IR 05000309/1980011
| ML19345B017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1980 |
| From: | Lazarus W, Martin T, Swetland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345B015 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-80-11, NUDOCS 8011250692 | |
| Download: ML19345B017 (7) | |
Text
-__
-
_.
_ _ _ - _ _
O.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENF'1RCEMENT Region I l
R'. port No.
50-309/An-11 Docket No.
50-309 License No.
DPR-36 Priority
__
Category c
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Comoany 20 Turnoike Road Westborough Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee h1 clear Power Station Inspection at:
Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conducted:
August 18-September 1, 1980 Inspectors:
I W. J. Laz m s ReactorI[ector date signed h
f
$
D
P. D. Swetland, ReactorMspector date signed date signed Approved by:
~
h4 N
T. T. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects
~ cate signed
~
Section No. 3, R0&NS Branch Inscection Summary:
Inspection on August 18-September 1,1980 (Recort No. 50-309/80-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspection by two resident inspectors. Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, Primary Auxiliary Building, Spent Fuel Building, Spray Building and Auxiliary Feed Pump Areas. Activities / Records inspected included radiation protection, physical security, plant operations, maintenance, and surveillance testing.
The inspection involved 55 inspector-hours.
Results : No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8011250(o?A
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Anderson, Administrative Department Head R. Arsenault Plant Shift Superintendent J. Brinkler, Technical Support Department Head G. Cochrane, Health Physics Supervisor J. Hebert, Director, Plant Engineering W. Paine, Operations Department Head 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.
2.
Review of Plant Operations - plant Inspections The inspectors reviewed plant operations through direct observation through-out the reporting period. Activities included normal operation at power, routine preventive and corrective maintenance and surveillance testing.
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.
Annunciato,e 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.
c.
Shift Manning The operating shifts were observed to be staffed to meet the operating requirements of Technical Specifications, Section 5, both to the number and type of licenses.
Control room and shift manning were observed to be in conformance with 10 CFR 50.54.
d.
Radiation Protection Controls Radiation protection control areas were inspected.
Radiation Work Permits in use were reviewed, and compliance with those documents, as to protective clothing and required monitoring instruments, was inspected.
.
.
.
.
i Proper posting and control of radiation and high radiation areas was
,
reviewed in * ' tion to verifying requirements for wearing of appro-
'
priate pei..ial radiation dosimetry devices.
l The inspector observed individuals working in accordance with the below listed Radiation Work Permits (RWP):
'
RWP 80-8-86, 8/19/80
--
RWP 80-8-117, 8/25/80 i
--
On 8/19/80, workers who had signed in on an RWP to refill an ion exchanger w9re observed moving equipment and access covers to gain access te che work area.
Two individuals did not have cotton gloves on as specified on RWP 80-8-86.
The inspector contacted the licensee's health physics supervision and ascertained by review of recent surveys that these access operations did not require protective clothing.
The RWP listed requirements were based on the actual refilling operat.n.
On 8/25/80, workers who had signed in on RWP 80-8-117 to refill polymer tanks and process radioactive waste, were observed monitoring the transfer of polymer t storage tanks in the waste processing area.
Two individuals did not have on full protective clothing (P.C.) as required by the RWP.
The inspecto-determined by discussion with health physics *upervision that fu)' PC's would not be required for transferring non-radioactive polymer.
The RWP listed requirements were based on the waste processing operations.
The workers subsequently donned full PC's prior to processing radioactive wasta. Operator judgment is relied upon to interpret the RWP specifications in cases where multiple tasks are required to perform a job, and those specifica-tions are predicated on only one radiological task.
Procedure 9-1.10 Radiation Work Permits does not address performing multiple tasPs under the same work permit nor does it specify when a worker must conform to the RWP requirements unless the supplemental access control log sheet is used. The Health Physics Supervisor has agreed to be more specific when listing RWP requirements so that operators and HP personnel are clear at what point in the performance of the work, the
,
full RWP requirements are in effect, and will re-emphasize in operator
'
training the requirement for strict adherence to RWP requirements.
This item will be reviewed in subsequent inspections.
(309/80-11-01).
.
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls
,
i Storage of material and components was observed with respect to preven-
,
tion of fire and safety ha.tards.
Plant housekeeping was evaluated
'
with respcct to controlling the spraad of surface and airborne. contamina-tion.
There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
,
,,,
v.
-
,
,
-,, -
-
~ - - - - -,
- - -
l
.
o
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. Salected 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 for the following local Control Rules tagouts:
0646-80
--
0641-80
--
h.
Equipment Lineues The inspector verified that the major valve and switch positions were correct to insure Operability of the Safety Infection System, Safety Injection Accumulators, Containment Spray, and Emergency Diesel Genera-tors, by observation of the Main Control Board, inspections in the Diesel Generator Rooms and Spray Building.
A complete review and valve line up was performed on Diesel Generator 18 and associated subsystems.
