IR 05000309/1981005
| ML19347G022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1981 |
| From: | Gallo R, Lazaras W, Swetland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347G015 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-81-05, 50-309-81-5, NUDOCS 8105280071 | |
| Download: ML19347G022 (11) | |
Text
'
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 50309-810213 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50309-810227 g
Region I R: port No.
81-05 Docket No.
50-309 Category C
License No. DPR-36 Priority
--
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 1671 Worcester. cad Framinoham, Massachusetts' 01701 Facility Name: Maine Yankae Nuclear Power Station Inspection at:
Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conduct :
February 2-27, 1981 Inspectors: [
,uMue
.5 e
P/
'
-
W.Lda s,
e tor Inspector Date sfigned
'
3 io Tl
.
w P. Swetland, Reactor Inspector Date' signed Date signed Approved by:
A NY O!E l R. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Date signed Section No. lA, DRPI Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 2-27, 1981 (Report No. 50-309/81-05)
Areas inspected:
Routine, regular and backshif t inspection by two resident inspectors.
(100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />) Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, Primary
-
Auxiliary Building, Spray Building and Auxiliary Feed Pump Room. Activities / Records inspected incleded radiation protection, physical security, plant operations, maintenance and surveillance testing, procurement practices, followup on previous inspection findings, onsite review committee, follow-up of events occurring during the inspection, and followup on licensee event reports.
Results: Of the eleven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were observed in nine areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (Failure to pro-perly disposition nonconforming materials - Paragraph 12.c; Failure to properly review and document the blocking of safety system functions - Paragraph 3.b).
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
810528eeni
_ - -
.
-
_._
.
-
- --
-
-.
.
-.
- - -
.
.
DETAILS
-
1.
, Persons Contacted P. 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 R. Prouty, Mainte;ance Department Head R. Radasch, I&C Supervisor S. Sadosky, QA and Audit Coordinator D. Sturniolo, Technical Assistant to the Plant Manager E. Wood, Plant Manager R. Wyckoff, Senior Plant Engineer The inspectors also interviewed several plant operators, technicians and members of the engineering and administrative staffs.
2.
Followup on P m vious Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Items (309/79-07-01, -02 and -03). The inspector reviewed revision 2 to procedure 4-41, Verification of Correct Installa-tion and Design Load of Embedded Concrete Anchors.
Further discussion with licensee staff members determined the following:
--
The licensee performed a test program to develop actual correlation data between preload torque and anchor bolt load. This data was used to verify calculated pre-load values.
--
Cyclic load requirements were covered by instructions to visually inspect and record abnormal conditions and to reload all bolts on the base plate.
Criteria were specified to the greatest extent possible to identify
--
,
I the type of anchor being tested; where the identity remained in l
doubt, the most conservative preload values were used.
l Criteria were added to identify anchor slippage during torquing.
--
The discrepancy between manufacturers data and the construction
--
specification was a result of the manufacturer's revision of re-commended shear values after development of the construction speci-
,
I fi m ion. Re-analysis of support loading under Bulletin 79-14 used the more ccnservative value of the current manufacturer's data and the construction specification.
No problem areas were identified.
l
!
l
. - -.
-
.- -.-..-
- -
-
-
- -,
.--
-
-
-
.
.. -.
. - -.
'
.
.
The observed flaws in two pipe supports were determined to be
--
incomplete welds. These welds were repaired and tested under maintenance request #755-79, June 7,1979.
Inspection of similar supports in component cooling systems revealed no further flaws.
No further questions were identified in this area by the identifying inspector or the resident inspector.
(Closed) Honcompliance.(309/79-14-01). The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure 00-06-01 Rev 4, dated December 10, 1980.
Issuance of this procedure completes the required corrective action.
Due to the delays in the review and issuance of this procedure, the inspector reminded the licensee that early initiation of this process is necessary to complete the required bi-annual review on schedule.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (309/79-14-04). Procedure 2-21, " Control Rod Drop", Revision 11, dated February 6, 1981 includes procedures for the inability to move control rods and mis-positioned rods.
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Plant Inspections 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 Specification i
requirements.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
b.
Annunciator Alarms The inspector observcd various alarm conditions which had been l
received and acknowledged. These conditions were discussed with l
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.
,
The inspector observed the Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS)
Train "B" Control Power annunciator to be illuminated on February i
3, 1981.
