IR 05000213/1987023

Insp Rept 50-213/87-23 on 870803-07.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Maint Organization, Implementation of Maint Program Activities & Qa/Qc Involvement

ML20238B336
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/24/1987
From:	Bissett P, Blumberg N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238B320	List: IR 05000213/1987023 ML20238B316
References
50-213-87-23, NUDOCS 8709010174
Download: ML20238B336 (9)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .

        .. . .. . _ _ .
 -

 .

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I I Report N /87-23 j Docket N License N DPR-61 Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P.O. Box 270 i Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Plant Inspection At: Haddam Neck, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: August 3 - 7, 1987 Inspector: _, 9[cM/77

     . B/fsseTt[ Reactor Engineer / dat6 Approved by:     [

N. Blumberg, Chief /, Operational Programs date Section, OB, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection Aucust 3-7u 1987 (Inspection Report No. 50-213/87-231 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previous inspection findings; maintenance organization; implementation of maintenance program activities; and Quality Assurance / Quality Control involvemen Results: No violations or deviations were identifie !

          )

          !
          :

G D 4 870824 j$[K050002 3 PD 1 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _

  '

f

.

Details Persons Contacted Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company I

* Bartron, Maintenance Supervisor J. Beauchamp, Supervisor Plant Quality Services
*G. Bouchard, Unit Superintendent    1
*B. Danielson, Instrument and Controls (I&C) Supervisor   j
*E. DeBarba, Station Services Superintendent A. Donzello, I&C PMMS Planner T. Galloway, I&C Engineer .

j R. Goldsmith, Technical Training Supervisor (I&C) R. Guilmette, Maintenance PMMS Planner

* Heinig, Quality Assurance Specialist
* Hornyak, NUSCO Quality Services Engineer P. L'Heureux, Assistant Engineer Supervisor (Mechanical)

J. Riss, Technical Training Supervisor (Electrical) T. Mcdonald, Technical Training Supervisor (Mechanical)

* Miller, Station Superintendent-M. Quinn, Chemistry Supervisor W. Nevelos, Radiation Protection Supervisor The inspector also held discussions with other licensee employees during the course of the inspectio * Denotes those present during the exit meeting on August 7, 1987.

2. Action on Previous Inspection Findings l

,

(Closed) Unresolved Item (213/86-29-01): Licensee to improve and formalize the Freeze Protection (FP) and Heat Trace (HT) Preventive Maintenance program. The inspector reviewed the newly developed and approved Preventive Maintenance Procedure (PMP) 9.5-146 " Freeze Protection, Heat Trace and Blankets," effective July 15, 1987. This procedure details those preventive measures that are performed prior to the winter season. Also included in the formalization of the FP & HT preventive maintenance program is an annual review of the past year design change This is to ensure that any additional heat tracing
      .

l concerns have been identified, adequately addressed and added to the existing PM program if necessary. Based upon the above review, this item is close . Maintenance Organization Maintenance activities are controlled and conducted by the Maintenance and Instrument and Control (I&C) departments at Haddam Neck. The ' mechanical and electrical groups make up the Maintenance department and l the I&C department is a separate entity. Both departments report to the l Unit Superintendent who has the overall responsibility for the conduct of maintenance activities at the sit l l _ - - _ __ - -- a

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

. '

4. Maintenance Activities 4.1 Administrative Controls Administrative controls were reviewed to evaluate the licensee's program for implementing requirements associated with preventive and corrective safety-related maintenance activitie The objectives were to assure that the licensee programs were consistent with the Technical Specifications, Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7 and Appendix B of 10 CFR 50. Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment .2 Program Review / Implementation , The inspector held discussions with various site personnel, including Maintenance, I&C, Engineering and Health Physics to ascertain the control of maintenance activities that were being performed during the current refueling outage. The inspector also attended the two daily morning meetings held to brief-the staff on the status of ongoing activities and to review upcoming maintenance activities. The licensee also holds an afternoon meeting in which scheduled completed or in progress activities are again reviewe The first meeting is attended by upper management personnel from all station departments. The second meeting, in addition to upper management personnel, includes first line supervisors representing operations, maintenance (mechanical and electrical), I&C, health physics, betterment, engineering, and Q Written, up-to-date plant status sheets are also provided to all personnel in addition to reports detailing activities scheduled for the next seven day A review of randomly selected completed maintenance activities performed on safety-related equipment was also performed by the inspector to verify the following was accomplishe ! Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to '

