IR 05000309/1980018
| ML20003G330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1981 |
| From: | Lazarus W, Martin T, Swetland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G321 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-80-18, NUDOCS 8104290047 | |
| Download: ML20003G330 (10) | |
Text
.
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
80-18 Docket No.
50-309 Category C
License No. OPR-36 Priority
--
Licmtsee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 20 Turnpike Road
.
Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name:
Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection at:
Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conduct
- November 3 - November 28, 1980
/4/844
//
Inspectors:
y G 42aru d eactor Inspector
' Date signec
~
,-
C N
/
2264sW P. 6wetlan_dj Reactor Inspgfetor
" Date signed
~
t 0 e si ned
!
Y/
Approved y:
/
^-
~~
-T. Ma tih, Chief, Reactor Projects
'Date signed
/
Sect'on No. 3, RO&NS Branch l
Inscection Summary:
Inspection on Nover,bar 3
'/R.1990 (Recort No. 50-309/80-18)
'
Areas Inspected:
Routine, regular and backshift inspecticn by two resident in-spectors. Areas inspected included the Control Rocm, Containment, Turbine Building, Primary Auxiliary Building, Spray Building and Auxiliary Feed Pump Room. Activities /
Records inspected included radiation protection, physical security, plant operations, maintenance and surveillance testing, followup on previous inspection findings, followup on selected IE Circulars., and Shipment of Radioactive Material. The i
j inspection involved 113 inspector-hours.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, three items of noncompliance were identified in one area (Infractions: failure to document permission to release equipment from service (four examples), paragraphs 3,4, and 7; failure to provide for protection of workers (one examnle),
paragraph 4; and,, failure to use a procedure / instruction for maintenance, paragraph 4.)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
810429003q(
t
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P. Anderson, Administrative Department Head R. Arsenault, Plant Shift Superintendent D. Boynton, Reactor Engineer
- J. Brinkler, Technical Support Department Head R. Forrest, Fire Protection Coordinator J. Hebert, Director, Plant Engineering W. Paine, Operations Department Head
- S. Sadr. sky, QA and Audit Coordinator J. Stevens, Plant Chemist
- D. Sturniolo, Technical Assistant to the Plant Manager
- E. Wood, Plant Manager
- denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspectors also interviewet several plant operators, technicians and members of the engineering and administrative staffs.
2.
Followuo on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved I+,em (309/77-07-01). Amendment 41 to the facility operating license issued 8/23/78 authorized the use of the more recent ASME codes for use in the subject surveillance testing.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-03-01). The inspector reviewed the licensee's most recent change to the Fire Training Procedure (2.60.6 Rev 2, 11/80), which requires each crew to be drilled twice each quarter and further stipulates each brigade member must participate in at least one of these two drills.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(Closed)
Follow-up Item (309/78-08-04).
The inspector reviewed the i
l completed design change package (PDCR 5-75).
Final analysis data for valve SA-A-138 showed satisfactory capability to withstand seismic loading stresses. The inspector verified that the seismic restraints installed at SA-A-138 were in place a detailed in the design package.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-09-03). A sign has been posted
,
l at the spent fuel pool door which prohibits opening these doors during
'
fuel handling. Procedure 13.2 Rev 9,11/14/80, Fuel Handling, includes as an initial condition the requirement for these doors to be shut.
l l
l
\\
-
-
,
..,.
,, -., - -
,.. _ -
-
- - -, -.
-,
--
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-12-01). The inspector determined that the licensee had found and corrected an intermittent malfunction in his digital multi channel analyzer which was causing the instrument to
~
double the number of observed counts.
Subsequent to this repair the calibration check data returned to within acceptable limits and the licensee resumed using the 27 ml geometry because of its enhanced sensitivity for Kr85 The inspector requested that the licensee analyze a comon sample by both the Kontes flask and the 27 ml geometry. The results are listed below.
Since the licensee's Kontes flask sample agreed with the mobile lab results at the time of the split sample, these results justify returning to the 27 ml geometry until another split sample is performed.
Samole Isotooe Geometry Value Gas Decay Drum "D" XE-133 Kontes Flask 1.11 E-04 11/14/80
!1.47 E-05 Gas Decay Drum "D" XE-133 27 iii 1.14 E-04 11/14/80
!8.71 E-07 (Closed) Unresolved Item (309/78-13-02). The inspector detemined that the licensee is presently verifying the shutdown margin calculation (documented in applications for core reload amendment) by confiming the accuracy of the core performance model initially during low power physics testing and subsequently by periodic monitoring of core per-fomance parameters. So long as no reactivity anomalies exist, the shutdown margin will continue to satisfy the technical specification requirement.
Based on this position documented in licensee memorandum NED 80-335, 4/16/80, the inspector concurred that a shutdown margin calculation would not be a required low power physics test result.
The inspector verified adequate shutdown margin predicted for the present core reload 'V) and that the prediction model has been verified accurate. The inspe; tor had no further questions in this area.
