IR 05000213/1986005

Insp Rept 50-213/86-05 on 860224-28.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Offsite Review Committee (Nuclear Review Board) Activities,Staffing of Corporate Engineering Ofcs & Licensee QA Program

ML20203C624
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Eapen P, Napuda G, Stephen Pindale NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203C605	List: IR 05000213/1986005 ML20203C598
References
50-213-86-05, 50-213-86-5, NUDOCS 8604210203
Download: ML20203C624 (5)

Text

.

e U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-213/86-05 Docket N License No. OPR-61 Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At: Berlin and Haddam Neck, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: February 24-28, 1986 Inspectors: __

i L %k G date f.Nipud,LeadRectowEngineer

.c -

e/a;

. Pinda 6 Resident Inspector ' date Approved by:

.

@ K. KA Dr. P. K. Eapen,' Chief, Quality Assurance

• /a/n date Section, 08, DRS Inspection Summary: Rountine unannounced inspection on February 24-28,_1986 (Report Number 50-213/86-05) at the licensee's corporate offices in Berlin, Connecticut and Haddam Neck Plant by one region based inspecto Areas Inspected: Offsite review committee (Nuclear Review Board) activities, staffing of corporate engineering offices and the licensee's QA Progra Results: No violations were identifie gDR ADOCK 05000213 PDR

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

.

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

• J. Beauchamp, QA/QC Supervisor-Station QA/QC

• G. Bouchard, Station Services Superintendent

• R. Graves, Station Superintendent W. Hening, QC Supervisor

• M. Hornyak, Operations QA Specialist (NUSCO)

• C. Libby, Supervisor-Operations QA (NUSCO)

D. Nordquist, Manager QA (NUSCO)

• G. Pitman, Chairman-Nuclear Review Board US NRC

• P. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector

• denotes those attending the exit meeting Other engineering, management QA/QC and technical personnel were interviewed during the course of this inspectio . Offsite Review Committee 2.1 Program Review Procedures NE0 2.02, Charter for Nuclear Review Board, Revision IA and NEO 3.01, Conduct and Format of Nuclear Review Board Audits, Revision 1 were reviewed to determine whether administrative controls clearly describe the followin Independent review and audit authority and responsibility

--

Manner by which TS Section 6 reviews and audits will be accomplishe Meeting frequency, maintenance and distribution of minutes /

record Lines of communication and interface with other groups such as the onsite review committe .2 Implementation and Organization The Nuclear Review Board (NRB) is composed of eleven members and has held regularly scheduled monthly meetings and six special meetings during the past yea The meeting minutes of four regular and three

__

.

, 3 special recent meetings were reviewed. Items and subjects reviewed by the NRB included onsite safety review committee meeting minutes, modification packages, proposed license amendments, board followup items, audit reports, and the status of plant operation A review of NRB members' education and experience indicated that the group contained the TS required experti:t with the exception of metal-lurgy. Discussions with the chairman indicated that a metallurgy group reported to a member, the Mechanical Engineering Manager, and therefore access to this type of expertise was readily availabl Meeting 86-4, held February 26, 1986 was attended in its entirety to observe the functioning and interaction of members. The following were some of the discussion item Possible hazards involved in testing the Control Room Halon System

--

Repeat Integrated Leak Rate Test problems

--

Licensee response to Inspection :nd Enforcement Bulletin (IEB)

85-02

--

Limits for Reactor Cavity Seal leakage

--

Steam Generator tube plugging and cutting of specimens

--

The cause of an occurrence reported by recent Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

2.3 Audits The audits required by TS 6.5.2.8 are conducted by the QA Department and the issued reports are submitted to the NRB on a semiannual basi The supervisor of the audit section makes this formal presentation during a regular meeting and is therefore available for discussions and/or question The following audit packages were reviewed to verify that the scope of the audit was defined, checklists were prepared, identified defi-ciencies were followed up, corrective action was adequate and timely, technical personnel were utilized as appropriate, and reports were submitted to the NR A60212, Operations

