ML20010B943

IE Insp Rept 50-213/81-05 on 810413-0515.Noncompliance Noted:Radioactive Matl Transferred to Unauthorized Recipient & Failure to Follow Plant Procedure

ML20010B943
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	07/24/1981
From:	Elsasser T, Tanya Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20010B934	List: ML20010B933 ML20010B939 ML20010B943
References
50-213-81-05, 50-213-81-5, NUDOCS 8108180504
Download: ML20010B943 (7)

See also: IR 05000213/1981005

Text

7

_

_

-

..

,

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

Region I

Report No. 50-213/81-05

Docket No. 50-213

.

License No.

DPR-61

Priority

-

Category

C

Licensee:

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

P.O. Box 270

Hartford, Connecticut 06101

.

Facility Name:

Haddam Neck Plant

Inspection at:

Haddam, Connecticut

Inspection conducted: fA r[1 13 - May 15,1981

Inspectors:

V

VfM6b

f/2-(d /

T.H. Smitp,' Senior Resident Inspector

'date ' signed

date signed

date signed

'/!I-

//

Approved by:

/

'TTC. Ellssser,

Chief, Reactor Projects

date signed

Section 1B, Division of Resident and

Project Inspection.

Inspection Summary:

Inspection on April 13 - Mav 15, 1981

(Report No. 50-213/81-05)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations including:

tours of the facility; log ar.d record review; operating events; security; and

TMI Action Plan Items. The inspection involved 56 inspector-hours by the

resident inspector.

Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in

three areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in each of the two

remaining areas (radioactive material transferred to unauthorized recipient -

paragraph 5; failure to follow plant procedure - paragraph 7).

r

8108180504 810803

PDR ADOCK 05000213

O

PDR

'

. .

.

.

.*

.

.

,

DETAILS

1

1

Persnns Contacted

The below listed technical and supervisory personnel were among those

contacted:

G.H..Bouchard, Maintenance Supervisor

N.A. Burnette, Technical Assistant

,

T.W. Campbell, Instrument and Control Supervisor

H.E. Clow, Health Physics Supervisor

J.H. Ferguson, Station Services Superintendent

R.L. Gracie, Operations Assistant

R.H. Graves, Station Superintendent

G.R. Hallberg, Security Supervisor

J.M. Levine, Operations Supervisor

R.Z. Test, Engineering Supervisor

R.P. Traggio, Unit Superintendent

>

Other licensee staff and operating personnel were also interviewed during

the course of the inspection.

2.

Review of Plant Operation - Plant Tours

a.

During the course of the inspection, the inspector conducted multiple

'

tours of the following plant areas:

-- Control Room

-- Primary Auxiliary Building

-- Vital Switchgear Room

-- Diesel Generator Rooms

-- Turbine Building

-- Intake Building

-- Control Point

-- Security Building

4

-- Yard Areas

b.

The following observations / determinations were made:

-- Radiation protection controls.

Step-off pads, storage and disposal

of protective clothing and control of high radiation areas were

observed for adequacy in all areas toured. No unsatisfactory

conditions were observed.

,

-- Monitoring instrumentation. The. inspector verified that selected

}

instruments were functioning properly and that the displayed parameters

.'

were within Technical Specification limits.

-- Control room annunciators. Lighted annunciators were discussed with

control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were

,

understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken. On

average, only one or two annunciators were lighted on each control

room visit.

-. .. -

-,

-

-.-

.

.

.

-

- ,_.

. ._-

- .-

-

- -

. . _ .

-

..

..

.

,

,

3

-- Valve positions. The inspector verified that selected valves were

'

in a position or condition required by the Technical Specifications.

No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.

[

-- Plant housekeeping. Housekeeping was observed in all areas toured,

including control of flammable material. No unsatisfactory conditions

were identified.

-- Fluid leaks. All areas toured were examined for evidence of excessive

fluid leaks. . None were found.

[

-- Piping vibrations. All areas toured were examined for evidence of

l

excessiea piping vibration. 'None were found.

!

-- Control room manning. The inspector verified that control room

,

j

manning requirements of the Technical Specifications were being

i

met.

