IR 05000309/1978013
| ML19274C942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1978 |
| From: | Keimig R, Lazarus E, Mcnatt T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274C933 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-78-13, NUDOCS 7901080025 | |
| Download: ML19274C942 (11) | |
Text
'
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-309/78-13 Docket No.
50-309 License No.
DPR-36 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection at:
Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conducted:
ctober 10-13 and 16-18,1978 Inspector :
.
A
// 7 7[
l. J. Laasrus, Reactor Inspector
'date signed i o ke,
.LL -3-78 c.
o T. G. McNatt, Reactor Inspector date signed
~
',f[
date signed
,
,
Approved by:
'X Mg
//.3i'-78
, R. R. Keinfig,f Chlet eactor Projects date signed Section No. J RO&t ' ranch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on October 10-13 and 16-18,1978 (Report No. 50-309/78-13)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of post refceling plant operations; post refueling startup testing; plant operations including a tour of accessible areas; selected IE Bulletins and Circulars; selected previous inspection findings; and the licensee's Safety Injection System procedures. The inspection involved 33 inspector-hours on site by a regional based NRC inspector and an inspector trainee.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was identified (Infraction - failure to maintain operating procedures).
.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P. Anderson, Staff Assistant to the Plant Manager D. Boynton, Technical Assistant J. Brinkler, Reactor and Computer Department Head
- C. Frizzle, Assistant Plant Manager W. Paine, Operations Department Head N. Pillsbury, I&C Department Head
- S. Sadosky, QC and Audit Coordinator
- E. Wood, Plant Manager The inspector also interviewed several licensed operations personnel and members of the licensee's technical and administrative staffs.
- denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas (Closed) Unresolved item (309/77-09-01): The Combustion Engineering report on the burnable shim rod blisters and cracks has been received in the RI Office.
(Closed) Unresolved item (309/77-12-22): The inspector reviewed procedure 0-03-1 " Material Receipt, Handling and Storage," Revision 4, and verified that the requirements of ANSI N45.2.9 were met.
(Closed) Noncompliance (309/77-22-01): Failure to follow test pro-cedures during post refueling startup testing. The inspector verified that the noncompliance had been reviewed by the licensee and corrective action taken as stated in their letter WMY 77-109 of December 1,1977.
(Closed) Unresolved item (309/78-05-02): The use of two auxiliary operators to fill the renuirements of Fire Brigade Members has been accepted by NRR.
(Closed) Noncompliance (309/78-09-02): Failure to test Containment Vent and Purge System prior to fuel handling.
The inspector verified that the noncompliance had been reviewed by the licensee and that corrective action had been completed in accordance with their letter of October 3,197 (Closed) Unresolved item (309/78-09-04): Status of containment equipment hatch during refueling. The inspector reviewed the FSAR fuel handling accident with NRR and verified that no credit for containing any releases was assumed in the review of this accident and that accident parameters were acceptable with no containment.
(Closed) Noncompliance (309/78-16-02): FH lure to log details of unusual operational event in the Control ksom Operators' Log. The inspector verified that the noncompliance had been reviewed by the licensee and that appropriate corrective action had been taken in accordance with letter WMY 78-94 of October 3,1978.
(Closed) Unresolved item (309/78-16-03): The inspector verified that the PORC had reviewed and documented in meeting minutes, the changes made to the special fuel handling procedure in question.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (309/78-16-04): The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of the fuel handling incident and verified that their evaluation appeared to be adequate.
Plans are being developed to install an additional interlock on the, refueling mast which will be followed by the inspector.
3.
Followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars Licensee action concerning the following ?5 Bulletins and Circulars was reviewed by the inspector to verify that:
--
The Bulletin or Circular was forwarded to approp. iate on site management; A review for applicability was performed; and,
--
--
Information in the licensee's response (when required) concerning applicability and corrective acticn was accurate.
a.
IEB 78-10, Bergen-Paterson Shock Suppressor Accumulator Soring Coils The inspector verified that the licensee's response (WMY letter 78-66 of July 6,1978) was correct in that Bergen-Paterson shock suppressors are not used in safety related systems at Maine Yanke h.
IEC 78-04, Fire Door Installation Errors The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of this Circular documented in a memorandum dated June 2,1978, and detennined that their evaluation was adequate.
c.
IEC 78-05, Inadvertent Safety Injection The inspector verified that the licensee's evaluation (documented in a memorandum dated June 20,1978) adequately addressed the concerns expressed in the Circular and that their determination that their plant design was sufficiently different to prevent this type of safety injection was reasonable.
d.
IEC 78-07, Bergen-Paterson Shock Suppressor Test Stand The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation of this Circular (memorandum of June 6,1978) which determined that the concerns were not applicable due to the fact that their Grinnell tester is constructed differently than the Bergen-Paterson tester.