--

A60216, Procurement Documents /ISI

--

A60220, Maintenance Program

--

A60222, NRC Information Notice 84-26

--

A60223, Station Tagging / Bypass Jumper Contrcl

--

A60224, Corrective Action

--

A60228, Maintenance Department Activities and ISI

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

>

.. .

y 4 It was noted that a' matrix has been developed that tracks each TS section item and the audit during which the item was addressed so that all aspects of the TS are selected for review on a three year  ;

cycl The matrix for corrective action audits identified five

methods for accomplishing this activity and that each method will be

included in at least one semi-annual audit over a two year perio .4 Findings f

The NRB was functioning with respect to its responsibilities and mem-bers demonstrated familiarity with the agenda subject matter during the meeting attended. Licensee philosophy is that an individual's acceptance of membership on the committee should be a serious commit-ment so there are no alternate members. Therefore members must plan and coordinate attendance so that a quorum can be gathered. Many

, examples of recommendations to senior management were noted such as the one to the Senior Vice President about improvements in QC that

could be achieved by making this function uniform at all four nuclear units. The audits reviewed by the inspector were comprehensive and well conducted even though the NRB is not involved in the review of checklists or other pre-report activities. Complete modification packages rather than the safety evaulations are reviewed by the committee prior to declaring the modified system or component

+

operational. This practice is commendable and should be continued.

'

No violations we 2 identified, however one unresolved item was iden-

tified as discussed below. An item included in TS 6.5.2.8b is that an audit of plant staff performance is required to be conducted an-nually. The NRB has developed a detailed review method to determine the adequacy of plant staff performance that is similar to the NR SALP process. This method has been in use since 1982 and includes consideration of IE inspection results, licensee and external third

'

.

party audit reports, INP0 evaluations, analysis of LERs, analyses of corrective action documents, NU Utility Performance Monitoring Re-port, and NRC SALP results. Each NRB member is involved in the pro-cess and the Annual Assessment of Staff Performance Report is discus-i sed and developed at a meeting for this specific purpose. The accep-

tability of this review method in lieu of a classic audit will be referred to NRC management. Licensee management acknowledged the statement that no action on their part is required at this time but a i clarification in the TS as to the methodology used may be desirabl Pending review by NRC management, this item is unresolved (212/

86-05-01).

3.0 QA/QC Interface and Offsite Support Staff

,

,

The Operations QA group that has been delegated the responsibility to per-form the audits required by TS is now located onsite at the licensee's other nearby nuclear power station. A member of this group is permanently

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

.

. 5 assigned onsite at the Haddam Neck plant. Other QA auditors visit the site on an ongoing basis with an almost constant presence of 3-5 auditors onsite during outage The station QA/QC group conducts inspections at the Fold points inserted into procedures during the normal review cycle of procedures and performs limited surveillances of engoing activities. This group is augmented by contracted personnel at peak work levels. The manpower requirement esti-mates for this current outage were based on a man-loading study of pre-vious outages performed by the supervisor of this grou The quality element trending ef fort developed at another licensee nuclear plant has been implemented for all licensee nuclear facilities. Input from various sources to QA is provided on a monthly basis and a routine report is issued quarterly. Significant features of this viable manage-ment tool include the followin Data is not ncrmalized or " worked" statistically

--

Information is distributed into ten categories

--

The program philosophy is to identify problems and the person (s) who is responsible for analysis of significance and determination of root cause

--

Outage and non-outage data are separated

--

Specific information can be provided to a requester on a day-to-day basis

--

Identified deficiencies are treated as one group (e.g. NRC findings, audit results, and nonconformance reports)

No violations were identifie .0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviation An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph .0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee management representatives (sce section 1.0 for attendees) on February 28, 1986. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that tim At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector _ ___ - _ . _ __