ML20039B700
| ML20039B700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Gallo R, Lazarus W, Swetland P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B693 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-81-26, NUDOCS 8112230440 | |
| Download: ML20039B700 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000309/1981026
Text
_
_-
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
50309-810930
Region I
Report No.
81-26
.,
Docket No.
50-309
Category
C
License No. DPR-36
Priority
--
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
1671 Worcester Road
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Facility Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Inspection at: Wiscasset, Maine
Inspection conducte_d: October 6 - November 10, 1981
Inspectors:
M4e-
N
7
P/
'W.Lararus@aftorInspector
date signed
d le
// /6
l
P. Swetland, Reactor Inspector
date tigned
f
aorYaArt
// ? 3f 8/
S.Chaudhary , Reactor
spector
d' ate ' signed
QMIG-
h d9i
Approved by: R. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects -
date sig'ned
Section No. 1A, DRPI
Inspection Summary:
/
Inspection on: October 6 - November 10, 1981 (Report No. 50-309/81-26)
Areas Inspected: Routine, regular and backshift inspection by the resident inspectors
(124 hours0.00144 days <br />0.0344 hours <br />2.050265e-4 weeks <br />4.7182e-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, followup
of previous inspection findings, observation of maintenance and surveillance testing,
Onsite and Offsite Review Committee Activities, In-office Review of Licensee Event
Reports, followup on Periodic Reports and followup of Generic Safety Issues.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected no items of noncompliance were identified in
seven areas; two items of noncompliance (Failure to sample the volume control tank in
accordance with the approved procedure; and failure to install a safety-system
modification in accordance with the approved design change document) were identified
in the remaining areas.
8112230440 811130 '
Region I Form 12
PDR ADOCK 05000309
(Rev. April 77)
G
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ .
U
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
R. Aresenault, Operations Department Head
D. Boynton, Reactor Engineer
J. Brinkler, Technical Support Department Head
S. Chin, Engineer, YAEC Mechanical Engineer Group
T. Cizauskas, Engineer, YAEC Mechanical _ Engineer Group
R. Forrest, Fire Protection Coordinator
J. Hebert, Director, Plant Engineering
J. Hoffman,. Director., YAEC Mechanical Engineer Group
B. Hoyt, Security Supervisoi-
R. Lawton, Director, Operational Quality Assurance
W. Paine, Assistant to the Plant Manager
P. Radsky, Chemistry Department Head
D. Sturniolo, Technical Assistant to.the Plant f:anager
E. Wood, Plant Manager
The inspectors also interviewed several plant operators, technicians.and
members of the engineering and administrative staffs.
2.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings
.
a.
(Closed) Followup Item (309/81-14-01): Licensee. to analyze accepta-
bility of cut rebar. The inspector reviewed memorandum MEG 479/81,
Henries to Fournier dated 9/8/81, which documents the satisfactory
engineering evaluation of the cut rebar on the seismic / strength
analysis of the affected wall-in the-Primary Auxiliary Building.
The rebar was cut as a result of core boring required by Engineering
Design Change (EDCR) 80-37, Hot Leg Recirculation Modification.
The inspector examined the piping installation associated with this
EDCR. Contrary to the a
neering Change Notices (pproved design package as modified by Engi-
ECN) I and 2 the modification was installed
upstream of valve HSI-N-42 vice HSI-M-40 and the method of connection to
existing piping was changed from installation of standard pipe tees
to drilling the existing 4" pipe and welding the new 2" pipe into.this
hole. Discussion with plant engineers revealed that the installation
instructions for EDCR 80-37 had specified these deviations but no In-
significant Change document had been generated. The-inspector deter-
mined that the observed deviations did not affect the design flow or
seismic analysis; however, failure to document and obtain concurrence
for changes to approved design documents is contrary to 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion III, the Yankee-Operational Quality Assurance
Program, and QAP 0-01-1, Design Change Alteration. -This is_an item
of noncompliance.
(309/81-26-01)
-
~
.
.
3
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (309/81-24-01). Seismic analysis of Component
Cooling Heat Exchangers (CCHX).
