IR 05000245/1980024
| ML20003C789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1981 |
| From: | Keimig R, Shedlosky J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003C785 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-80-24, 50-336-80-23, NUDOCS 8103180315 | |
| Download: ML20003C789 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT " 50-245/80-24 Report No.
50-336/80-23 50-245 Docket No.
50-336 DPR-21 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 Inspt.ction at: Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Inspection conducted: November 9 thru December 31, 1980 Inspectors: 7[[j r4 t /r,- - KT.'Shedlosky/Sr.ResidentInspector /date signed date signed . date signed Approved by: I d je am_ //E7/B/ R. R. Keimi# thief, Reactor Projects dats signed Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch Insoection Summary: l Inspection on November 9 thru December 31, 1980 (Comb _ined Report Nos. 50-245/80-24 l mnd 50-336/80-23).
Areas Inspected: Routine, onsite, regulac and backshift inspection by a resident inspector (70 hours, Unit 1: 39 hours, 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; the condensate polishing facility; , radiation protection; physical security; fire protection; plant operating records;
j surveillance testing; calibration; maintenance; core power distribution limits; l and reporting to the NRC.
j Results: No items of noncompliance were identified during this inspection.
l l l l Region I Form 12 , (Rev. April 77)
810818 0% . .. . . .-. -. .-. - - - . . - -. .
. . 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 j[[ 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 refuel outage work and routine power operation of Unit 2.
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.
. -m- % - * -,
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ __
. 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 was 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 cocuments, 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 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.
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 switchgaar 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 reccrds covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were: Shift Supervisor's Log - daily during control room surveillance Plant Incident Reports 11/9 through 12/31 - Jumper and Lifted Leads Log all active entries - Maintenance Requests and Job Orders all active entries - Construction Work Permits all active entries - Safety Tag Log all active entries - Plant Recorder Traces daily during control room - surveillance Plant Process Computer Printed daily during control room - Output surveillance Night Orders daily during control room - surveillance The logs and records were reviewed to verify that entries are properly made; entries involving abnonnal conditions provide sufficient detail to consnunicate equipment status, deficiencies, corrective action restora-tion and testing; records are being reviewed by management; operating orders do not conflict with the Technical Specifications; logs and incident reports detail no violations of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; and logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specification and Administrative Control Procedure requiremen ts.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Plan _t Main _tenance and Modifications During the inspection period. the inspector frequently observed various maintenance and problen investigation activities. The inspectcr reviewed these activities to verify: compliance with regulatory requirements, including those stated in the Technical Specifications; compliance with the adninistrative 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 qualifica-tions; radiological controls for worker protection; fire protection; retest requirunents; 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 followir.g activities were included in this review: ~ e
' Unit 1 Torus Modification - install vent header deflectors --- Torus Modification - install saddles --- Torus Modification - cut downcomers --- Torus Modification - install new LPCI piping --- Torus Modification - install new instrumentation --- Replacement of Feedwater spargers --- Repair of Isolation Condenser piping --- Inservice inspection of Isolation Condenser piping --- I.A.W. NUREG 0313 REV 1 Removal of stainless clad from Reactor Vessel Feed Water --- Nozzles Removal of CRD return water piping and removal of reactor vessel --- nozzle thermal sleeve Replacement of Core Spray Piping --- Replacement of Feedwater Check Valves --- Installation of ATWS Recirculation Pump Trip --- Replacement of Service Water Piping --- Repair of Main Steam Line pipe restraints --- Inspection of Jet Pump Beams --- Unit 2 Repair of oil leak on D Reactor Coolant Pump Motor --- No items of noncompliance were identified.
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 requirec, and whether generic implications were involved. The inspector also verified that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Station l 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 ! 80-11: Discovery of cracked weld on Main Steam Line A and D restraints l MSRH 28 and 32. Failure attributed to lack of penetration in failure regions.
! 80-19: Discovery of defects in isolation condenser stainless piping.
Failure attributed in part to intergranular stress corrosion cracking.