(0 pen)
Follow-up Item (309/80-07-03). The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of commitments to satisfy the Interim Con-tainment Purging Position described in NRR letter dated October 23, 1979, and WMY letter 79-146 dated December 12, 1979. The inspector verified that purge valves have three auto-initiated closing signals (CIS, SIAS, radiation).
Blocking any of these signals will not inhibit the others from operating to close the valves. The temporary devices limiting the purge butterfly valves to 500 open have oeen removed because no further purging will be conducted this year due to the 90 hour0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> / year comitment. The licensee expects to install a permanent limiting device on the purge valves before January 1981, however, should this not be accomplished the licensee has committed to re-install temporary limiting devices and/or provide adequate adminis-trative controls to prevent opening the purge butterfly valves greater
,
.
.
-
.
.-
.
. _.
.
.
.
than 500 This item will be reviewed upon completion of the per-manent change to limit valve opening.
(Closed)
Follow-up Item (309/80-14-06).
The corrected LER #80-17 was submitted on 10/2/80. No inadequacies were identified.
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Plant Insueelions The inspector reviewed plant operation through direct observation throughout the reporting period.
a.
Instrumentation Control room process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical Specifiestion 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 un-acceptable conditions were identified.
c.
Shift Manning The operating shifts were observed to be staffed to meet the oper-ating 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 10CFR 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.
Proper posting and control 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 contamination. There were no unacceptable conditions identifie i
'
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 a plant tour on October 19, 1980, the inspector found MS-185 steam supply valve to the turbine driven auxiliary feed-water pump unlocked and closed.
A review of the Operation Safeguard, Yellow Tag Control Log, the Local Control Rules Log, outstanding Maintenance Requests, and the Shift Supervisor's Log was performed.
No documenta-tion of removal of steam driven auxiliary feed-water pump from service could be found.
The inspector discussed the event with the Plant Shift Superintendent and Shift Operating Supervisor.
Both were aware that the pump was taken out of service in order to isolate a steam leak for repair.
Subsequent to the discussion, a Local Control Rules tagout was issued and an entry made in the Shift Supervisor's Log.
Failure to document the granting of permission to remove this safety related equipment from service is contrary to the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1976, Section 5.2.6.
This item, combined with items detailed in paragraphs 4 and 7.b, constitute an infraction.
(309/80-18-01).
h.
Equipment Lineups The inspector verified that the major valve and switch positions were correct to insure Operability of the Safety Injection System, Safety Injection Accumulators, Containment Spray, and Emergency Diesel Generators, by observation of the Main Control Board, inspec-tions in the Diesel Generator Rooms and Spray Building.
System lineups were performed in accessible areas on the "B" Emergency Diesel Generator and the Auxiliary Feed Water System.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i.
Containment Inspection The inspector reviewed preparations for and accompanied licensee personnel on the weekly inspection inside containment on November 5, 1980.
No abnormal conditions were identified.
4.
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 I
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 Specifications; logs detail no violations of Technical Speci-fication or reporting requirements; logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specification and Administrative Control Procedure requirements.
Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review and discussion with licensee personnel.
During a review of the Shift Supervisor's Log the inspector noted an entry made on October 27, 1980 concerning testing of the ABT's for valves LSI-M-11, 21, and 31.
Upon followup of the reason for the testing, the inspector found that maintenance had been performed to clean the ABT contacts because of slow operating times. A review of the Maintenance Requests and Local Control Rules Log revealed that neither a Maintenance Request nor Local Control Rules Tags had been used for Maintenance on the ABT's for LSI-M-11 or 21. However, following identification of this omission by the QA and Audit Coordinator, a Maintenance Request and required danger tags were issued prior to starting work on the ABT device for LSI-M-31.
Performance of this work on safety-related equipment without an approved procedure as required by ANSI N18.7 - 1976 paragraph 5.2.7 and without a Maintenance Request, which could have fulfilled the re-
'
quirements for a procedure if sufficiently detailed, as required by Maine Yankee Procedure 0-07-03, " Maintenance Requests" paragraph 1.0 represents an infraction level item of noncompliance (309/80-18-02).
I Failure to make the equipment safe to work on (danger tagging power supplies) as required by ANSI N18.7 - 1976, paragraph 5.2.6, and Maine Yankee procedure " Tagging Rules",, paragraph 22.2' prior to, performing the work represents an infraction level item of noncomollance..
(309/6018-03)
~
.---
.
...
.
-
_ _ _
....
.
.
..
-
.-
.
=
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
I
e
I Failure to document persmission to release the equipment for maintenance as required by ANSI N18.7-1976, paragraph 5.2.6, represents an infraction level item of noncompliance when combined with the items detailed in
,
paragraphs 3.g and 7.b.