4.
Review of Operating Reports The inspector reviev:ed the Monthly Reports for May-August 1978 in the RI Office to verify that reporting requirements of Technical Specifi-cations were being met. No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Post Refueling Plant Operations The inspector reviewed the completed test procedures indicated below to verify that operability of all Control Element Assemblies had been verified after reconnection and prior to startup.
3-6.2.1.19, Rod Drop Time Test and Functional Check.
Performed
--
August 23, 1978.
--
3-6.2.1.19, Appendix A, (Cold) Functional Check of CEA's, Revision 1.
Performed August 21, 1978.
The above tests included verification of proper mechanical operation, position indication, and drop times. All malfunctions which were identified were subsequently retested satisfactorily.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
- _
6.
Post Refueling Startup Testing a.
The inspector reviewed the completed test procedures listed below to verify that startup testing was performed in accordance with approved procedures:
11-2, Low Power Physics Test Procedure, Revision 4, conducted
--
during the period August 24-26, 1978.
11-3, Power Escalation Test Procedure, Revision 4, conducted
--
during the period August 27 - September 15, 1978.
3-12-3, Short Form Calorimetric, Revision 2, conducted
--
September 15, 1978.
3-6.2.2.16, Excore Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration,
--
Revision 3, conducted September 15, 1978.
Except as noted below, no discrepancies were identified.
(1)
Procedure 11-2, Appendix E, " Group A Trip Test," refers to completing prerequisites in procedure 11-1 which has been cancelled and replaced by procedure 1-2, " Reactor Startup."
The Group A Trip Test was not required to be performed as part of the startup testing for Core IV so Appendix E was not used.
The licensee agreed to issue a procedure change to reflect the cancellation of procedure 11-1.
This item is unresolved pending review of the change (309/78-13-01).
(2)
Procedure 11-3, Appendix F, "Excore Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration" is an excerpt from plant procedure 3-6.2.2.16
" Daily Calorimetric Adjustment," Revision 2.
Prior to per-formance of this test, 3-6.2.2.16, Revision 3 was issued and used to perform the excore instrumentation calibration.
The inspector verified that the intent of Appendix F had not been changed by the use of the actual procedure instead of the outdated appendix.
The licensee promptly issued a procedure change to ref_ lect the requirement to use procedure 3-6.2.2.16, Revision 3 when perfonning this calibration at the next plateau (full power).
b.
The inspector reviewed completed facility procedures for the following tests to verify that the procedures were techntally adequate and that the facility was being operated in accordance with Technical Specification limits and that core parameter predictions were met.
.
A
.
.
,
.
(1) Control Rod Drop Times Testing was performed in accordance with procedure 3-6.2.1.19, " Rod Drop Time Test and Functional Check,"
Revision 2.
(2)
Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Testing performed in accordance with procedures 11-2, Appendix C, "Zero Power Isothemal Temperature Coefficient Measurement" and 11-3, Appendix H, "ITC Measurement at Powe r."
(3)
Excore Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration Perfomed in accordance with procedure 3-6. 2.2.16, " Daily Calorimetric Adjustment," Revision 2.
(4) Shutdown Margin Determination The inspector identified the lack of a procedure to com-pute available shutdown margin by which the 'icensee could verify compliance with technical specificatioas.
Using the CEA worths and various reactivity coefficients which had already been determined during startup testing, the licensee computed the hot zero power available shutdown margin which demonstrated compliance with Technical Specification 3.10.a.3.
The inspector reviewed the calculations and concurred with the licensee's detemination of shutdown margin. The licensee agreed to provide procedural coverage for computation of available shutdown margin during subsequent startup test-ing. This item is unresolved pending review of the completed procedure (309/78-13-02).
Exce;t as noted in (4) above no other inadequacies were identified.
7.
Safety Injection System Procedures The inspector reviewed the following facility procedures to verify that adequate procedural guidance was available for operators for various situations under which a loss of coolant accident could occu.
1-3, Plant Startup, Revision 7.
--
1-13-1, RHR Startup and Operation, Revision 5.
--
1-11-7, Safety Injection Tanks - Fill, Drain, Pressurization,
--
and Venting, Revision 2.
2-11, Reactor Coolant System Leak, Revision 3.
--
2-12, Loss of Reactor Coolant, Revision 3.
--
2-13, Major Loss of Reactor Coolant, Revision 4.
--
2-14, Long Term Cooling Realignment, Revision 2.
--
RH-3-1, Safety Injection Actuated.
--
In the review of these procedures, a lack of procedural guidance was identified for the situation which could exist if a loss of coolant accident occurred shortly after an inadvertent safety injection which had been blocked and before the systems were realigned for automatic actuation.
The licensee stated that procedures would be revised by November 6,1978 to correct this problem.
This item is unresolved pending review of the revised pracedures (309/78-13-03).