ETS 80-03: Radio-isotope of silver found in oysters which exceeded control station average by greater than a factor of ten.
! . w w v y w---,- - +n g y n g7-e r a y
, , Unit 2 80-34: Turbine driven auxiliary feed water pump removed from service tc allow the repair of a drain valve.
80-35: Fire barrier between Cable Spreading Room and East Containment Electrical Penetration Room breached to remove temporary cables without proper sealing.
80-36: Channel D detectors inoperable due to cable reversal.
80-37: Set point drift, RPS Channel D local power density and turbine trip bypass bistable.
80-38: Service water pump A out of service due to a damaged strainer body.
The strainer body leaked because of corrosion.
. 80-39: Containment hydrogen analyzer B inoperable due to the failure of an operational amplifier in an alarm circuit.
ETS 80-03: Radio-isotope of silver found in oysters which exceeded control station average by greater than a factor of ten.
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 inspectcr. This review included the following considerations: the report includes the information required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or supporting infomation are consistent with design predictions and performance specifications; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified problems; determination whether any
information in the report should be classified as an abnormal occur-rence; and the validity of reported infomation. Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were reviewed b; the inspector: Monthly Operating Reports Unit 1 and 2, October 1980.
--- Monthly Operating Reports Unit 1 and 2, November 1980.
--- 7.
Control of Containment Purge Valves Unit 1: The licensee has provided qualification data to the NRC to justify unlimited operation of containment vent / purge valves. The licensee has not comitted to limiting the periods of time those valves could be operated.
The latest letter from the licensee dated August 8, 1980, has been responded to by the NRC by letter dated November 26, 1980.
. . .
. -
Unit 2: The licensee has maintained containment purge valves shut with control power removed since July,1978, when an event discussed in LER 50-336/78-16 was identified. The inspector verified the licensee's correcti,e actions during Inspection 50-336/78-24. The conditions of the containment purge valves and verification of remcval of operating control power has been a routine inspection item since this issue was discovered at Millstone Unit 2.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified at this time.
8.
Emergency Procedures for Coping with ATWS Events at Power Reactors Unit 1: Addressed in Inspection Report 50-245/80-18, paragraph 8.
Unit 2: The inspector reviewed Emergency Procedures OP 2502, Emergency Shutdown, Revision 9, Change 6, Dated 1/15/81 and OP 2514 Emergency Boration, Revision 3, Dated 11/14/78. These procedures do contain the requirement to follow an automatic reactor trip with a manual scram, verify CEA insertion and decreasing reactor power.
In the event of a failure of the CEA System OP 2514 providas the reactor operator with the authority and responsibility to emergency borate.
Operators have been provided with various methods of opening power disconnects and breakers on power to and from the RPS motor generator units. There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
9.
Drills The inspector observed the conduct of a fire drill which si:wlated a fire in the Unit 2 Diesel Generator Day Tank Rcem on December 18, 1980.
Both Units 1 and 2 Fire Brigade, the Security Department, and the Town of Waterford's Goshen Fire Department participated.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
The inspector observed the conduct of a Bomb Threat Drill conducted on December 31, 1980. Both Units 1 and 2 Operations Personnel, and the Security Department participated. Other personnel were evacuated from the protected area as required by station procedure.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
10.
Inspector Witnessing of Surveillance Tests The inspector witnessed 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 satisfied prior to removal of the system from service; testing was ' performed by qualified personnel; the procedure was adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory surveillance; and, test results t satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria, or were properly dispositioned.
The inspector witnessed the performance of: ! .
. - . "
Unit 1 Reactor Building Leak Tightness Test, November 18, 1980 --- Unit 2 . RPS Matrix Testing, November 20, 1980 --- 11. Review of Radioactive Material Shipments - (Unit 1) The inspector reviewed the activities concerning the shipment of radioactive waste to the Hanford, Wa. 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: LSA Boxes, December 4 - 5, 1980 --- 12. 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
- l l l I l l i . . _ -e - s g e . --,- - y ,,*.,,, - - p
- -
- +5 ---g
}}