RAS Train B had been de-energized for maintenance,
,
blocking the automatic shift-over of safeguards pump suctions from l
the refueling water storage tank to the containment sump. Adminis-trative control for blocking of safety functions is required by the
'
licensee's Procedure 16.1, " Maine Yankee Operation Safeguard".
.
The inspector verified that the shift operators were knowledgeable
!
l of the requirement for manual initiation of RAS. The inspector
_
_
_ _ _ _
_
_
-
.
.
'
.
.
informed the Plant Shift Superintendent, the Operations Departaent Head and the Assistant Plant Manager of the requirements for review and documentation prior to blocking of safety functions.
It was determined that since the Safety Analysis allowed for manual ini-tiation of RAS, no temporary modification under 10 CFR 50.59 was involved and that the documentation should have been completed in accordance with Procedure 16.1. The licensee performed the review and documentation required by Procedure 16.1 upon identification by the inspector of this noncompliance.
Failure to properly review and document the blocking of safety system functions as required by Technical Specification 5.8.1, Regulatory Guide 1.33, and Pro-cedure 16.1 constitutes an item of noncompliance (309/81-05-01).
c.
Shift Mannigi 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, anc compliance with those documents, as to protective clothing and required monitoring instruments, was inspected.
Proper posting and control of radiation and high radia-tion areas was reviewed in addition to verifying requirements for wearing of appropriate personal monitoring devices. There were no unacceptable conditions identified.
e.
Plant Housekeepina Controls Storage of material and components was observed with respect to j
'
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 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 l
were clear of debris. The inspector accompanied a region-based inspector on a detailed inspection of fire protection equipment.
t Details of this inspection are contained in IE Inspection Report 050-309/81-04.
I
{
_
__
_
__
__
-,
__
.
'
'
.
.
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.
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, and inspections in the Diesel Generator Rooms and Spray Building.
System lineups were performed in accessible areas for the "A" HPSI train, "A" LPSI train, and "A" containment spray train. No abnormal conditions were identified.
1.
Radioactive Waste System Control The inspector observed the release of radioactive liquid waste authorized by discharge permit #1546 on February 23, 1981. The discharge permit was reviewed to verify that proper approval was obtained, samples were taken and analyzed, and that effluent re-lease controls were set and woiking properly. No inadequacies were identified.
4.
Review of Plant Operations - Loos and Records During the inspection period, the inspector reviewed operating logs and records covering the inspection time period against Technical Speci-fications 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; ope-? ting orders do not conflict with the Tech-nical Specifications; logs detail no violations of Technical Specification or reporting requirements; logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical Specification and Administrative Centrol Procedure require-ments.
.-
.
.
.-
. - -.
.
. _ - _.
-
.
.
'
'
.
.
Several entries in these logs were the subject of additional review and discussion with licensee personnel. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
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 reguiatory requirements, physical security plans and approved procedures.
a.
Physical Protection Security Orcanization_
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.
b.
Physical Barriers Selected barriers in the protected area, access controlled area, and the vital areas were observed and random monitoring of iso-lation zones was perfonned.
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 j
--
Escorting
--
Comunications
--
Compensatory measures when required
--
No items of non-compliance were identified.
6.
Observation of Maintenance and Surveillance Testing The inspector observed various maintenance and problem investigation activities. The inspector reviewed these activities to verify compliance with regulatory requirements, including those stated 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 qualifications; proper radio-logical controls for worker protection; adequate fire protection; and appropriata retest requirements. The inspecter also ascertained re-portability as requi.ed by Technical Specifications.
The inspector witnessed the performance of surveillance testing of selected components to verify that the surveillance test procedure was properly calibrated and in use; technical specifications were satisfied prior to removal of the system from service; test was performed by quali-fied personnel; the procedure was adequately detailed to assure perfor-mance of a satisfactory surveillance; and, test results satisfied the procedural acceptance criteria, or were properly dispositioned.
Maintenance was performed on Service Water pump P29-C (MR 314-81) to determine the cause of abnonnal vibration detected from that pump.,
The inspector observed the work area and verified that the Local Control Rules tags were in place in accordance with tagout 125-81.
Maintenance was performed on the automatic bus transfer for safeguards valve LSI-M-31 (MR 301-81). The inspector observed the trouble shooting process and verified that the component was returned to service.