(309/80-18-01)
Review of maintenance and equipment control records show that on September 26, October 6 and October 28, 1980 one of two emergency diesel generators was tagged out of service for preventive maintenance. While the shift supervisor's log recorded the fact that the diesel was out of service, there was no documentation of permission to remove the system from service.
Failure to document permission to release safety related equipment for maintenance as required by ANSI N18.7-1976, paragraph 5.2.6, represents an infraction level item of noncompliance when combined with the items detailed in paragraphs 3.g and 7.b.
(309/80-18-01)-
5.
Observation of Physical Security The resident inspector made observations, witnessed and/or verified,
,
during regular and off-shift hours, that the selected aspects of the security plan 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.
,
Manning of all three shifts on various days was observed to be
--
as required.
l 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.
c.
Access Control Observations of the following items were made:
--
Identification, authorization and badging Access control searches
--
,
Escorting
--
Communications
--
Compensatory measures when required
--
No items of noncompliance were identifed.
.
- -
/
~
-.
.
.
.
6.
Follow-up on IE Circulars Licensee action concerning the following IE Circulars was reviewed to verify that:
The Circular was forwarded to appropriate onsite management.
--
A review for applicability was performed
--
Appropriate corrective actions have been taken or are scheduled-
--
to be taken.
IEC 80-04, Securing Threading Locking Devices The inspector reviewed the licensee's memo dated 7/29/80 which documents corrective measures taken in response to this concern.
No inadequacies were identified.
IEC 80-12, Valve Shaft-to-Actuator Key May Fall Out The inspector reviewed the licensee actions in response to this item, documented in a memo dated 7/23/80.
None of the subject valves have been installed at this facility and no valves are known to have similarly designed operators. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
7.
Observation of Maintenance and Surveillance Testing The inspector observed various maintenance and problem investigation activities. The inspector reviewed these activities to verify compli-ance with regulatory requirements, including those stated in the Technical Specifications; compliance with applicable codes and stan-dards; required QA/QC involvement; proper use of safety tags; proper
,
equipment alignment and use of jumpers; appropriate personnel qualifi-i I
cations; proper radiological controls for worker protection; adequate l
fire protection; and appropriate retest requirements. The inspector
.
also ascertained reportability as required by Technical Specifications.
l The following documents were reviewed:
Maintenance Requests #1690, 1829, 1686, 1678
--
RCS Flow Channel Calibration Procedure 3.6.2.1.4
--
!.
Local Control Log
--
i l
!
..
.
.
.
a.
Replacement and Calibration of Reactor Protection Channel "A" Loop Flow Transmitters The inspector determined that the maintenance was perfor.ned without providing a Local Control tagout.
Further investigation determined the Maine Yankee Tagging Rules exclude instrumentation from Local Control Tagout requirements.
Equipment control is provided by the Maintenance Work Request system.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
b.
Modifications to the Fire Main The inspector determined that the diesel fire pumps had been placed out of service to accomplish fire main modifications on November 24, 1980.
There was no documentation of permission to remove the equipment from service.
Failure to document permission to release safety related equipment from service in accordance with ANSI N18.7-1976, paragraph 5.2.6, represents an infraction level item of noncompliance when combined with the items detailed in paragraphs 3.g and 4.
(309/80-18-01)
c.
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; test was performed by qualified personnel; the procedure was adequately detailed to assure performance of a satisfactory surveillance; and, test results satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria, or were properly dispositioned. The inspector witnessed the performance of:
--
Reactor Protection System Monthly Surveillance (SP 3-6.2.2.0 and 3-6.2.2.1)
Engineered Safeguards Monthy Surveillance (SP 3.1.2)
--
During a review of Maine Yankee procedure 3.1.2, the inspector noted that in Section 4.1, the closing stroke times were recorded for the various motor operated safeguards valves, instead of recording the opening times, which is the significant parameter to be recorded since the opening time directly relates to the overall system actuation time delay.
Recording the closing times in the case of the majority of the valves is less meaningful because the valve is cycled open just prior to the test so that is may reasonably be expected to operate more freely (quickly) as it is reclosed.
In addition, no acceptance criteria is included in the procedure for the stroke times which are recorded. This item is unresolved pending determination of acceptance criteria for opening stroke times for those valves which are normally closed.
(309/80-18-04)
e
-
.
8.
Shipment of Radioactive Materials The inspector observed the preparation, loading and survey of solidi-fied liquid radioactive waste for transportation to Barnwell, S.C.
on November 24, 1980. The following documentation was reviewed:
Maine Yankee Procedure 9.1.5 Rev 6, Shipment of Radioactive Material Chem Nuclear Procedure TR-0P-011 Rev C, Loading of RadWaste Cask The inspector verified that the shipment met Department of Transpor-tation requirements for placarding and external dose limits.
Records show that proper notifications were made in accordance with procedure 9.1.15.
No items of non-compliance were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 7.
10.
Exit Interviews At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspectior scope and findings.
~