IR 05000309/1981032
| ML20041E577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1982 |
| From: | Gallo R, Swetland P, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041E572 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-81-32, NUDOCS 8203110108 | |
| Download: ML20041E577 (9) | |
Text
._
.
.
.
.
50309-811223 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FJilSS10N 50309-820109 50309-820112 Region I 50309-820118
,
50309-820128
'
Report No.
81-32 50309-820129 Docket No.
50-309 License No.
DPR-36 Priority
--
Category C
-
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company'
83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336
Facility Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Inspection at: Wiscasset, Maine Inspection conducted: December
, 1981 - February 8, 1982
- _
.
Id 7!2
Inspectors:
P. Swet and, Reactor Inspector Dats sigried i
z /u h2.
.
Date sign'ed Eigins,Rejgto) Inspector Date signed
~ b
~ 81 Approved By: R. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Date signed i
Section No. 1A, DR&PI Inspection Sumary:
Inspection on:
December 21, 1981 - February 8,1982 (Report No. 50-309/81-32)
Areas Inspected: Routine, regular and backshif t inspection by the resident and region-based inspectors (132 hours0.00153 days <br />0.0367 hours <br />2.18254e-4 weeks <br />5.0226e-5 months <br />). Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, Primary Auxiliary Building, Spray Building, and Auxiliary Feed Pump Room. Activities / Records inspected included Plant Operations, Radiation Protection, Physical Security, Observation of Surveillance Testing, Followup of Events Occurring During the Inspection, Operator Requalification Training, and Onsite Review Comittee Activities.
Results. Of the nine areas inspected no violations were identified in eight areas; one violation (Failure to administer periodic requalification quizzes in accordance with the approved operator training plan, detail 10.) was identified in the re-maining area.
- Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8203110108 820223 PDR ADOCK 05000309 G
-
.
.
.__
-
..
-. -
.
..
,. _ -
- _ _
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Arsenault, Operations Department Head J. Brinkler, Technical Support Department Head D. Hakkila, Administrative Department Head B. Hoyt, Security Supervisor R. Lawton, Director, Operational Quality Assurance W. Paine, Assistant to the Plant Manager R. Radasch, I & C Supervisor J. Stevens, Supervisor of Specialty Training 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 inspector reviewed plant operation through direct observation throughout the reporting period. As noted below, conditions were found to be in compliance with the following licensee documents:
Maine Yankee Technical Specifications
--
Maine Yankee Technical Data Book
--
Maine Yankee Fire Protection Program
--
Maine Yankee Radiation Protection Program
--
Maine Yankee Tagging Rules
--
Administrat.ive and Operating Procedures
--
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.
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. Operator response was verified to be in accordance with procedure 2-100-1, Response to Panalarms, Revision 4, dated June 1979.
During. plant inspections, the inspector observed the condition of equipment asso-ciated 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 shif t 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.
Proper posting and control of radiation and high radiation areas was reviewed in addition to verifying requirements for wearing of appropriate personnel monitoring devices. There were no unaccep-table conditions identified.
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls Storage of material and components was observed with respect to pre-vention of fire and safety hazards.
Plant housekeeping was evaluated
!
'
with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne con-tamination. 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 were clear
'
of debris. No abnormal conditions were identified.
.
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 by observation of the Main Control Board and by inspections in the Diesel Generator and Auxiliary Feed Pump Rooms and in the Spray and Turbine Buildings that the major valve and
,
i switch positions were correct to insure operability of the Safety Injection System, the Safety Injection Accumulators, Containment Spray, Auxiliary Feedwater, and the Emergency Diesel Generators.
i
,,. -, - -. -.., _,..
..
- -.
...- -
.
.- -
- -.
.
. _ _. _ -
..
-.
l
.
.
.
1.
Radioactive Waste System Control The inspector observed the release of radioactive liquid waste authorized by discharge permit #1715 on January 14, 1982. The dis-charge permit was reviewed to verify that proper approval was ob-tained, samples were taken and analyzed, and that effluent release controls were set and working properly. No inadequacies were identified.
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 Specifications and Administrative Procedure Requirements.
Included in the review were:
Control Room Log
- daily during control room surveillance Jumper and Lif ted 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 Specifications; logs detail no violations of Technical Specification 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.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
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.