The inspector reviewed the preliminary' design calculations for-the
CCHX modifications. The licensee has statically analyzed the modifi-
cation. From the preliminary calculations as provided by the licensce-
to the ' inspector, it appears that- the safety class III integrity of the
component cooling heat exchangers will be maintained at the valve-
fiberglass pipe interface in a seismic event. However, once the
analysis is finalized, it needs further review by NRC to assure the
validity of analytical approach and the acceptability of _the modifica-
tion. The licensee procedure 1-15-3 Service Water System, revision
-11, dated October 1981 requires the CCHX to be out of service prior to
opening the 10" flush valve and requires an operator to be present
whenever this flush valve is open. This matter remains unresolved
pending further NRC-review.
3.
Review of Plant Operations - Plant Inspections
The inspector reviewed plant operation through direct observation throughout
the reporting period.
Except 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
--
Administrative and Operating Procedures
a.
Ins ^rumentation
Control room process instruments were observed for correlation between
i
channels and for conformance with Technical Specification requirements.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
'
b.
Annunciator Alanns
i
The inspector observed various alarm conditions which had been re-
ceived 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
!
associated with various alarms.
During routine inspection of control room activities on October 13,
1981 the inspector observed the plant stack gas monitor to alarm.
-
The operator-silenced the alarm without further action. The inspector
,
determined the following facts regarding this condition.
,
.
.
4
The plant chemist had notified the control room t' hat a Volume
'
--
Control Tank (VCT) gas sample would be taken.
--
Operators were aware
that VCT gas samples cause tne stack
monitor to alarm, therefore no alarm response is.taken when a-
VCT sample is being drawn.
--
.The stack monitor increased from a background of 100 counts to
1,000 counts and held steady for 2 minutes before returning to
background.'
.-The stack release was conservatively calculated to be less than
--
.02% of Technical Specification release rate limits.
--
Procedure 7-204.1,' Primary Sample Points, Revision 2 specifies
the lineup for drawing the VCT gas sample. .This procedure,
dated 3/29/79, directs the purged gas to the waste gas surge
drum where it would be collected, sampled and released-in accor-
~
dance with waste-gas requirements and procedures.
The Plant Chemist did not follow the lineup specified in procedure
--
7-204.1.
Instead he vented the purged gas into the primary-
sample hood which exhausts through filters to the primary vent'
stack.
.The-inspector brought this event to the attention of the Chemistry
Department Head on October 21, 1981. The licensee committed to take,
action to insure that future VCT samples are drawn in accordance-
with the design methodology, including review of procedure 7-204.1
to identify and correct deviations from installed equipment and
documentation 'of system as-built conditions. Failure to semple the
volume' control tank in accordance with approved procedures constitutes
an item of noncomp.liance.
(309/81-26-02)
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 shift manning were
observed to be in t.onformance 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.
.
.
s
5
e.
Plant Housekeeping Controls
Storage of material and components was observed with respect to
prevention ~of fire and safety hazards. Plant housekeeping was eval-
uated with respect to controlling the spread o.f 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 were
clear of debris. No abnormal conditions were identified.
j
.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. The following tagouts were verified:
LC0 #'s
~
81-269, 81-0838, 81-1107, 81-1094, and 81-1096.
h.
Equipment Lineups
The inspector verified by ot v /ation 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
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.
The inspector verified the condition and alignment of normally in-
accessible components of the safety injection and containment spray
systems.
No abnormal conditions'were identified.
i.
Containment Inspection
The inspector reviewed preparations for and accompanied licensee
personnel on the weekly inspection inside containment on October
21, 1981. No abnormal conditions were identified.
j.
Radioactive Waste System Contr'l_
The inspector observed the release.of raoioactive liquid waste ~
authorized by discharge'pennit #'s 1674 and 1679 on October 14 and
30,-1981. The discharge pennits were reviewed to verify that proper
approval was obtained, samples were taken and analyzed, and that
effluent release controls.were set and working properly. No inade-
quacies were identified.
.
.
.
6
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 Specifications
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; 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 thest. logs were the subject of additional _ review and
'
discussion with licensef. personnel. No unacceptable conditions were
identified.
5.
Observation of Ptysical-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
l
---
- .
15-8, Protected Area Entry / Exit Control, Revision 1, September
--
1980
a.
Physical Protection Security Organization
j
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.
i
l
l
-
.
7.
--
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 items of noncompliance 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 warker protection; adequate fire protection; and appro-
,
l
priate retest requirements. The inspector also ascertained reportability
l
as required by Technical Specifications.
