IR 05000245/1979017
| ML19256E369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1979 |
| From: | Mccabe E, Shedlosky J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E362 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-79-17, 50-336-79-18, NUDOCS 7911020232 | |
| Download: ML19256E369 (6) | |
Text
.
t
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND EN ORCEMENT Region I 50-245/79-17 Report No.
50-336/79-18 50-245 Docket No.
50-336 DPR-21 License No. OPR-65 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
.
Facility Name:
fiillstone Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2 Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut Inspection conducted: June 2-30, 1979 Inspectors:
$,E - -
KpA f'
J[T.'Sgsky,ResidentInspector date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
OC. k b.h
_
9hshi E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Sectita No. 2, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 2-30, 1979 (Combined Report Nos. 50-245/79-17 and 50-336/79-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite regular, backshif t and weekend inspection by the resident inspector (32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br />, Unit 1; 29 hours3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br />, Unit 2). Areas inspected included the control rooms and the accessible portions of the Unit 1 primary containment, reactor, turbine, radioactive waste, gas turbine generator, and intake buildings, the Unit 2 enclosure, auxiliary, turbine and intake buildings, and the condensate polishing facility; radiation protection; physical security; fire protection; plant operating records; surveillance testing; calibration maintenance; core power distribution limits; and reporting to the NRC.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
1259 303 Region I Form 12 7911020 M [
(Rev. April 77)
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The below listed technical and supervisory level personnel were among those contacted:
J. M. Black, Superintendent, Unit 3 P. Callaghan, Unit 1 Maintenance Supervisor F. Dacimo, Station QC Supervisor E. C. Farrell, Superintendent, Unit 2 J. Bangasser, Station Security Supervisor H. Haynes, Unit 2 Instrumentation and Control Supervisor R. Herbert, Superintendent, Unit 1 J. Kelly, Unit 2 Operations Supervisor E. J. Mroczka, Superintendent, Plant Services J. F. Opeka, Station Superintendent R. Place, Unit 2 Maintenance Supervisor P. Przekop, Unit 1 Engineering Supervisor W. Romberg, Unit 1 Operations Supervisor S. Scace, Unit 2 Engineering Supervisor F. Teeple, Unit 1 Instrumentation and Control Supervisor 2.
Review of Plant Operations - Plant Inspection The inspector reviewed plant operations through direct inspection and observation during a refueling outage of Unit 1 and routine power operations of Unit 2.
Inspections were made of the accessible portions of the Unit 1 control room, primary containment drywell, reactor, turbine, radioactive waste, gas turbine generator and intake buildings; the Unit 2 control room, enclosure, auxiliary, turbine, and intake buildings.
During this inspec-tion activities in progress at Unit 1 were a refueling outage, the inspec-tion of safety related systems' concrete anchors and pipe suppose base plates and core alterations; at Unit 2 routine power operations and a shutdown, June 10-19, :toccorrect primary : system leaks and to repair a failed auxiliary feedwater pumps.
The inspector observed operations in the control room including shif t turn-overs and backshift activities.
Inspections of surveillance tests were conducted on weekends.
1259 304
.
a.
Instrumentation Control room process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technied Specification requirements.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
b.
Annunciator Alarms The inspector observed various alarm conditions which had been received and acknowledged.
These conditions were Jiscussed with shift personnel who were knowledgeable of the alarms and actions required.
During plant inspections, the inspector observed the condition of equipment associated with various alarms.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
c.
Shift Manning The operating shifts were observed to be staffed to meet the operating requirements of Technical Specifications, Section 6, both to the number and type of licenses.
Control room and shift manning were observed to be in conformance with Technical Specifications and site administrative procedures.
d.
Radiation Protection Controls Radiation protection control areas were inspected.
Radiation Work Permits in use were reviewed, and compliance with those documents, as to protective clothing a:;d required monitoring instruments, was inspected.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls Storage of' material and components was observed with respect to pre-vention of fire and safety hazards.
Plant housekeeping was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne con-tamination.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
f.
Fire Protection / Prevention The inspector examined the condition of selected pieces of fire fighting equipment. Combustible materials were being controlled and were not found near vitial areas.
Selected cable penetrations were examined and, thus, fire barriers were found intact.
Cable trays were clear of debris.
1259.05
.
g.
Control of Equipment During plant inspections, selected equipment under safety tag control were examined.
Equipment conditions were consistent with information in plant control logs.
h.
Instrument Channels Instrument channel checks were reviewed on routine logs. An iniependent comparison was made of selected instruments.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
i.