Maine Yankee Security Plan, dated October 1979
--
15-1, Security Organization and Responsibilities, Revision 6,
--
April 1980 15-2, Security Force Duties, Revision 9, February 1981
--
15-3, Plant Personnel Security, Revision 9, February 1981
--
--
15-7, Access Authorization and Control, Revision 1, April 1981
--
15-8, Protected Area Entry / Exit Control, Revision 1, September 1980
.
.
.
.
'
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.
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 violations were identified.
5.
Observation of Surveillance Testing 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 pro-cedure was properly 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 following evolutions were reviewed / witnessed.
Surveillance Procedure 3.17.6.6, Inservice Testing of Safeguards
--
Pumps, conducted on 1/8/82.
--
Surveillance Procedure 3.1.2, Monthly Safeguards Testing, conducted on 1/18/82.
.
.
_
_ _ _ _ _
_-
.
___
_
--
_. _
__
-
_
. _ _
.
.
.
.
I
On January 18, 1982 safeguards HSI-M-50 and 51 failed to meet the 13 second minimum valve stroke time acceptance criteria during the initial valve operability test. The valves opened in 18.5 and 22.5 seconds respectively.
Subsequent valve stroke times were within the acceptance criteria. The slow stroke times were caused by an excessive torque setpoint for shutting the valves and the increased viscosity of the motor-operator lubricant during extremely cold weather. The motor operator position and torque limit switches were readjusted and additional heat tracing was added to insure that subsequent valve operation would meet the 13 second acceptance criteria on the initial test, in cold weather. The licensee reported the degraded safety system conditions in accordance with Technical Specifications.
Licensee evaluation of the plant safety analysis assumptions showed that the initial valve stroke times would not have affected the safeguards functions at this time in core life. No further abncrmal conditions were identified.
6.
Followup on TMI Action Plan Items II.B.4 Training for Mitigating Core Damage The inspector reviewed training records and lesson plans to verify that a training program had been completed which satisfied the requirements of Enclosure 3 to the NRC letter dated October 31, 1980. The program consisted of a one time generic presentation and test administered by the General Physics Corp. and plant specific lectures developed by the site training organization using the generic presentation as reference. Training in this area has been incorporated in the requalification programs for licensed
-
operators and shift technical advisors.
The inspector detennined that the licensee's training program did not provide an onshif t capability to manually determine thennocouple readings. The ability to correlate core thermocouple junction voltage to temperature independent of the plant computer was presented but the location of the test equipmen* and connection tenninals, and the method for obtaining the readings were not covered. On February 11, 1982, 13 of 16 shift technical advisors were trained to provide an onshift capability for manual thermo-couple readings. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
7.
On Site Followup of LERs During on site followup, the inspector verified that reporting require-ments of Technical Specifications and Regulatory Guide 1.16 had been met, thatappropriate 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 licensee personnel, review of licensee records, and applicable logs. The following LERs were reviewed.
.
.
- _ _
.
.
.
.. - - _ -
-
-
,
_. -
.-
__
_ _
___
_ _
_ _ _
_ _
.
.
.
.
~
82-01 Leak in RWST Recirculation Line
--
a On December 23, 1981 the licensee identified a 9 gallon per hour leak of
contaminated water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST). The source of the leak was an instrument root line from the RWST recircu-lation piping. The leaking water was redirected to temporary storage when isolation of this pipe section could not be accomplished due to a l
leaking branch isolation valve. Technical Specifications (TS) require the upstream piping (safeguards pump minimum recirculation path) to be
'
open during power operation; therefore, further isolation was not practicable. A small paved area inside the protected area was contaminated.
This area was controlled and decontaminated. The licensee was granted relief from TS on December 24 to allow isolation of the minimum recir-culation line for 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> while the leak was repaired. Repair of the branch isolation valve and restoration of the instrument piping will be accomplished during the next maintenance outage. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
82-03 Slow Operation of High Pressure Safety Injection Pump Inlet
--
Valves The failure of the HPSI pump suction valves to stroke within the specified acceptance criteria is discussed in paragraph 5 of this report.
8.
Followup of Events Occurring During the Inspection.
