IR 05000245/1979019
| ML19256E107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1979 |
| From: | Shafer W, Shedlosky J, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E097 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-79-19-01, 50-245-79-19-1, NUDOCS 7910290053 | |
| Download: ML19256E107 (7) | |
Text
.
.
,
U.S. NUCIIAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
.
Report No. 79-19 Docket No. 50-245
.
License No. DPR-21 Priority Category C Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy C apany P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: June 25-29, 1979 Inspectors:
[h M.W GM 7-2[r79 W. D. 'Shafer, Pc rformance Appraisal
'
Branch N'/O]!]]
fg2 J[T."Sh sky, Region I Approved By:
[
8[/Yh 9 Kermit Whitt, Chief, Performance
'
'
Appraisal Branch, IE Inspection Summary Inspection on June 25-29, 1979 (ReportNo. 50-245/79-19)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection to review the licensee's suveillance test program during the time period of January 1978-January 1979.
The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite by one performance appraisal branch inspector.
Results: Of the area inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified (infraction - inadequate functional test on the ventilation exhaust duct and refuel floor monitors - Paragraph 2.c); (deficiency - failure te review sur-veillance acceptance criteria in accordance with procedural instructions) -
Paragraph 2.a).
" / 280 79102,000 53,
.
.
DETAILS
-
r 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. F. Opeka, Station Superintendent
- R. Herbert, Superintendent, Unit 1 F. Teeple, I&C Supervisor J. Crosby, Operations Assistant The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees from the technical and engineering staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Surveillance Test Program Review
-
The performance appraisal branch objective is to conduct an indepth, narrowly scoped review of the licensee's surveillance program in order to provide information for the appraisal of the IE inspection program and licensee performance from a national perspective.
In support of this objective, the inspector conducted a review of the licensee's surveillance test program to determine if the technical specifications surveillance tests performed by the licensee were covered by properly approved procedures; that the procedures included prerequisites, appro-priate identification of calibrated instrumentation, acceptance criteria, and operational checks prior to returning the equipment to service. The inspector also verified f'or those tests selected, that test results were properly reviewed and in conformance with the technical specifications and procedural requirements.
The nature and magnitude of the findings did not indicate a need to investigate other areas. Therefore, the entire inspection was per-formed within the planned scope.
The technical specification tests as identified in the following table, were reviewed during the inspection.
Comments regarding specific sur-veillance tests reviewed are referenced by paragraph in the findings section.
.
%
- 2 '-
_
CN Tech Spec Number Procedure Number Surveillance Requirement Sample Number Findings CX]
TS 4.4.4.1 SP 661.4 SLC Pump Operational Readiness Test
Clear y,
o TS 4.4.C.1 SP 830 Boron Concentration Detection
Clear cs
,_
TS Table 4.2.1 SP 412C Reactor Low-Low Water Level 144 See Paragraph a (Item 1)
Functional and Calibration Test TS Table 4.2.1 SP 404.C APRM Calibration
Clear
'
(Item 2)
TS Table 4.2.1 SP 411B Steam Line High Flow Functional /
192 Clear (Item 3)
Calibration TS Table 4.2.1 SP 412L Isolation Condenser, Isolation 192 See Paragraph a & b (Item 1)
Instrument Functional / Calibration Test
TS Table 4.2.1 SP 406Q Reactor Building Exnaust Duct and
See Paragraph c m
(Item 1)
Refuel Floor High Rad Monitor i
Functional Test TS Table 4.2.1 SP 406T Air Ejector Offgas Radiation
See Paragraph a (Item 1)
Monitor Detector Calibration TS 4.6.8 SP 628.1 Recirculation Pump Feed Hismatch 400 Clear TS 4.6.G.I.
SP 638.1 Jet Pumps Integrity 400 Clear a&b TS 4.6.E.4 SP 636.4 Relief / Safety Valve Bellows
Clear Monitor System Operability TS 4.5.C.1 SP 625.4 Emergency Condensate Transfer Pump
Clear Operational Readiness Test
.
.
Tech Spec Number Procedure Number Surveillance Requirement Sample Number Findings TS 4.5.C.2 SP 630.1 Condensate Storage Tank Level 200 Clear
'
So TS 4.5.A.1.
SP 621.10 Core Spray System Operability
See Paragraph a CX3 b, c, d Test C'd TS 4.6.C.1.a SP 838 Analysis of Primary Water Coolant 110 Clear rI For Radioactivity r
.-
TS 4.7.D.I.c SP 623.8 Containment Isolation Valve
Clear Operability Test TS 4.7.D.1.d SP 408E MSLIV Closure Functional Test
Clear TS 4.7.B.2.d SP 646.8 Fifteen-Minutes Operational Check
Clear of Standby Gas Treatment System TS 4.5.B.I.a SP 623.19
'
Emergency Service Water Operational
See Paragraph a i
Readiness Test
<r i
TS 4.9.A.1.a SP 668.1 Diesel Generator Operability and
Clear Starting Air Compressor Operability TS 4.9.B.1 SP 780.1 Station Batteries Test 104 Clear TS 4.5.E.1.a SP 627.1 Isolation Condensor Shell Side 200 Clear Water Level TS 4.5.A.1.e.
