IR 05000245/1980010
| ML19344F293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1980 |
| From: | Keimig R, Shedlosky J, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F291 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-80-10, 50-336-80-07, 50-336-80-7, NUDOCS 8009150088 | |
| Download: ML19344F293 (7) | |
Text
Q3 lJ
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-245/80-10
~
Report No. 50-336/80-07 50-245 Docket No. 50-336 DPR-21 License No. DPR-65 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. 0. Box 270
,
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
.
Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & P.
Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Inspection conducted: June 1 thru July 5, 1980 Inspectors:
A P %_
1, 7h h J. T. ShedTosky, Sr. Resident Inspector dits signed R P W-
,h m R. P.Climerman, Resident Inspector d&te' signed date signed
,
,
Approved by:
f
.f _. g __ fo R/R. Keimig, %ief, tor Projects
~date signed Section No. 1, RO&N ranch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June I thru July 5, 1980 (Combined' Report Nos. 50-245/80-10'and 50-336/80-07)
-
Areas Inspected: Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspection by two resident
-
inspectors (76 hours8.796296e-4 days <br />0.0211 hours <br />1.256614e-4 weeks <br />2.8918e-5 months <br />, Unit 1; 52 hours6.018519e-4 days <br />0.0144 hours <br />8.597884e-5 weeks <br />1.9786e-5 months <br />, Unit 2). Areas inspected included the control rooms and the accessible portions of the Unit I reactor, turbine, radio-active 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 during this inspection.
Region I Form 12-(Rev.- April 77) ~
' 8 009150 ogg
_
__
__
.
I
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The below listed technical and supervisory level personnel were among those contacted:
J. M. Black, Unit 3 Superintendent P. Callaghan, Unit 1 Maintenance Supervisor A. Cheatham, Radiological Services Supervisor J. Crockett, Unit 2 Engineering Supervisor F. Dacimo. Quality Services Supervisor E. C. Farrell, Station Services Superintendent-J. Bangasser, Station Security Supervisor H. Haynes, Unit 2 Instrumentation and Control Supervisor R. J. Herbert, Unit 1 Superintendent J. Kangley, Chemistry Supervisor
J. J. Kelley, Unit 2 Superintendent E. J. Mroczka, Station S9porinhndent V. Papadopoli, Quality Assurancc Supervisor R. Place, Unit 2 Maintenance Supervisor P. Przekop Unit 1 Engineering Supervisor W. Romberg, Unit 1 Operations Supervisor S. Scace, Unit 2 Operations Supervisor E. Spruill, Health Physics Supervisor F. Teeple, Unit 1 Instrumentation and Control Supervisor 2.
Review of Plant Operation - Plant Inspections (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector reviewed plant operations through direct inspection and observation of Units 1 and 2 throughout the reporting period. Activities in progress at Unit 1 included a plant shutdown on 5/31 to allow repairs to turbine extraction steam lines located in the condenser, repair of broken and bent anchor bolts associated with the LPCI "A" containment penetration pipe restraint, plant startups of 6/23 and 6/25, and recovery following a reactor trip on 6/25 caused by oscillations in the turbine control system; at Unit 2, activities included an outage to modify pipe restraints found to have been constructed with factors of safety less than two, and a plant startup on 6/23.
a.
Instrumentation Control room process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical 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 discussed 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.
.
-
p.
.
.
'
3-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 confomance with Technical Specifications and site administrative procedures.
d.- Radiation Protection Controls, Radiation protection control areas were inspected. Radiation Work
. Pemits in use were reviewed, and compliance with those documents, as to protective clothing and required monitoring instruments, was inspected. -Proper posting of radiation and high radiation areas was reviewed in addition to verifying requirements for wearing of appropriate personal monitoring devices. There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls Storage :of material.and components was observed with respect to prevention of fire and safety hazards. Plant housekeeping was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne contamination. There were no unacceptable conditions
'
identified.
f.
Fire Protection / Prevention The inspector examined the condition of selected pieces of fire fighting equipment. Conbustible 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.
-g.
Control of Equipment i
During plant inspections, selected equipment under safety tag control was examined. Equipment conditions were consistent with information in plant control logs, h.
Instrument Channels
.
Instrument channel checks recorded on routine logs were reviewed.
An independent 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. Valve lineups were performed of the Unit 2 Emergency Diesel Generator (Facility 1) and-the Auxiliary Feedwater. System.
Equipment conditions were found in
'confomance with Technical Specifications and operating requirements.
,
_
y yP-a
'19-si-ge r ep wr,mee-.-
wy,-
-
p-ey
.cw
--m--.-
g y-yw yw g-,----g<g---pr-w.rve ys1 e-w w 9-r--v++,#
y
I
-
.
4-
.3.
