-
SUR 5.3-35, Linear Heat Generation Rate Determination, Revision 4.
-
SUR 5.3-39, Hot Rod Drops Time Measurements Using Digital Method, Revision 3.
-
SUR 5.3-40, Core Quadrant Power Tilt Determination, Revision __
_ _- _ ____--_
ie'
-
>
SUR 5.3-44, Power Distribution Measurements for a New Core,
-
Revision 1.
l
-
SUR 5.3-46, Hot Rod Drop Time Measurements Using Visicorder
'
Method, Original ENG 1.7-23, Zero Power Flux Maps, Revision 1.
-
ENG 1.7-33, Startup Physics Testing for a New Core, Original.
-
ENG 1.7-47, Verification of RCCA Coupling, Original.
-
Subsequent to the above review the inspector discussed the procedures with a licensee representative.
The licensee satisfactorily resolved the inspectors questions. Also discussed with the licensee was the current approval status 'of Plant Design Change Requests (PDCR). At the time of the discussion (July 8, 1987) about 60 percent of'the planned PDCRs had been approved by the Plant Operations Review Committee.
'
'The inspector also noted that fuel move sheets had been verified by the licensee on July 1, 1987 to verify that all moves could be performed.
During that walkthru the licensee identifiea seven errors. Three were due to storage of an item in spent fuel pool location BB23 which affected three procedural steps. The remaining errors were typographical in nature but would cause a problem when discovered during performance of the activity. The errors were documented and forwarded via telecopy to Westinghouse for incorporation into the procedure.
Findings No unacceptable conditions were noted during the above review.
3.0 QA/QC Refueling Activity Involvement Scope During the review of Fuel Receipt inspection procedure SNM 1.4-3, the inspector noted that several steps were signed by QA/QC as having observed dimensional checks of the channel and plug gauges used to check new fuel assemblies clearances. The inspector also noted that licensee QA/QC hold / witness points had been established in the draft refueling procedure FP-CYW-R14. The inspector also reviewed three QA/QC Activity Surveillance (AS) report (870026, 0036 and 0039) conducted February through April 1987. The AS reports covered fuel receipt activities performed under SNM 1.4-1 through 1.4-3.
The QA/QC inspectors found the new fuel receipt and inspections to be conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure _ - _ - _.
- -
.
-
.
'
One additional AS (No. 870057) reviewed by the inspector concerned the testing of the overspeed trip of auxiliary feed water pump terry turbine.
The QA/QC inspector noted that turbine speed was being controlled locally vice from the control room. The procedure (PMP 9.J-116) allows local augmentation of speed control with primary control from the control room.
Local control, per the licensee, is safer and allows a better speed control of.the turbine. This AS was conducted on July 4,1987. A
procedure change was initiated on July 7, 1987.
Findings No violations were identified.
4.0 Independent Verification As discussed in Paragraph 2, the inspector independently verified New Fuel Receipt inspection results and QA/QC involvement in receipt inspection and witness / hold points in FP-CYN-R14.
The inspector also performed on independent review of ACP 1.2-3.2, Administration of PDCR Turnover and Preoperational Testing, Original (Draft). This procedure provides program guidance on technical content and administrative control of modified systems turnover and required testing prior to operations acceptance. The documentation appeared relatively complete with only minor comments being made by the insoector. These comments are being evaluated by the licensee for possible incorporation into the procedure.
5.0 Plant Tours The inspector made several tours of the facility to observe work in progress, housekeeping and cleanliness controls.
During one of the tours the inspector observed modification being made to the RCCA change tool.
Work was being performed under PDCR 891 and vendor procedure 305.
Proper radiological practices were in use for the activity observed by the inspector.
No violations were observed.
6.0 Exit Interview A management meeting was held at the conclusion of the inspection on July 10, 1987 to discuss the scope and findings as detailed in this report (see paragraph I for attendees).
No written information was provided to the licensee at any time during the inspection. The licensee did not
'
indicate that proprietary information was contained within the scope of this inspection.
_
_ _ _
.. _