Maintenance was performed on pressurizer spray valve, PR-A-1, to repair a leaking body-to-bonnet gasket (MR 300-81). The inspector verified that adequate radiation protection and equipment control measures were implemented.
The inspector observed the replacement of the reactor protection system (RPS) channel A temperature transmitter (MR 229-81) to correct observed problems with RPS channel drift. Recalibration of the transmitters was performed in accordance with surveillance procedure 3.6.2.1.10, TMLP Protection Channel Calibration.
The inspector observed portions of the following surveillance tests:
--
Matrix Relay Replacement and Testing (SP 4-53)
Emergency Safeguard System Monthly Testing (SP 3.1.2)
--
Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Monthly Testing (SP 3.1.5)
--
For the above listed maintenance and surveillance items, the inspector identified no abnonnal conditions.
.
..
..- _, _.. - _ _ _.
.
. _ _ _, _ _ _. _ _
. _, _ _ _ _
,_
_... _..___ _._ _
, _...
_
'
'
.
.
.
t
$
r e
7.
Onsite Review Committee Activities The inspector attended a meeting of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) on February 18, 1981, to observe the conduct of the meeting and to ascertain that provisions of the Technical Specifications dealing with membership, review process, frequency and qualifications were satis-fied. Review of PORC meeting minutes will be completed during a subse-quent inspection. The inspector had no further questions in this area at this time.
8.
Followup on Preparation and Implementation of Strike Contingency Plans The licensee's contract security guards voted to join the Power Plant Police and Security Officers Union in January 1981. The licensee had extended its security force contract 90 days past the January 1981 expiration date ta allow the contractor to complete negotiations with the union membership.
Licensee strike preparation was reviewed by Region I security inspectors during a routine inspection in January 1981.
Details of this inspection are contained in IE Inspection Report 050-309/
81-02. Additionally, the resident inspector reviewed the licensee's preparation in the operational areas to verify that adequate personnel and support would be available should the operators union honor a security union strike.
The inspector was informed of a security guard walk-out at 6:00 A.M.,
February 27, 1981. Upon arrival at the site, the inspector checked to see that adequate security and operations personnel were available and that the licensee's response was in accordance with his normal se-curity plan and the strike contingency plan. The inspector determined that from 6:00 to 6:45 A.M., February 27, 1981, the licensee's security capability had been degraded, however, proper actions had been taken in accordance with the security plan. The licensee had informed the NRC by ENS call at 6:05 A.M.
Region I dispatched a physical protection
!
inspector to the site to investigate the degradation of security and l
to review the implementation of the strike contingency plan.
Details of this inspection are contained in IE Inspection Report 050-309/81-07.
The resident inspector continued to monitor the operational capability on site to insure that the licensee met all license requirements. No further inadequacies were identified.
9.
In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
The inspector reviewed the following LERs received in the RI office to verify that details of the event were clearly reported including the l
accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector also determined whether further information was required l
from the licensee, whether generic implications were indicated, and whether the event warranted on site followup.
!
l
!
.
- _, _ -.
.,
--
,
,
..m--
-u,_
m
,
g
.,
-.y
..,#a
.
-
_
-
-.
._-
.
'
~
.
.
!
>
- --
80-14 Higher Than Predicted Vessel Irradiation
"--
81-01 Exceeding MPT Resulted from Higher Than Predicted Vessel Irradiation
- = Reports selected for onsite followup.
10.
On Site Followup of LERs i
.
During on site followup, the inspector verified that reporting require-i ments 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 l
the facility was conducted within Technical Specification limits. The
~
l review included discussions with licensee personnel, review of PORC meeting minutes, and applicable logs. The following LERs were reviewed.
80-14 Higher Than Predicted Vessel Irradiation i
--
The inspector discussed the results of the analysis of the reactor vessel specimen (removed during the January 1980 refueling outage)
with the licensee. This analysis confirmed the preliminary data i
reported by the licensee in~ June 1980. The licensee had revised the pressure / temperature curves in use to reflect these preliminary results. The inspector determined that the licensee had been opera-ting with conservatism since identification of the inaccuracy. The
,
!
inspector had no further questions pending Licensing review of the
'
Technical Specification change incorporating the new vessel fluence l
predictions.