8.
Shift Logs and Operatino Records a.
The inspector reviewed the following plant procedures to determine the licensee established administrative requirements in this area in preparation for a review of various logs and records.
--
0-06-1, " Procedure Preparation, Classification, and Fonnat."
0-06-2, " Procedure Review, Approval, and Distribution."
--
0-09-1, " Reporting Requirements."
--
0-09-2, " Reportable Occurrence Reports."
--
0-10-3, " Maintenance of Operations Department Logs."
--
SP-3.1.1, " Routine Instrumentation Surveillance."
--
16-1, " Maine Yankee Operation Safeguard, Yellow Tag - Control
--
Log."
.
.
.
b.
Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:
Shift Supervisor and Control Room log entries involving
--
abnormal conditions provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction, and restoration; Log Bcok reviews are being conducted by the staff;
--
Operating orders do not conflict with Technical Specifications
--
requirements; Jumper (Bypass) log does not contain bypassing discrepancies
--
with Technical Specification requirements;
" Problem Identification Reports" confirm there are no
--
violations of Technical Specification reporting or LC0 requirements; and, Logs and records were maintained in accordance with Technical
--
Specifications and the procedures in 7.a above.
c.
The review included discussions with licensee personnel and the following plant shift logs and operating records.
,
'9ntrol Room Operators' Log, August 15 - October 13, 1978.
--
PORC Minutes 78-18 through 78-29.
--
--
Yellow Tag Control Log Request Forms 78-15 through 78-30.
Tag Out Log " Local Control Rules" Nos. 1687-2017.
--
--
PIR No. 83, " Fuel Handling Problems Associated with EF007H,"
September 7, 1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Plant Tour
.
The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas of the plant including the Primary Auxiliary Building, Ventilation Equipment Room, Containment Spray Pump area, Auxiliary Feed Pump area,-Turbine Building, Switchgear Rooms, Diesel Generator Rooms, HP Control Point and the Control Room.
Details and findings are noted below.
.
.
.
-
a.
-Monitoring Instrumentation and Annunciators Control Board annunciators were checked for alarms, abnormal for plant conditions,on several occasions during the inspection.
None were identified. The following monitoring instrumentation was checked to verify that required instrumentation was operable an/ that, where applicable, values indicated were in accordance w'ch Techt:ical Specifications.
RMS Precess and Area Monitors.
--
CEA Position Indication.
--
Core Power Distribution (Symmetric Offset, azimuthal
--
tilt, peaking factors).
Nuclear Instrument Power Level.
--
Spray Chemical Addition Tank Level.
--
RWST 1.evel.
--
Safety Iniection Tank Levels and Pressura
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Radiation Controls Radiation controls established by the licensee, including posting of radiation areas, the condition of step off pads, and the disposal of protective clothing were observed for conformance with the Maine Yankee Radiation Protection Manual.
MYAPC Radiation Work Permits issued for the inspection of the Primary Auxiliary Building and Reactor Containment were reviewed for proper documentation and compliance.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Plant Housekeeping
.
Plant housekeeping conditions, including general cleanliness and storage of material to prevent fire hazards, were observed in all areas toured for conformance with the Maine Yankee Plant Safety Manual. The inspector noted that general plant house-keeping conditions were goo.
d.
Fluid Leaks and Piping Vibrations _
Systems and equipment in all areas toured were observed for the existence of fluid leaks and abnormal piping vibrations.
None were identified.
e.
Control Room Manning Control Room manning was reviewed for conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k) and Technical Specifications.
The inspector observed that appropriate licensed operators were on shift as specified by the posted shift schedule on several occasions during the inspection, and manning require-ments were met at all times.
,
No items of noncompliance were identified.
f.
Observation of plant Operations The inspector observed operator actions in complying with the Load Dispatcher's request for a reduction in plant output from about 93% power to 45% power on October 17, 1978.
During the power reduction, the operators were referring to a curve for CEA Power Dependent Insertion Limits (PDIL) to insure that Technical Specification rod insertion limits were not exceeded.
The inspector identified that the curve the operators were using (from the Control Room Technical Data Book) was for Core III which had been replaced by Core IV during the last refueling outage completed in August 1978. The inspectv referred the operators to the correct POIL curve in Technical Specifications and verified that the limits of this curve had not been violated during the preceding CEA insertions.
The use of the outdated PDIL curve to control plant operations is con-trary to Technical Specification 5.8.1 which requires in part, that, " Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering....The applicable procedures reconnended in
. Appendix ' A' of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972." This represents an infraction level item of noncompliance (309/78-13-0,4).
,
10.
Unresolved Items _
Unresolved items are items for which more infonnation is required to detennine if they are acceptable, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 7 and 8.
.
.
.
t
.
11.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (see paragraph 1 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection as detailed in this report.