Equipment Lineups The inspector examined the breaker position on all switchgear and motor control centers in accessible portions of the plant.
Equipment conditions were found in conformance with Technical Specifications and operating procedure requirements.
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Logs and Reccrds During the inspection period, the resident inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifications and administrative procedure requirements.
Included in the review were:
Shift Supervisor's Log 6/2 to 6/30/79
-
Plant Incident Reports
-
6/2 to 6/30/79 Jumper and Lifted Leads Leg
-
all active entries Maintenance Requests a<.a Job Orders
-
all active entries Safety Tag Log
-
all active entries Plant Recorder Traces
-
daily during control room surveillance Plant Process Computer Printed Output
-
daily during control room surveillance Key Control Log
-
6/2 to 6/30/79 Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review and discussion with licensee personnel.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Previous Inspection Item (Closed) Unresolved item (336/77-08-04): The licensee has completed an evaluation of the most severe stress that could have been imposed on the Steam Generator (S/G) piping if snubber 513023 had locked up during the
.
1259 306
.
,
a worst possible thernal transient.
This eva10ation determined that the -
allowable stress would not have been exceeded. The licensee has also reset the snubber lockup rate to a velocity greater than the maximum rate of thermal growth of the (S/G) piping. This item is closed.
(Closed) Incore Detector Calibration (336/79-04-03): Surveillance Pro-cedure SP-2407, Incore Detector Assembly Instrument Calibration, has been revised.
Revision 1, dated May 4,1979-and approved by the Onsite Safety Committee in PORC meeting 79-55, collects computer monitored data when a standard value test resistance is inserted in the instrument loop.
Computer data is collected and calculated corrected values must agree with the computer displayed value within 1%.
5.
Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
,,
The inspector reviewed the following LER's to verify that the details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector determined whether further information was required, and whether generic implications were involved.
The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Station Administrative and operating pro-cedures "d been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee, and that the continued operation of the facility was conducted within the Technical Specification limits.
Unit 1 79-05 -
Inadvertent operation of a Target Roc'< Safety Relief Valve 79-06 -
Electrical disarming of Control Rod 18-07, when Control Rod 22-07 was inoperable. (Ref: Technical Specification 3.3.0)
79-07 -
Gas Turbine Generator failed to complete starting sequence 79-08 -
Operation in the degraded n. ode without an Isolation Condenser System due to an inoperable containment isolation valve 79-09 -
Failure of the "A" Target Rock Safety Relief Valve bellows leak detectior, circuit 79-10 -
Core thermal power 1 to 2 percent over the design power limit of manual calculational method which uses turbine first stage pressure to calculate feedwater flow.
79-li -
Improper adjustment of C Inboard MSIV 10% Closure limit switch associated with RPS relay 917-590-120D 1259 307
-
.
Unit 2 79-03 -
CEA No. 68 dropped to zero steps. Technical Specifications action statements 3.1.3.1.e CEA Misalignment, 3.2.4 Azimuthal Power Tilt 79-04 -
Inadequate response time reactor coolant loop No. I hot leg RPS channel C RTD 79-05 -
Loss of CEA pulse counting position indication due to process comput6f mal. function 79-06 -
Liquid radioactive waste discharges 1.31 Ci as of 82nd day of 89 day quarter
.
79-07 -
Control Room Chlorine Detection System inoperable due to using an inaccurate calibration gas 79-08 -
Unplanned transition of Reactor Coolant System (RCS) which inadvertently entered Mode 4 due to an interruption of Shutdown Cooling System flow
'
79-09 -
Exceeded 20 degrees per hour RCS cooldown rate following regaining
-
Shutdown Cooling System flow 79-10 -
Calibration drift Steam Generator level and pressure trasmitters 6.
Simulated Automatic Actuation of Low Pressure Coolant Injection Systems with a Loss of Off Site Power
'Jni t 1 On June 23 the inspector witnessed the conduct of Surveillance Testing which satisfied the requirements of Technical Specifications 4.9. A.l.b, 4.9. A.2.b, 4.5.A.l.a, and 4.5.C.l.b.
This test demonstrated the capability of the Emergency Diesel Generator and Gas Turbine Generator to autematically start and to assume their respective Emerycncy Core Cooling Loads.
This was accomplished by tripping the Generator Lockout Differential Current relay and initiating the high drywell pressure trip relays.
The diesel and gas turbine generators started as required and the Emergency Core Cooling Systems aligned themselves and started.
There were no unaccept-able conditions identified.
7.
Exit Interview At periodical intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and findings.
1259 T08