81-01 Exceeding MPT Resulted from Higher Than ~ Predicted. Vessel
--
Irradiation
The licensee reported that the reactor coolant system leak test conducted on March 6, 1980 was performed at a temperature above the minimum pressurization temperature (MPT) based on the pressure /
temperature curves in use at the time, but below MPT on the curves as redrawn based on the analysis of actual reactor vessel samples reported above. Further evaluation indicates that because of the conservatism used in constructing the pressure / temperature curves, the actual MPT of the reactor vessel was not exceeded during the March 6, 1981 leak test. The inspector reviewed the analysis docu-ments referenced in the LER and had no further questions in this-area pending Licensing review of this information submitted in accordance with 10 CFF 50, Appendix H.
(309/81-05-04)
11.
Review of Periodic Reports The inspector reviewed the following periodic report to verify that the-reporting requirements of Technical Specification 5.9 were met.
Monthly Operating Reports for December 1980 - Januar,' 1981.
--
--,
-. - - -. -
-... -
-.
. - - _.... -... - - - - -..... - - - - - -.. -. - -,.
.
.
No inadequacies were identified.
12.
Procurement and Control of Safety Related Material A.
The inspector reviewed selected Purchase Orders and associated Material Inspection Reports and performed an inspection of the material storage areas to verify that material was ordered, receivcd and stored in accordance with the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program and procedure 0-03-1 " Material Receipt Handling and Storage"
Rev 5.
The following documents were reviewed:
P.O. 27581 02-80-4-39 5/29/80
--
Material Inspection Report 6/12/80 P.O. 27580 02-80-4-34 5/29/80
--
Material Inspection Report 10/23/80
--
P.O. 27579 05-80-5-11 5/29/80 Material Inspection Report 7/24/80 P.O. 27477 02-80-4-1 5/15/80
--
Material Inspection Report 6/30/80 No inadequacies were identified.
-
B.
The inspector questioned storeroom personnel concerning their method for identifying items in storage with a limited shelf life and was shown a recently started log listing items which had been
,
!
identified as having a limited shelf life. The inspection of material on hand to determine if it fell into this category had not been com-pleted at the time of this inspection. The licensee is considering a revision to the Purchase Order form to include a requirement for vendors to clearly indicate shelf life and need for any special handling while in storage (environment, preventive maintenance, etc.).
This will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
(309/81-05-03)
l C.
The inspector observed during plant walk-throughs seven material
" hold tags" attached to installed safety related equipment.
Procure-ment and material issue records for these items were reviewed as well as the quality assurance non-conformance reporting and disposition system records.
Six of the components are level swi ches which ini-tiate the safeguards pumps suction " Recirculation Actuation Signal" (RAS). They are tagged because the switches do not conform to the purchase specification.
Nonconformity and Jisposition (N&D) Report 80-23 dated December 31, 1980 addresses this nonconformance. ~ Final approval of this Disposition Report had'not-been obtained or expedited as of February 20, 1981. The seventh component on " hold status" was a
,
n.
-
- -
-.
.-
-,
,
.
-
-,. - -,.,,,,. -
F
~
'
.
.
.
' replacement motor for a safeguard pump suction motor operated valve (HSI-M-50).
Procurement records do not record the nonconformance from original specifications nor was the attached hold tag logged in accordance with quality control procedures. No N&D Report had been initiate although confirmation of applicability from the vendor had been sought and received and the motor control circuit setpoints were adjusted to compensate for diff?rences betwer.n the two motors. (Maintenance Request #386-80) The licensee ha<, considered these seven components " operable" throughout their installation.
The licensee's quality assurance procedures 00-03-01, Material Receipt, Handling and Storage, Rev 5, December 24, 1979 and 00-08-1, Nonconformance - Materials, Parts, Components and Services, Rev 5, June 9, 1980 require:
A Hold Status Log to be maintained indicating the status of all
--
items that are on hold.
An N&D Report to be generated and final resolution obtained
--
prior to placing a non-conforming part into an operational condition.
The failure to maintain the status of the hold tag on the HSI-M-50 motor, and the failure to properly disposition these seven components prior to placing them in an operable status is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XV and the above listed procedures and collec-tively constitutes an item,of noncompliance.
(309/81-05-02)
13.
Exit Interviews At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
i
!
l
--
-
- - -
.-
-.
.
.
.. --