IR 05000309/1987027

Insp Rept 50-309/87-27 on 871117-1231.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Control Room,Accessible Parts of Plant Structure,Plant Operation,Radiation Protection,Physical Security,Fire Protection,Plant Operation Records & Maint

ML20148K604
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	01/14/1988
From:	Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148K574	List: IR 05000309/1987027 IR 07100117/2012031 ML20148K570
References
50-309-87-27, IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8801280008
Download: ML20148K604 (8)

Text

.

s U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Docket No.: 50-309 Report No.: 50-309/87-27 License No.: DPR-36 Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 Inspection At: Wiscasset, Maine Dates: November 17 to December 31, 1987 Inspectors: Cornelius F. Holden, Senior Resident Inspector R har . Fr denberger, Resident Inspector Approved By: -

h/4-flowell E. Tripp/ Chief, Reactor Projects '~Date Section No. 3A, DRP Summa ry: Inspection on November 17, to December 31,1987 (Report N /87-27)

Areas Inspected: Routine resident inspection (194 hrs) of the control room, accessible parts of plant structures, plant operations, radiation protection, physical security, fire protection, plant operating records, maintenance and surveillanc Results: One violation was identified in the use of uncontrolled prints for maintenance (Detail 4.d). The Maintenance Department does a good job of analyzing surveillance results and applying the lessons learned to future surveillances. This was the case with timer sequencing of the diesel generator start circuit But attention to detail during maintenance needs to be stressed as indicated by the problem with the loose connection on Diesel Generator DG-1B (Detail 4.e(3)).

8801280000 880114 PDR ADOCK 05000309 O PDR

.

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Within this report period, interviews and discussions were conducted with various licensee personnel, including plant operators, maintenance tech-nicians and the licensee's management staf . Summary of Facility Activities At the start of the inspection period the plant was at 100 percent powe On December 4, Control Element Assembly (CEA) 55 dropped while performing routine CEA Exercise surveillance. Power was reduced to 80 percent before the CEA could be recovered. The plant returned to 100 percent power on the same day. On December 8, the plant reduced power in order to conduct planned maintenance associated with the cooling water systems including traveling water screen repair and replacement of a service water pum The plant returned to 100 percent power on December 10. On December 15, the plant reduced power to 66 percent in order to affect repairs to some insulators on the transmission lines outside of the plan The plant returned to 100 percent power later that day and romained at 100 percent for the remainder of the report perio . Followup on Previous Inspection Findings Diesel Generator Air Start Motor Lubrication Followup (RI TI 87-06).

General Motors' Electro-Motive Division (EMD) provided an advisory to owners, dated July 13, 1987, which recommended increasing the rate of lubrication to air start motors manufactured by Ingersoll-Rand by a factor of twenty to fort The licensee has two, 2 cycle, turbocharged, 20 cylinder diesel engines supplied by EMD used for emergency electrical power genera-tion. Each engine has two sets of two air start motors manufactured by Ingersoll-Ran The inspector determined the licensee had received and evaluated the advisory notice (Power Products Pointers). ,

Prior to receiving the notice, the licensee had increased the lubri- !

cant flow to the air start motors in accordance with the recommenda- ,

tions of an EMD technical representative who had recently been on I site. Therefore, no changes to maintenance practices were necessar A review of the diesel generators maintenance history revealed no previous problems with the air start motors due to inadequate lubri- l cation. The inspector had no further question _ _ _

_ _ . . _ _ . _ _, _ . .- .

I

- . -

. - .

.

.

4. Routine Periodic Inspections Daily Inspection During routine facility tours, the following were checked: manning, access control, adherence to procedures and LCO's, instrumentation, recorder traces, protective systems, control rod positions, contain-ment pressure, control room annunciators, radiation monitors, emerg-ency power source operability, control room logs, shift supervisor logs, and operating orders. Backshift inspections were conducted on December 5, 9, and 20, 198 System Alignment Inspection Operating confirmation was made of selected piping system train Accessible valve positions and status were examined. Power supply and breaker alignment was checked. Visual inspection of major components was performed. Operability of instruments essential to system performance was assesse The excess flow check valve air system was reviewed. The inspector had no discrepancie Biweekly Inspections l

.

During plant tours, the inspector observed shift turnovers, chemistry I sample results and the use of radiation work permits and Health l Physics procedures. Area radiation and air monitor use and opera- l tional status were reviewed. Plant Housekeeping and cleanliness were l evaluated, Plant Maintenance The inspector observed and reviewed maintenance and problem investi-gation activities to verify compliance with regulations, administra-tive and maintenance procedures, codes and standards, proper QA/QC involvement, safety tag use, equipment alignment, jumper use, per-sonnel qualifications, radiological controls for worker protection, fire protection, retest requirements, and reportability per Technical Specification On December 7, 1987, as part of a program the licensee has instituted to verify the performance of their motor operated valves, electrical maintenance technicians were preparing to adjust the torque switch settings on the motor operator to valve HSI-M-54 (DR #7277). They noticed that the torque switch was apparently wired incorrectly. To correct the wiring configuration a Repair Order (RO) was initiate T ne R0 was reviewed and approved by the Plant Engineering Department

'.0 ) and the Quality Assurance Department (QAD) as required by icedure prior to the work commencin _ _ _ , __

_ __ _ _ - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

.