-- Security. During the inspection, observations were made of plant.

i

security including adequacy of physical barriers, access control,

vehicle control, and searches. No unacceptable conditions were

identified,

j-

The inspector noted that two security = guards had been promoted to

sergeant without having satisfied all plant procedural requirements.

4

(Details paragraph 7). _

3.

Shift Logs and Operating Records

I

a.

The inspector reviewed selected operating logs and records against th'e

l

the requirements of the following procedures:

-- ADM 1.1-5, Control Room Operating Log;

-- QA 1.2-14.1, Bypass and Amper Control;

-- ADM l.1-43, Control Room Area Limits for Control Operators;

-- NOP 2.2-2, Steady State Operation and Surveillance;

}

-- ADM 1.1-44, Shift-Relief and Turnover;.

-- QA 1.2-2.4, Housekeeping Requirements;

'

-- QA 1.2-16.1, Plant-Information Reports; and

-- QA 1.2-14.2,-Equipment Control-

1

'

,

T

l

$

_ _

..

. . .

.

,

4

b.

Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:

-- Control Room log sheet entries are filled out and initialed;

-- Auxiliary log sheets are filled out and initialed;

-- Control Room Log entries involving abnormal conditions provide

sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, lockout status,

correction and restoration;

-- Operating Orders do not conflict with Technical Specifications;

-- Plant Information Reports confirm there are no violations of

Technical Specification requirements; and

-- Logs and records are maintained in accordance with Technical

Specifications and the procedures noted above,

c.

The following operating logs and records were reviewed:

-- NOP 2.2-2, Log sheets which consist of Control Room, Part 1 and 2,

Primary Side Surveillance Form, Secondary Side Surveillance Form,

and Radiation Monitoring System Daily Log;

-- Shift Turnover Sheets;

-- Jumper Log;

-- Tag Log; and

-- Control Room Operating Log.

d.

No unacceptable conditions were identified in this area.

S

Review of Periodic and Special Reports

Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee

pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 were reviewed by the

inspector. This review included the following considerations:

the

report includes the information required to be reported by NRC require-

ments; planned corrective action is adequate for resolution of identified

problems; determination whether any information in the report should be

i

- classified as an abnormal occurrence; and the validity of reported informa-

tion. Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were

reviewed by the inspector:

-- Monthly Operating Report 81-3, for the month of March 1981.

,

___

..

, . .

,

5

5

Unauthorized Transfer of Radioactive Material

On April 22, 1981, at approximately 5:15 p.m., two main steam system moisture

separator reheater tube bundles were transferred to a local scrap dealer for

disposal. The tube bundles had been surveyed but the results of the survey,

.'

which indicated that fixed contamination was present, were not communicated

in a timely manner to the proper individuals. The lack of comunication

resulted in the tube bundles being released. The amount of radioactive

material involved was determined by the licensee to be approximately 5.1

millicuries total, comprised of Cobalt-60, Cesium-134 and Cesium-137. The

activity appeared to be fairly uniformly distributed throughout each of the

two 21,000 pound tube bundles. No loose surface contamination was present.

Radiation levels on contact were generally less than one millirem per hour--

with a maximum reading of 2.8 millirem per hour.

At about 6:00 p.m., the licensee realized that the contaminated components-

had been shipped off site.

Between 6:00 p.m. and about 7:30 p.m., the plant

health physics supervisor was notified. The scrap dealer was notified and

asked not to unload or move the tube bundles, and the health physics

supervisor and a technician were dispatched to the scrap yard. At about

9:00 p.m., the licensee personnel arrived at the scrap yard and verified

that the components were contaminated. Arrangements were made for the

return of the tube bundles which arrived back on the licensee's site at

about-10:00 a.m. the following day.

This event was reported to the NRC via the ENS telephone system at about

3:00 p.m. , on April 23, 1981. A followup report was made on the. ENS

telephone on May 7, 1981.

The fact that byproduct material was transferred to a person not auth< rized

by 10 CFR 30.41 to receive such material constitutes an item of noncompliance

(213/81-05-01).