The systems were found to be properly lined up.
The diesel air start systems of DG1A and DG1B are separated by single check valves in cross connecting piping.
Normally open isolation valves in these lines could be shut with no operational consequences and would provide more positive separation between the two emergency power systems.
The licensee has agreed to require the isolation valves to be shi.t.
This item vill be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
(309/80-11-02)
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Logs and Records During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Specifica-tions and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
Control Room Log
- daily during control room surveillance Jumper and Lifted Leads Log
- all active entries Maintenance Requests and Job Orders
- all active entries Safety Tag Log
- all active entries Plant Recorder Traces
- daily during control room surveillance
.
.
-
,_ - -.
.
.
.
Plant Process Computer Printed Output
- daily during control room surveillance Night Orders
- daily during control room surveillance The logs and records were reviewed to verify that entries are properly made and communicate equipment status / deficiencies; records are being reviewed by management; operating orders do not conflict with the Technical Specifica-tions; logs detail no violations of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; and logs and records are maintained in accordance with Tech-nical Specification and Administrative Control Procedure requirements.
Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review and discussion with licensee personnel.
No unacceptable conditions were identi-fled.
4.
Observation of Physical Security The resident inspector made observations, witnessed and/or verified, during regular and off-shift hours, that selected aspects of physical security were in accordance with regulatory requirements, physical security plans and approved procedures.
'
a.
Physical Protection Security Organization Observations and personnel interviews indicated that a full time
--
member of the security organization with authority to direct physical security actions was present, as required.
Kenning of all three shifts on various days was observed to be as
--
required.
b.
Physical Barriers Selected barriers in the protected area, access controlled area, and the vital areas were observed and random monitoring of isolation zones was performed.
Observations of truck and car searches were made.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
c.
Access Control Observations of the following items were made:
Identification, authorization and badging
--
(
Access control searches
--
Escorting
--
l
.
-f
- w yr
,.
g
---
-
w-y
-
--pg m'~y-a
.
.
.
Communications
--
apensatory measures when required.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
plant Maintenance 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 :tated in the Technical Specifications; compliance with applicable codes and standards; required QA/QC involvement; proper use of safety tags; proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers; appropriate personnel qualifi-cations; proper radiological controls for worker protection; adequate fire protection; and appropriate retest requirements.
The inspector also ascertained reportability as required by Technical Specifications.
The following activities were observed:
Main feed pump replacement
--
Condensate pump thrust bearing repair
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Follow-up on Events Occurring During the Inspection On August 18, 1980, while sluicing spent resin from a CVCS demineralizer, in accordance with plant procedure 1-18-3, an inadvertent dilution occurred raising reactor power 1%.
The unit was operating at 65% power.
Proper operator action identified the problem, controlled the power change and returned conditions to normal without incident.
The dilution was caused by a leaking demineralizer isolation valve which passed primary grade water into the volume control tank (VCT). The licensee has issued a procedure change to procedure 1-18-3, requiring operators to inform the control room prior to starting the sluicing flow so that VCT level may be closely monitored and compensated for.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
7.
In-Office Review of Licensee Event Reports :LERs)
The inspector reviewed LERs received in th9 Resident Inspector's office to verify that details of the event were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description of cause an/. adequacy of corrective action.
,
The inspector also determined whether 'urther information was required frcm the licensee, whether generic implicr. cions were indicated, and whether the event warranted on site followup.
'he following LERs were reviewed:
'
.
-
- -
-. - - - - - -
n
--,e
.
.
.
80-10, AFW Pump Thrust Bearing Oil Leak
--
80-11, Matrix Relay Failure
--
80-12, LPSI Loop Header Stop Valve Failure
--
- --
80-13, Improper Separation Redundant HPSI Pumps 80-15, CEA Insertion Error in Safety Analysis
--
- --
80-16, Main Steam Non-Return Valve Failure Except for those LERs denoted (*), which were selected for on site follow-up, the inspector had no further questions in this area.
8.
On Site Licensee Event Followup For thnse 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 of the facility was conducted within Technical Specification limits.
The review included discussions with ?icensee perstnnel, review of PORC meeting minutes, Plant Information Reports (in-house reports), and applicable logs.
The following LER was reviewed on site.
- 80-13, Improper Separation of Redundant HPSI Pumps This event was reviewed and documented in Inspection Report 80-07, paragraph
'
5.
- 80-16, Main Steam Line Non-Return Valve Failure The inspector monitored the replacement of the damaged valve disc and the
'
!
inspection of the other two non-return valves prior to the plant returning l
to power. The inspector has no further questions in this area.
'
9.
Review of Periodic Reports The inspector reviewed the following periodic reports to verify that the reporting requirements of Technical Specification 5.9 were net.
Monthly Operating Reports for April-July 1980.
--
No inadequacies were identified.
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.
.-
-
- _ - - - -