Licensee Staffing -(Units 1 and 2)
Effective June 1, 1980, the following changes in licensee personnel were made:
W. G. Counsil, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations J. F. Opeka, System Superintendent Nuclear Operations E. J. Mroczka, Station Superintendent J. J. Kelley, Unit 2, Superintendent S. Scace, Unit 2, Operations Supervisor J. Crockett, Unit 2, Engineering Supervisor These changes were reviewed against the requirements of Technical Specification 6.3 and ANSI N18.1-1971.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
4.. Review of Plant Operations-- Logs and Records _-(Units 1 and 2)
During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
daily during control room Shift Supervisor's Log -
-
-
surveillance 6/1 through 7/5 Plant Incident Reports
-
all active entries Jumper and Lifted Leads Log
-
Maintenance Requests and Job Orders
- all active entries all active entries Construction Work Permits
-
all active entries Safety Tag Log
-
daily during control room Plant Recorder Traces
-
surveillance daily during control room Plant Process Computer Printed
-
Output surveillance Night _0rders
_ daily during control room surveillance The logs and records were reviewed to verify that entries are properly made; entries involving abnomal conditions provide sufficient. detail to communicate equipment status, deficiencies, corrective action _ restoration and testing;_ records are being
. reviewed by management; operating orders do not conflict with the-Technical Specifications; logs and incident reports detail no viola-tions of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specification and Administrative Control Procedure requirements.
.
._ _
_
.
. - -
.
.
_
w
_.
.
.
"
'~
,
.
Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review
'and discussion with licensee personnel.
No unacceptable conditions s
were identified.
,
5.
Plant Maintenance and Modifications-During the inspection period, the inspector frequently ob:crved various maintenance and problem investigation activities. The inspector reviewed these activities to verify compliance with regulatory requirements, including.those stated in the Technical Specifications; compliance with the administrative 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 erker protection; fire protection;
-
retest requirements and asc tain reportability as required by Technical Specifications.
I a similar manner the implementation of design changes and modifit *.tions were reviewed.
In addition to those items addressed above, the licensee's safety evaluation was
reviewed.
Compliance with requirements to update procedures and drawings were verified and post modification acceptance testing was evaluated.
,
The following activities were included during this review:
"
Unit 1 LPCI "A" containment penetration-(X45) pipe restraint anchor bolts
--
repair and modification.
.
Turbine extraction steam line flexible coupling repair and
--
modification.
Recirculation MG Set A Commutator repairs.
--
Core Spray injection valve CSSA rework.
--
Unit 2 Modifications of various safety related pipe restrC lts.
--
i
'
Automatic initiation of Auxiliary Feed Water (PDCR 2-182-79).
--
^
Containment Sump Isolation Valve Control Circuit Modification
--
(PDCR 2-70-80).
nr g
w
---av9
+
y z
-
w r
w-mw,w*
-
w
f ',.,.
r
.
.
6.
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 Procedures had 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 80-07: Failure to perform surveillance functional testing of cable vault smoke detection system. The test had not been placed on the surveillance schedule.
Unit 2 80-21:
Diesel Generator 13U Output Breaker reclosed by itself after being manually opened. The generator was returned to the bus out of phase. A closing latch in the breaker failed due to a loose bolt in the breaker spring charging system.
7.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports Upon receipt, pariodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Tecnnical Specification 6.9.1 and 6.9.2 and Environmental Techni el Specification 5.6.1 were reviewed by the inspector. This review included the following considerations: the report includes the information required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or supporting information are consistent with design predictions and performance specifications; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified problems; detemination whether any infomation in the report should be classified as an abnormal occur-rence; and the validity of reported information. Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector:
--- Monthly Operating Reports Unit 1 and 2, May, 1980.
8.
Inspector Witnessing of Surveillance Tests The inspector witnes:;ed the performance' of surveillance testing of selected components-to verify that the surveillance test procedure was properly approved and in use; test instrumentation required by the procedure was calibrated and in use; technical specifications were
,
--
-
-.
- -..
.-
_-. -
...
f.
____
_.
__
.
,
'
satisfied prior to removal of the system from service; test was performed by qualified personnel; the procedure was adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory surveillance; and, test results satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria, or were.
properly dispositioned. The inspector witnessed the performance of:
Unit 1 Personnel airlock leak rate testing.
9.
Review of Radioactive Material ' Shipments - (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the activities concerning the shipment of solidified radioactive waste to the Barnwell, S.C. burial site. Those activities included receipt inspections of the shipping cask and liner, solidification of material, radiation surveys and the completion of administrative and quality control requirements prior to shipment.
These inspections concerned:
Resin slurry solidification - 6/3,6/16,6/26
---
Filter sludge solidification - 6/11,6/18-19
---
10.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
.
l m.