IR 05000309/1980006
| ML19321A458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1980 |
| From: | Lazarus W, Martin T, Swetland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-80-06, 50-309-80-6, NUDOCS 8007230398 | |
| Download: ML19321A458 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:nV . U.S. NUCLEAR REGUL/ TORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 80-06 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 Nuclear Power Station Inspection at: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conducted-April 7-11 and 21-24, 1980 Inspectors: . d Bd #d Mr. O zaruv, Reactor inspector date signed <W4 W b ?d FD - Mr. y wetlend, Reactor In(p~ctor date' signed e date signed Approved by: [[ 4/3 8 Mr.
f. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects date signed Section No. 3, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary: Inspection on April 7-11 and 21-24,1980 (Report No. 50-309/80-06) Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of plant operations, including a tour of accessible areas and a review of logs and records; review licensee action on selected previous inspection findings and selected IE Bulletins and Circulars; on site followup of selected Licensee Event Reports; and observation of preparation and shipment of radioactive waste. The inspection involved 77 inspector hours by two region-based inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77) 8007230MS. __ _ . _ _ . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P. Anderson, Administrative Department Head
- R. Arsenault, Plant Shift Nperintendent
- J. Brinkler, Technical Suport Department Head G. Cochrane, Health Physics Supervisor W. Paine, Operations Department Head R. Radasch, I&C Supervisor S. Sadosky, QC and Audit Coordinator
- E. Wood, Plant Manager The inspectors also interviewed several plant operators, technicians and members of the engineering and administrative staffs.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findinas (Closed) Unresolved Item (309/77-03-01): Computer software procedure 12-204, " Computer Documentation," Rev. O is in effect.
~ (Closed) Licensee Identified Noncompliance (309/77-20-01 and 77-20-02): These items were reviewed and corrected by the licensee as documented in In Plant Audit Position Report 77-17.
(Closed) Followup Items (309/77-20-03, 04, 05, 06): Licensee evaluation of Emergency Plan drill items is included in In Plant Audit Position Report 77-17.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/77-26-01): Plant procedure 3-6.2.1.31 has been implemented, controlling the calibration of safety related instrumen-tation not specifically covered in Technical Specification surveillance requirements.
(Closed) Followup Item (309/78-SP-08): This item is now being evaluated under IE Bulletin 79-01B.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-15-04): Licensee's review of fuel handling incident completed resulting in addition of refueling machine interlock to prevent mast rotation with spreader lowered.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-22-01): Action levels have been incor-porated into procedure 2-13, " Major Loss of Reactor Coolant," Rev. 9.
(Closed) Licensee Identified Noncompliance (309/79-14-03): Slide carousel containing outdated emergency procedures has been removed from the Control Room.
,
_ -- - - . . !
, 3.
Followup on IE Bulletins and Circulars Licensee action concerning the following IE Bulletins and Circulars j i was reviewed to verify that: The Bulletin or Circular was forwarded to appropriate onsite -- management.
A review for applicability was performed.
-- When applicable, appropriate corrective actions have been taken
-- or are scheduled to be taken.
And in the case of the IE Bulletins: Written response (when required) was within the stated time -- period and contains the required information.
Written response contains adequate corrective action commitments.
!
-- Information on the licensee's written response was accurate.
-- Corrective action taken by tne licensee is as described in the -- written response.
IEB 79-21, Temperature Effects on Level Measurements -- The inspector reviewed the licensee rcsponse (WMY letter 79-95 of September 14,1979) and basis evaluation to verify compliance.
Corrective actions have not yet been completed, pending complete evaluation of the variable and reference leg transient phenomena. Completion of corrective actions will be reviewed in a subsequent , inspection after receipt of licensee's followup report.
IEB 79-23, Failure of EDG Field Exciter Transformer -- The inspector verified that the licensee's response (WMY letter 79-121 of October 29,1979) was accurate by review of maintenance record MR 1146-79 and modified surveillance procedures 3.1.4 of , 10/23/79 and 12/17/79 which demonstrate that the requirements of
this bulletin have been met. This item will be closed on receipt of the final report by the licensee.
IEB 79-25, Failure of Westinghouse BFD Relays -- The inspector verified that the licensee's response (WMY letter 79-147 of December 21,1979) was accurate, by review of maintenance request MR 321-80, maintenance procedure M-5-23 and memorandum of March 25, 1980.
No further information is required.
.
m we- -- - ' - - - -, w ' - - - - + ' ~ -*-v-Y** -- - * - -
e ,
. IEC:79-25;andt79-25A: Shock' Arrestor Strut' Assembly Interference __ A review by the licensee documented in a memo dated January 4, 1980, concludes that based on a review of plant systems, none of the subject supports are installed at Maine Yankee. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
IEC 80-01, Failure of GE Induction Disc Relays -- The inspector reviewed the licensee's evaluation documented in a memo dated March 25, 1980, which concluded that the present annual clean and test maintenance requirement (subject failure not noted) is adequate to prevent this problem.
Except as noted above, the licensee's evaluation / corrective actions for those Bulletins and Circulars were appropriate.
4.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas of the plant including the Primary Auxiliary Building, Cable Penetration Area, Containment, Con-tainment Spray Pump Area, Auxiliary Feed Pump area, Turbine Building, Switchgear Rooms and Diesel Generator Rooms, HP Control Point, and the Control Room.
Part of the tour was conducted shortly after the inspector's initial arrival on site on a holiday.
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 and that, where applicable, values indicated were in accordance with Technical Specifications.
