IR 05000245/1980013
| ML20003A589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1980 |
| From: | Keimig R, Shedlosky J, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003A582 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-80-13, 50-336-80-14, NUDOCS 8102040343 | |
| Download: ML20003A589 (8) | |
Text
-
.
.
.
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50-245/80-13 Report No. __50-336/80-14 50-24b Docket No.
50-336 UFK-41 License No. DPR-65 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Inspection conducted: August 3 thru September 6, 1980 Inspectors:
O[
/
7//y/Po T. Shedlosky, Sr.
esident Inspector date' signed R, P. %.
,n L 9In leo R. P. Zimierman, Resident Inspector dhte ' signed e
f'
date signed Ap'.oved by:
/p
\\f----
__--
Ph
.Rv R."Keimig, Chief, Reactor Projects 4 ate' signed Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on August 3 thru September 6, 1980 (Combined Report Nos. 50-245/80-13 and 50-336/80-14)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspection by two resident inspectors (43 hours4.976852e-4 days <br />0.0119 hours <br />7.109788e-5 weeks <br />1.63615e-5 months <br />, Unit 1; 55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br />, Unit 2). Areas inspected included the control roms and the accessible portions of the Unit I reactor, turbine, radio-active waste, gas turbine generator, and intake buildings; the Unit 2 prima.y contain-ment enclosure, auxiliary, turbine and intake buildings; and the condensate polishing facifity; radiation protection; physical security; fire protection; plant operating mcords; surveillance testing; calibration; maintenance; core power distribution limits; and reporting to the NRC.
Results: Of the ten areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in 9 areas; two items of noncompliance were found in one area (Infraction - failure to make airborne radioactive material surveys, & Infraction - failure to prepare procedures consistent with JCCFR20.103; paragraph 7).
Region I Fcrm 12 (Rev. April 77)
k
.
-
m, a u
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The below listed technical and supervisory level personnel were among those contacted:
J. Bangasser, Station Security Supervisor 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 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 Superintendent V. Papadopoli, Quality Assurance Supervisor R. Place, Unit 2 Maintenance Supervisor R. Palmieri, 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 inspectors reviewed plant operations through direct inspection and observation of Units 1 and 2 throughout the reporting period. Activities in progress at Unit 1 included routine power operations; at Unit 2, activities included routine power operations, recovery following two CEA drops on 8/11 and a plant shutdown on 8/16 to commence a refuel outage.
a.
Instrumentation Control room process instruments were observed for correlation between
,
i 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
,
l inspections, the inspector observed the condition of equip.nent associated with various alarms.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
i
'
.
,
,
_
_
. _ _.
.
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 Pennits 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.
Insufficient radiation protection controls were identified and are discussed in paragraph 7.
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls Storage of material and comporents 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 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 vital areas. Selected cable penetrations were examined and fire barriers were found intact. Cable trays were clear of debris.
!
l g.
Control of Equipment 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 switchgear and motor control centers in accessible portions of the plant. Equipment conditions, including valve lineups, were reviewed for conformance with Technical Specifications and operating requirements.
!
.
.
.
.
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Logs and Records - (Units 1 and 2)
During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering tne inspection time period against Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
daily during control room Shift Supervisor's Log
-
surveillance 8/3 through 9/6 Plant Incident Reports
-
all active entries Jumper and Lifted Leads Log
-
all active entries Maintenance Requests and Job Orders
-
all active entries Construction Work Pemits
-
all active entries Safety Tag Log
-
daily during control rcom Plant Recorder Traces
-
surveillance daily during control room Plant Process Computer Printed
-
Output surveillance daily during control room Night Orders
-
-
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-l tions of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; logs and
!
records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specification l
and Administrative Control Procedure requirements.
l l
4.
Plant Maintenance and Modifications During the inspection period, the inspector frequently observed 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 st:ndards; required QA/QC involvement; proper use of safety l
tags; proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers; personnel qualifications; radiological controls for worker protection; fire protection; retest require-ments and ascertain reportability as required by Technical Specifications.
In a similar manner the implementation of design changes and modifications 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 l,
review:
.
.
.
.
.