SP 621.5 Core Sprsy Header Delta P 200 Clear Instrument TS 4.3.D SP 631.1 Pressure and Level Intercummulators 270 Clear TS Table 4.2.1 SP 644.1 Steam Jet Air Ejector Offgas 400 Clear Isolation Radiation Monitor Check
.
Tech Spec Number Procedure Number Surveillance Requirement Sample Number Findings TS 4.6.D SP 635.1 Reactor Coolant System Leakage 400 See Paragraph d TS 4.12.A.I.B SP 680.B Fire Pumps Auto Start Tests
Clear CO TS 4.12.A.1.0 SP 680.A Weekly Fire Protection System 1,768 Clear N
Valve Lineup Check
.N
&
O
,_
1
-
s
,
.
.
-
Within the area inspected the following concerns were identified:
a.
While reviewing the data sheets relating to the specific
'
surveillances as identified in the previous table, the inspector noted that on numerous occasions the acceptance criteria as specified on the data sheets was not met as required. The inspector noted that th'e licensee's admin-istrative control procedure - QA-9.02, required the shift supervisor to review the test data sheets for compliance with the acceptance criteria. The procedure also directs that if the acceptance criteria is not met, the shift supervisor must determine the affect the unacceptable
acceptance criteria has on the systems operability and to document the same on the data sheet. The inspector's review of the following data sheets indicated that this was not accomplished.
(1) SP 412.C, Sheets 8/8/78; 9/5/78 SP 412L, Sheet 12/12/78 SP 406T, Sheet 3/24/78 SP 621.10, Sheets 4/10/78; 5/12/78; 9/15/78 SP 623.19, Sheet 5/12/78 The inspector informed the licensee at the exit inter riew that failure to conduct a proper review of the acceptance criteria as required by procedures is an item of noncom-pliance in the category of a deficiency.
(245/79-19-01)
b.
During the reilew of the above described procedures the inspector noted that the restoration of systems upon com-pletion of surveillance appeared questionable in that the specific surveillance procedure (SP-412L), requires the system to be returned to normal in accordance with OP 307, Section 7.6.
Further review by the inspector of OP 307 indicated that a data sheet was used in this procedure to realign the system for proper operation.
In discussions with a licensee representative the inspector was informed that the data sheet was not included nor was it used for the above described surveillance procedure.
In discussions with the Region I Resident Inspector the
-
Performance Appraisal Branch Inspector was informed that an IE Bulletin (IEB 79-08) was under review at the time of this inspection and a more indepth review of this concern
!
0E
.
-6-
'
.
,
.
.
.
would be made during the review. The inspector informed the licensee at the exit interview that concerns related to the realigerent of systems at the completion of surveil-lance tests wrs an unresolved item and would be followed up by the Regior I office.
(245/79-19-02)
c.
During the review of Surveillance Procedure 406Q, the inspector noted that the functional test performed on the ventilation exhaust ducts and refueling floor radi-ation monitors consisted of an electrical signal injected into the measurement channel.
The licensee's technical specifications (definitions), for instrument functional tests states "an instrument functional test means the s
injection of a simulated signal into the instrument primary sensor to verify the proper instrument chtunel response, alcrm, and/or initiating action." During the exit f uterview the inspector informed the licensee that failu: 3 to perform ~the functional tests with a known source applied to the primary sensor was an apparent item of noncom-pliance in the category of an infraction.
(245/79-19-03)
d.
During the review of the data sheets for Surveillance Pro-cedure.No. 635.1, Reactor Coolant Leakage, the inspector noted thirty-one separate incidents where enidentified leakage was greater than one gallon per minute. The sur-veillance procedure specifically requires the licensee to monitor the unidentified leakage and to record the leakage on data sheet 635.1/1 every 4-hours during any period of leakage in excess of 1 gallon per minute. The inspector noted that data sheets No. 635.1/1 were not present in the record file.
While discussing this concern with the licensee at the exit interview the inspector was informed that the extra data sheets (No. 655.1/1) are maintained in the shift supervisors office in the control room and are not placed on microfilm.
The inspector informed the licensee that a review of these records would be required to resolve this concern.
In a telephone conversation on July 16, 1979, the PAB Inspector was informed by the Region I Resident Inspector that adequate records were available to assure the licensee's compliance with the 4-hour surveillance requirements for reactor coolant leakage.
This concern is closed.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representative (denoted in Para-graph 1) at tue conclusion of the inspection on June 29, 1979, and summarized the findings and scope of the inspection.
- '9/ 286-7-