6

Operating Events

At about 5:00 p.m., on May 8, 1981, while at full power, a sample of the

Boric Acid Mix Tank (BAMT) indicated that the boric acid concentration was

less than the Technical Specification allowable value of 14,000 ppm.

Sample results indicated a boric acid concentration of about 13,500 ppm.

An immediate load reduction was begunLin preparation for plant shutdown and

a boric acid addition was made to the BAMT. At-about 6:50 p.m., after

approximately 2700. pounds of boric acid'had been added and a sample had

been taken which indicated a concentration.of 18,700 ppm, the load reduction

was terminated and the plant returned to full pcwer.

The NRC was notified of this event via the ENS telephone.

l

.

--

.

.

.. -

-

-

.

.

,

6

,

Further investigation of this incident by the licensee has indicated that-

the initial sample results of 13,500 ppm was probably in error. Routine

,

weekly samples of the BAMT for several weeks prior to this event indicated

'

about 15,500 ppm. The 2700 pounds of boric acid which was added to the tank

would have increased the boric acid concentration about 3200 ppm. This

3200 ppm plus the last weekly sample of 15,500 ppm would result in a

concentration of 18,700 ppm, which is exactly the results of the post-

addition samples taken during the incident.

Samples taken every 10-12 hours

.

!

for several days after the event all indicated about 18,700 ppm. The-

licensee is continuing to investigate the possible sources of error in the

initial sample.

The inspector had no further questions concerning this event.

-

7.

Plant Security

It was brought to the attention of the inspector during the course of the

inspection that two members of the guard force may have been promoted to

sergeant without meeting all the prerequisites of plant procedures. The

i

inspector reviewed licensee procedure SEC 1.3-3, " Security Force Organiza-

tion, Duties and Responsibilities", Revision 7, dated December 11, 1980,

and guard force personnel records.

Procedure SEC 1.3-3 Revision 7, contained

,

the requirement that sergeants must have a minimum of three months experience

as a full time security officer.

Personnel records indicated that two guards

-

i

were promoted to sergeant who did not meet the three month requirement.

Em)loyment Date

Promotion Date

!

Individual A

Fe)ruary 17, 1981

March 23, 1981

Individual B

March 16, 1981

April 6, 1981

This is an item of noncompliance (213/81-05-02).

8

TMI Action Plan Inspection Items

2

,

The inspector reviewed the licensee's action on the following NUREG-0737

TMI Action Plan Items,

a.

Item I.A.l.1 STA Trained Per Lessont Learned, Cat

"B"

The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this item, Counsil

to Eisenhut letter dated December 31, 1980, and the licensee's

'

training records. All STA's have received the training contained in

the licensee's consnitment.

<

Licensee action on this iten is satisfactory.

. . . . . . .

,

,

7

b.

Item I.C. 5 Procedure for Operating Experience Feedback

The inspector reviewed licensee procedure NE0 5.08, " Operating Experience

Assessment and Utilization", dated May 1, 1981. This procedure fully

addresses the NUREG-0737 requirements in this area.

Licensee action on this item is_ satisfactory.

c.

Item II.B.4 Training for Mitigating Ccre Damage

The licensee has provided training to the-appropriate personnel covering

the material required by NUREG-0737 and Enclosure 3 to the Denton letter

of March 28, 1980. The training series will be repeated later this year

for personnel who missed the initial series.

Licensee action on this item is satisfactory.

d. Item I.A.2.1 Modify Training

The inspector reviewed the following licensee training plans.

-- OP-RO, " Licensed Reactor Operate.- Raplacement Training", dated

May 14, 1981

-- OP-RO, " Licensed Senior Reactor Operator Replacement Training",

dated July 23, 1980

-- OP-REQ, " Connecticut Yankee Reactor Operator Requalification",

dated July 23,1980

These training plans adequately address the requirements of paragraph

A.2.c of the Denton letter of March 28, 1980.

Licensee action on this item is satisfactory.

9.

Exit Interview

At p.

. odic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings

were , eld with senior licensee management personnel to discuss inspection

scope and findings.

.