On January 9,11, and 18, earthquake tremors were recorded in a.
northern New England. The earthquakes of January 9 and 11 ori-ginated in New Brunswick, Canada, 250 miles from the site. These tremors were among the strongest ever recorded in this area (5.9 and 5.2 on the Richter scale). The third earthquake was centered at Concord, New Hampshire and was a weaker tremor (4.2 on the Richterscale). The licensee received timely notification of these events fran State and Federal officials. The seismic event recorders on site did not trigger (.01 g setpoint) and the operating personnel were not aware of any vibration or movement. The licensee performed tests and inspections in accordance with his Casusity Procedures.
No abnormal conditions were identified.
b.
During an NRC review of containment ventilation valve isolation systems, a design error was identified in the safety injection actuation circuit. Accidents resulting in loss of reactor coolant system pressure without high containment pressure would not result in automatic initiation of safety injection as assumed in plant
,
safety analyses given the concurrent failure of a single logic relay
,
J or its power supply. The accidents which are of ccncern are a main steam line break outside of containment and a steam generator tube rupture. Based on the increased awareness of operating personnel,
"
the continued capability for manual system actuation, and the integrity of steam generator tubes and main steam piping as proven
.
.
-
_.
-. -
..
,,,,
.
.
by inservice inspection, the plant will continue operating until its next scheduled outage in March 1982. Corrective actions were docu-mented in NRC Region I Confirmatory Action Letter 82-01 dated January 29, 1982. Review of licensee proposed modifications by NRC is ongoing.
The modifications are to be incorporated during the March outage, c.
On January 29, 1982, during routine Control Element Assembly realign-ment, control rod #55 dropped into the core. Operators implemented Casualty Procedure 2-21, " Control Rod Drop", Revision 12, and main-tained the plant within license conditions. The rod dropped because of a failed power switching timer module in the control rod drive mechanism. The module was replaced and tested satisfactorily. The plant returned to normal operation and the notification requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 were met.
The inspector had no further questions in these areas.
9.
Onsite Review Committee Activities The inspector attended a meeting of the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) on January 29, 1982, to observe the conduct of the meeting and to ascertain that provisions of the Technical Specifications dealing with membership, qualifications, and execution of responsibilities were satisfied.
Items discussed included:
--
Plant Design Change Request 6-82, Interim Modification of safety Injection Actuation Circuits Jumper / Bypass Procedure 16-1, Revision 4.
--
No violations were identified.
10. Requalification Training j
The inspector reviewed the licensed operator requalification program to verify the implemented program is consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 55 Appendix A, and with the commitments contained in the program approved by NRC for Maine Yankee.
In addition, the program was reviewed to ensure the applicable requirements of item I.A.2.1 of NUREG 0737 have been incorporated and implemented.
The licensee's program and 10 CFR 55 require the use of periodic examin-ations which, in addition to the annual examination, serve as evaluation tools to assure an acceptable level of knowledge for each licensed indi-vidual. The licensee did not administer formal periodic examinations during the 1980-1981 cycle nor thus far in the 1981-1982 cycle. Rather, the annual examination was given in parts throughout the cycle at the end of each crew's training shift. The practice of substituting a partial l
l
.
--.
.
.
.
._
.- -
.
.
_
(..
es
,
,
I
'
annual examination for the periodic examination i's not consistent with the commitments contained in the licensee's approved program. Further, the failure to administer periodic examinations was previously discussed in IE Inspection Report 50-309/78-17. The failure to administer periodic written examinations as described in 10 CFR 55 and in the approved requalification program is a violation (50-309/81-32-01).
The inspector discussed the advantages of a comprehensive annual examina-tion given at one sitting. The licensee's representative stated that he planned to administer an experimental comprehensive annual examination
-
at the end of the current training cycle. This exam will conform to the new NRC exam format as requested by NRC Operator Licensing Branch.
,
The results of this examination will be reviewed during a future inspec-tion (50-309/81-32-02).
'
The inspector determined that instruction in the applicable sections of
.
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)has not been formally approached in the licensee's program.
Instead, references to some sections of 10 CFR are made during lectures in areas such as radiation protection and technical specifications. The licensee's representative cannitted to formalize this instruction in 10 CFR. This area will be reviewed during a future inspection (50-309/81-32-03).
11. 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 i
!
!
l
.
W l
i l
-.
_ _
. __.