RMS Process and Area Monitors.
-- CEA Position Indication.
-- Core Power Distribution (Symmetric Offset, azimuthal tilt, peaking -- factors).
Nuclear Instrument Pewer Level.
-- Spray Chemical Addition Tank Level.
-- RWST Level.
-- Operable ECCS Lineup on the Main Control Board.
-- No items of noncompliance were identifie. .
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 housekeeping conditions were good with the exception of the rear of the Main Control Board where an accumulation of debris and combustible materials was identified. The licensee promptly corrected the situation and the inspector reinspected the area prior to the exit interview and found conditions to be satisfactory.
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.
Pipe Hangers / Seismic Restraints Pipe hangers installed on piping systems in the areas toured were observed for proper reservoir oil levels or spring tension and proper connection to piping systems.
No discrepancies were identified, f.
Safeguards Locked Valve Checklist During a tour of the Control Room, the Safeguards Building and the containment, the inspector verified that the position of forty-four (44) safeguards related valves were in accordance with the locked valve checklist of procedure 3.1.2, ECCS Locked Valve Checklist.
. No discrepancies were identifie.
g.
Equipment Tagging Procedures The inspector verified that. the following tagouts had been properly approved and installed in accordance with the Maine Yankee Tagging Rules and operating procedures.
197 SIA M-11, 21, 31 -- 198 TH and TC Stop Valves -- 4054 Removal of Spray Pump P61B from service -- No discrepancies were identified.
h.
Containment Inspection The inspector reviewed preparations for and accompanied licensee personnel on the weekly inspection inside containment.
No abnormal conditions were identified.
i.
Control Room Manning Control Room manning was reviewed for conformance with the require-ments 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 requirements were met at all times.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
J.
Fire Protection The inspector verified the operability of various fire protection equipment and the placement of fire barriers in electrical conduits.
Systems checked included: Turbine Building CARD 0X, Switchgear/ Cable Spreading Area CARD 0X, and Transformer Deluge System.
No discrepancies were identified.
5.
Shift Logs and Ooerating Records a.
The inspector reviewed selected shift logs and operating records to verify that: Control Room log entires involving abnormal conditions -- provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status, correction, and restoration;
- _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
Log Book reviews are being conducted by the staff; -- Jumper (Bypass) log does not contain bypassing discrepancies with -- Technical Specification requirements and that jumpers are properly approved and installed.
b.
The following. plant logs and operating records were reviewed.
Control Room Operators' Log for October 14-December 6, 1979; -- -- Operation Safeguard, Yellow Tag-Control Log, active and inactive control sheets.
During an audit of the Operations Safeguard, Yellow Tag-Control Logs (active and inactive), and a sampling of posted tags the inspectors identified two posted tags that had not been signed by the Plant Shift Superintendent-(80-6-1 and 73-511) and one completed Control Request-Form (80-2) which had not received the final review signatures by a Plant Shift Superintendent.
These items were promptly corrected by the licensee and re-inspected by the inspector.
No other discrepancies were identified.
6.
Radwaste Shipment Preparation The inspector witnessed the preparation of radwaste shipment 80-27 on April 22, 1980, ta verify that the requirements of procedure MY-HP-108-79, " Radio-active Shiprent Quality Assurance Record," and CV n-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
(CNSI) Transpcrt Cask Number 21-300 Certificate ,ompliance Number 9096," were met.
Following the final checks by the lic o ee the inspector verified that radiation levels at 10 feet from the cask were within limits established by the Department of Transportation.
No discrepancies were identified.
7.
In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) The inspector reviewed the following LERs in the RI Office to verify that , reporting requirements were met, details of the event were clearly reported, whether generic implications were indicated, and to determine if on site followup was necessary.
- --
80-07/3L, Emergency Safety Feature Valves Found Unlocked /Mispositioned 80-08/3L, RPS Matrix Relay Malfunction -- Except for those denoted by (*) for on site followup, the inspector had no further questions on these items.
- .
8.
On Site Licensee Event Followup For those LERs selected for on site followup, the inspector verified that reporting requirements of Technical Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.16 had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the licensee as required, and that continued operation cf the facility was conducted within Technical Specification limits.
The revMw included discussions with licensee personnel, review of PORC meeting minutes, Plant Information Reports (in-house reports), and applicable logs. The following LER was reviewed on site.
80-07/3L, Emergency Safety Feature Valves Found Unlocked /Mispositioned.
-- The discovery by the licensee that valves RH-8 and RH-10 were open and unlocked, although recorded as locked closed in the last completed procedure 3.1.2, ECCS Locked Valve Checklist," led to performance of a check of all the safeguards valves on this checklist. Six additional valves were found to be properly positioned but unlocked. Valves were imediately restored to the proper position / locked as necessary. The i inspector reviewed the engineering drawings for the safeguards system and determined that the fact that RH-8 and RH-10 were open would probably have had neglible effect on the ability of the systems to l perform their safety functions.
This represents a licensee identified item of noncompliance. The inspector verified that the valves had been properly positioned / locked (see detail 4.f). The changes to
l procedure 3.1.2 to require a separate check of valves after the procedure is accomplished, will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
(309/80-06-01) 9.
Review of Periodic Reports The inspector reviewed the Monthly Operating Reports for March 1980 to verify that reporting requirements were met.
No inadequacies were identified.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector held a meeting with licensee representatives at the con-clusion of the inspection (see detail I for attendees) to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection as detailed in this report. }}