Unit 2 Overhaul of the B-Emergency Diesel Generator
---
Eddy Current Exami.1ation of Steam Generator Tubes
---
Examination of Steam Generator Feedwater Piping welds
---
by Radiographic Testing Preparations to install Steam Generator Nozzle Dams
---
Replacement of Containment Electrical Penetrations
---
Maintenance and adjustment of Emergency Diesel Generator
---
Room Watertight Doors Magnetic Particle Examination of Low Pressure Stages of turbine
---
and subsequent replacement of fifth stage shroud cracked area Cleanup of Auxiliary Building following rain water inleakage
---
and subsequent efforts to seal pipe tunnels Installation of Reactor Vessel Head Vent
---
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 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 80-12: Instrument drift, one of six APRM channels gain Unit 2 l
80-24: Failure of the A-HPSI pump due to a shut minimum flow valve (Ref. Inspection Report 50-336/80-09 pcragraph5.b.).
l l
l
,
.
.
.
80-25: Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump tripping below normal trip set point preventing the pump from meeting performance require-ments for operability. The premature tripping was due to wear of the turbine tappet nut. The nut was readjusted.
80-26: Discovery of conditions not specifically considered in the SAR $'ction 2.5.4.2 or the Technical Specifications 5.1.3 that e
required remedial action to prevent the existence of an unsafe condition.
Rainwater inleakage during a storrr on 7/29 resulted in eighteen inches of standing water in the lower level auxiliary building.
80-27: Crack in sock (t weld on Safety Injection Tank one inch recircu-lation line. The cause was long term vibration fatigue.
6.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 and 6.9.2 and Environmental
-
Technical 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 ar...for f.upporting information are consistent with design predictions and performance specifications; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified problems; determination whether any infonnation 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, July 1980.
---
7.
Radiation Protection Controls (Unit 1)
On 8/13/80 at approximately 1100 hrs., three contractor workers were contaminated while working in the Unit I Torus bay area.
These l
workers were conducting eddy current testing on the torus support structures l
when contaminated.
The workers became aware of the contamination while performing frisking surveys upon leaving the work area.
Decontamination procedures were accomplished on the workers followed by whole body analysis
l with the licensee's onsite counter. The initial whole body analysis was
'
followed by three later counts.
Calculation of MPC hours associated with the incident indicated the
,
following:
(The activit in each worker's entire body was counted within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the incident
_ _
.
.
.
,
Radionuclide Worker A Co-60 92 nano Curtes 11.36 MPC hours Cs-134
0.3?
"
"
"
"
"
"
__0.63 '"
'"
12.52
"
"
Worker B Co-60
10.12
"
"
"
"
0.58
"
"
"
"
Cs-134
0.44
"
"
"
"
0.66
"
"
"
"
11.81
"
"
Worker C Co-60
7.28
"
"
"
"
0.67
"
"
"
"
1.0
"
"
"
"
8.95
"
"
Entry to the Torus bay area was covered by authorized RWP's 802842 and 802851.
Contamination surveys perfonned in the torus bay area indicated IL se surface contamination levels to 180,000 dpm per 100 sq. cm beta-gama.
Surveys representative of the air breathed by workers were not collected and analyzed prior to starting or during the work.
Failure to perfonn adequate surveys is considered an item of noncompliance
against 10CFR 20.103(a)(3), (Item 50-245/80-13-01).
l l
Station Standardized Health Physics Procedure HP 4905, Radiological Surveys, Revision 1, dated August 11, 1980, section 8.3.5 states, "For jobs where radioactive contamination may become airborne, e.g. scraping, grinding or welding on contaminated surfaces, respirators should be required.
Suitable
,
breathing zone air samples should be taken and analyzed. Only after the l
airborne activity has been evaluated and if appropriate, should the res-pirator requirement be dropped."
That procedure allowed airborne sampling to be optional for work where radioactive contamination may become airborne, l
r
.
. _ _.
._
.
.--
. _ - _ -
_ __.
._
. _.
_
,
.
.
.
Unit Health Physics Procedures HP 915/2915, Health Physics Surveys, Revision 13, dated July 1,1980 also do not mandate the survey j
requirements of 10 CFR 20.103.
The failure to prepare procedures consistent with the survey requirements of 10 CFR 20.103 is considered to be an item of noncompliance against Technical Specification 6.11. (Item 50-245/80-13-02).
Change 1 was issued to HP 915/2915 Revision 13 on August 22, 1980.
Paragraph 5.4.3.8 requires, "Af r samples shall be conducted prior to issuance of an RWP for any areas contaminated in excess of 100,000 dpm per 100 sq. cm. Additional representative breathing zone air samples should be obtained at the commencement of any physical work being perfonned within the area. Extended work or changing conditions require evaluation for additional sampling requirements."
The inspector had no additional questions at this time. This area will be addressed during future inspections.
'
8.
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.
!
I i
.
.
.
..
-.