The inspector witnessed the performance of surveillance testing of selected
i
components to verify that the surveillance test procedure was properly
approved and in use; test instrumentation required by the procedure was
properly calibrated and in use; technical specifications were satisfied
prior to removal of the system from service; test was perfonned by
l
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 documents were reviewed relative to the maintenance and sur-
veillance tests,witnes, sed;
--
Maintenance Request (MR) 2062-81, HPSI Pump P-14S; Mechanical Seal
Replacement.
'-
-
..
..
8
Procedure 5-111, Routine Corrective Maintenance, Revision 2,~ dated
--
7/80; performed on 10/21/81.
Radiation Work Permit (RWP) 80-10-107~, P14S maintenance; performed
--
on-10/21/81.
MR 2090-81, Containment Air Particulate Detector repair.
--
RWP 80-10-108, Containment APD repair; performed on 10/21/81.
--
MR 2094-81, Steam Generator #2 Manway Leak Repair.
--
Independent Inspection-Report #81-53; conducted 10/24-27/81.
--
Furmanite Procedure M-81261-1, Maine Yankee Steam Generator Manway
--
Leak Repair; performed 10/24/81.
RWP 81-10-54, Sort and Clean Contaminated tools; performed on 10/16/81.
--
Surveillance Procedure (SP) 3.1.5, Auxiliary Feed Pump Testing,
'
--
Revision 13 dated 4/13/81; conducted on 10/29/81.
SP 3.17.66, Inservice Testing of Safeguards Pumps, Revision 2 dated
--
3/81; conducted on 10/29/81.
--
SP 3.1.9, Fire Pump Testing, Revision 10 dated 5/81; conducted on
10/19/81.
SP 3.1.8, Control Element Assembly Exercises, Revision 13 dated 8/81;
--
conducted on-11/3/81.
SP 3.6.2.2.11,. Logic Trip Relays Test, Revision 5 dated 3/81; con-
--
ducted on 10/8/81.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
..
7.
Review of Onsite and Offsite Committee Activities
-The inspector reviewed the activities of the Plant Operations Review
Committee (PORC) and the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Comittee (NSARC)
to verify that:
--
PORC and NSARC meetings were convened at the frequency required by
The meeting membership satisfied the quorum requirements of Technical-
--
Specification 5.5;
The appropriate review function had been-exercised with respect to
--
noncompliances, prompt reports, proposed changes to Technical Speci-
fications, facility modifications, 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations,
Plant Information Reports, and the plant audit program.
The review included discussions with licensee personnel, attendance at
selected PORC meetings, and review of Technical Specification 5.5 and the
following plant records.
Minutes of PORC Meeting 81-46.
--
Minutes of NSARC Meeting 81-1-S through 81-11-S..
--
No discrepancies were identified.
.
.
.-
.
-
,.
..
9
,
18.
. Followup on Event V Lossoof Coolant Accident Modifications (TI 2515/56).
The inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of-requirements
specified to lift the NRC Confirmatory Order dated April 20, 1981. .The
facility modifications and leak rate testing were performed during the
July 1981' refueling outage. . Inspection Reports 50-309/81-14 and 17
document the modifications and testing,'respectively. Amendment 58 to
~
the facility license. incorporates, in Technical Specifications, the cor-
rective measures-to address this concern. The inspector verified that
these measures had been implemented in operating.and surveillance pro-
'
cedures. The inspector had no further questions in this area.
'9.
In-Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
.The inspector reviewed the following LER received in the RI office tc?
verify that details'of the event were clearly reported including the
accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action.
The inspector also determined whether further-information was required
from the licensee, whether generic implications- were indicated, and
whether the event warranted on site followup. The following LER was
reviewed:
81-23'- Failure to Analyze Environmental Samples.
~
--
10.
Review of Periodic Reports
The inspector reviewed the following periodic reports to verify that the
i
reporting requirements of Technical Specification 5.9 were met.
Monthly Operating Reports for. August and September, 1981.
--
No. inadequacies were identified.
i
11.
Unresolved Items
!
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to determine whether they are acceptable items or items of noncan-
'
t
pliance. Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed
I
in paragraph 2b.-
i
.
l
12.
Exit Interviews
!
At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were
t
!~
held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and
findings.
!
i
,
L
_