To facilitate work on and troubleshooting of motor operated valves the maintenance department has generated a file of diagrams assoct-ated with each valve's motor operator. This file has one diagram for each valve which is a compilation from controlled prints including schematics and wiring configurations. A list of the prints that were used to compile the diagram is included. However, this file is not maintained as a controlled document and changes to the plant systems may not be reflected in these diagram A diagram from this file was appropriately marked "For Information Only, Not An Approved Copy" and included in the Repair Order provided to PED and QAD for review. No verification of the diagram file ;.o controlled prints was conducted by the maintenance department. The PED review was limited to one section of the drawing. The R0 was reviewed and approved without identification of the unapproved por-tions of the diagram. This diagram was subsequently used at the job location. This failure to ensure the accuracy of a diagram prior to its use at a job location is identified as a violation (50-309/

87-27-01).

The significance of this violation is judged as minimal by the inspector since the uncontrolled document proved to be accurate when compared to the controlled prints. The inspector is concerned, how-ever, that "For Information Only" markings are applied to two types of documents. This could result in documents that are not accurate to the latest revision of controlled documents being used in' work packages without a review to ensure their accurac These two types of documents differ based on their origi One type of document that could be marked "For Information Only" originates from a controlled se These documents are copies made from controlled documents. The copy is marked "For Information Only" to show that it will no longer be updated, however, it is accurate to i the latest revision of the controlled set and appropriate for use in work packages. Another type of document which could be marked "For Information Only" originates from documents that are not part of a controlled set. These documents, such as training manuals, are not appropriate for use in work packages until it has been reviewe Therefore, when a work package contains a document marked " Fo r Information Only," it is unclear whether that document is a recent copy accurate to the latest revision of a controlled document or one which is from an uncontrolled set. The inspector agreed with the use of diagrams in the field since they consolidate the information provided to a technician performing maintenanc l

.. . - - . . -

l

__ _

.

,

e. Surveillance Testing ,

The inspector observed parts of tests to assess performance in accordance with approved procedures and LC0's, test results, removal and restoration of equipment, and deficiency review and resolutio (1) On December 4, 1987, the plant performed routine Control Element Assembly (CEA) exercise surveillance in accordance with Proced-ure 3.1.8. When CEA 55 was selected it dropped into the cor Power was reduced to 89 percent in accordance with procedur The problem was identified to be in the Control Power Programmer (CPP) timer module which was replaced. CEA 55 was returned to its normal position and the plant was returned to full power. A similar problem occurred on October 13, 1987 when CEA 55 dropped. The lower gripper power switch was identified as the cause of that CEA dro The licensee sent the failed power switch to the manufacturer but has not yet received the failure analysi The licensee continues to follow this problem. The inspector had no further question (2) On November 23, 1987, the plant conducted a normal surveillance test of the Emergency Diesel Generator DG-1A. Due to concerns about moisture in the air start system, cloth material was attached to the outlet of the air start motors to detect if any moisture was present. DG-1A was started from the local control pane No moisture was detected, however, all four air start motors were actuated. The licensee conducted a redundancy start test in accordance with maintenance procedure 5-78-1. A problem ;

was identified with the Start Failure Auxiliary (SFA) relay and I the contacts were cleaned to resolve this proble This j resolved the problem identified during the redundancy tes I Further review into the start sequence indicated that all four !

air start motors actuate when the diesel is started from the i local pane When the diesel progresses through its normal '

start sequence the air motors utilize a one-both-two set sequenc Technical Specification remedial action statements were complied with while maintenance was performe The inspector had no further question (3) On December 29, 1987, DG-1B was tagged out of service for rou-tine surveillance testin In addition to routine monthly pre-ventive maintenance, the licensee decided to check the timer sequencing relays for the start circuit. One of these relays, the PFD2 relay, was found outside the acceptable band and was replaced. Following the maintenance the operations department

-

- + o y v

.. - . - -

.

.

'

conducted a test run of DG-18. While conducting the lineup for the test run, the diesel prematurely started when the Start 1 breaker was shu Maintenance conducted troubleshooting and found a loose wire that was removed to conduct the timer ,

sequencing checks earlier in the day. The effect of this loose '

connection was the start sequence saw a loss of . power and immediately called for a diesel start when the Start 1 breaker ,

was shu The loose wire was repaired and the diesel was I returned to servic Technical Specification remedial actions l were complied with while the diesel was out of service. This occurrence emphasizes the need for attentien to detail during maintenance, l i

1 Public Emergency Alert System l

Three of eight offsite sirens which comprise the Public Emergency I Alert System (PEAS) were found to be inoperable during routine test- '

ing on December 17, 198 The apparent cause of the failures was a recent storm which froze the rotating machiner The licensee per-formed repairs to the three sirens and returned them to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. More frequent testing of the sirens, including testing af ter storms, has been undertaken by the licensee as a short term corrective action. The sirens are 50 Hp cyclone sirens pur-chased from Alerting Communications of America, Inc. (ACA). The licensee has been in contact with other licensees that use similar sirens supplied by ACA. A history of failures due to freezing con-ditions have been identified at other installations. The licensee is currently studying long term corrective action which could result in hardware changes. The resident inspector will follow the licensee's long term corrective action . Observations of Physical Security Checks were made to determine whether security conditions met regulatory requirements, the physical security plan, and approved procedures. Those checks included security staffing, protected and vital area barriers, vehicle searches and personnel identification, access control, badging, and compensatory measures when require , Radiological Controls Radiological controls were observed on a routine basis during the report-ing period. Standard industry radiological work practices, conformance to radiological control procedures and 10 CFR Part 20 requirements were observe Independent surveys of radiological boundaries and random surveys of nonradiological points throughout the facility were taken by the inspector.

l

- - - .

- - _

.

'

l l

7. Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee Meeting I The inspector witnessed portions of the ;emiannual Nuclear Safety Audit l and Review (NSAR) Committee meeting held on November 24, 1987. The committee discussed audit findings, licensee event reports, changes to Technical Specifications, significant operating experience and reviewed ;

meeting minutes. Special presentations were made to NSAR on topics of special interes The inspector had no further comment l 8. Radiation Monitoring System l The radiation monitoring system at Maine Yankee has been under review by the licensee in order to assure that the system reliably performs its function. Recent data indicated that the detector tubes were failing prematurel The licensee conducted an in depth study of the radiation monitoring system utilizing assistance from Yankee Atomic Electric Compan This study lead to the decision to conduct primary calibrations of the gaseous detector The gaseous detectors at Maine Yankee utilize Geiger-Muller (GM) tube GM tubes operate with a voltage applied across the tube and the signal output proportional to the radiation detected. The voltage applied to the tube needs to be on the plateau of the voltage vs count rate curve. The prime standards calibration of the detectors led to the finding that the old calibration procedure resulted in a high voltage applied across the tube. The result of the high voltage was an increase in the failure rate of the tubes. The calibration procedure was changed to correct this proble The licensee then looked at the scintillation detectors used by the radia-tion monitoring system for liquid processes. A similar high voltage was found as a contributing factor to the early failure of these detector tubes. Once again the calibration procedure did not specify a maximum voltage. When the voltage was reduced to the proper level, additional i

!

problems concerning signal noise interference were encountere The i licensee continues to work on the resolution of these issue Once the licensee identified a problem with the radiation monitoring system, they took the required action according to the plant Technical Specifications and conducted daily grab samples for the various processe Using technical assistance from outside groups, the licensee has identi-fied an improvement in the design of the voltage splitting network. The inspector continues to follow the licensee's corrective action and their compliance with the Technical Specification remedial action requirement l

. - - - . - . _ . _- - . .-

.

, Fire Drill On Wednesday evening December 9, the licensee's fire brigade conducted a fire drill in cooperation with the local fire department. The intent of the drill was to exercise the procedures that are used when offsite assistance is necessary to' aid in combating a fire in the radiologically controlled portions of the plan The simulated f!re was in the new fuel receipt area of the fuel building. Members of the local fire department were escorted and provided with dosimetry.-

The inspector observed various portions of the drill and attended the critique meeting afterwar The drill and meeting were conducted in a professional manne The licensee identified deficiencies and plans corrective action. The inspector had no further comment . Fastener Sampling For NRC Bulletin 87-02 The licensee was required by NRC bulletin 87-02 to select and test 40 samples from their stock of safety and non-safety related fasteners. The inspector reviewed the licensee's selection process and verified the selection of samples for testing. The sample process appeared to select a representative sample of in plant fasteners as required by the Bulleti As each sample was selected, it was tagged for future identification. The information included on the tag of each fastener was sufficient to ensure that the fasteners would be identifiable. The inspector had no further questions. The licensee will submit the results of fastener testing upon receipt and revie . Exit Interview Meetings were periodically held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findirgs. A summary of findings for the report period was also discussed at the conclusion of the inspectio , - - . . . , -. ,

. - . . .- - . _ - - . ,