       !

initiation of work activities; Appropriate approved procedures, instructions and/or drawings were used; j Appropriate post maintenance testing was completed prior to returning equipment to operation; Hold points were appropriately identified and completed; Qualified test equipment and tools used were identified;

       ;

l j

I

-
.
'

l 4

'

Procedures and appropriate data sheets were properly completed; I Acceptance criteria were met; l Records were assembled, stored, and retrievable as part of the maintenance history; and, Appropriate reviews were completed as require The inspector also held discussions with I&C personnel in reference to the maintenance being done to the Reactor Protection and Control l System (RPCS). Through Plant Design Change Request (PDCR) - 861, the licensee is modernizing the RPCS by replacing much of the original equipment, primarily because of obsolescence of instrumentation presently in place. In summary, this modernization will include replacement of transmitters, associated circuitry, indicators, etc., for pressurizer pressure and level; reactor coolant system (RCS) average wide range and delta temperature; high pressure steam dumps; L and charging flow contro Several examples of nwly written surveillance and calibration procedures for the RPCS instrumentation were reviewed by the l inspecto These new procedures include graphics and/or schematics opposite corresponding procedural steps, which has improved the ' procedures in the human factors are The inspector met with representatives of the training department to review the various training programs in place for mechanics, electricians and instrument,and control (I&C) technicians. The' ) licensee is presently striving for industry accreditation in thc.se areas. Industry review of these programs is currently scheduled to start in September, 198 ' Each discipline (mechanical, electrical, I&C) has a training supervisor. All three supervisors presented to the inspector their respective training program, training schedules, examples of course content and objectives, and attendance sheets. The respective supervisors stated that they are continually adding equipment to the hands-on laboratory that duplicates plant-installed equipment. The three supervisors also stated that they have the full support of upper corporate management in the continued development and , improvement of the non-licensed training programs. The inspector ' had no further questions in this are .3 Witnessing of Ongoing Maintenance Activities Various ongoing maintenance activities were witnessed frequently throughout this inspectio Observation of these activities was to verify that proper maintenance practices were being followed; personnel were well aware of their responsibilities; appropriate i

*   ,

o

'

r, radiological precautions were taken, if required; work was > authorized and specified under an automated work order (AWO); housekeeping measures were in effect; etc. Examples of those activities witnessed included the followin * Containment equipment hatch cover removal

  *

Reactor Coolant pump motors removal from containment

  = Reactor Protection System modification
  *

Manipulator crane damage assessment and subsequent planned corrective utidn a Highpressurednd'lowpressureturbinereplacement

  *

Fluorescent magnetic particle testing of various steam piping I l During the removal'of the containment equipment hatch cover, the J licensee took extra precautions in regards to personnel safety. So as to preclude the entrapment of personnel inside containment during that the' equipment hatch cover remcyal, the licensee utilized B-1-1A (Containment Purge Air Supply Valve) as an alternate escape route. This precaution was taken since this was the first time the

 , equipment hatch cover had been removed in over twenty year The licensee appropr?ately stationed a guard at BV-1-1A during that time in which it was opeo. The removal of the equipment hatch cover was necessitated as a result of :.he need to remove all four reactor cooldnt pun?p motors, from containment. A preventive maintenance inspection of these motors at the start of the refueling outage had revealed surface cracks on the rotor bar end rings. These cracks
'

were of sufficient depth that it was decided to send the motors to Westinghouse for end rina replacement All four motors have since ! been sy pped to Westinghouse, i Several' tours of the plant were made during the week. The inspector noted improvement in thc . area of housekeeping.as the week

. ,  progressed. This area of crancern on the part of plant management l

. . was addressed frequently tvoughout the week during the scheduled l morni d meetings, h(,' The inspector also observed the damage done to the Manipulator crane when it was struck by the Polar crane. Damage to the Manipulator crane was primarily to t*e opper structure; however, it was noted that minor stresses on t% lower bridge assembly had developed as

 
'
, 4 ! evidenced by a slight misalignment. Engfor.ering was heavily involved i in the analysis of the extent of damags 4nd the recommended corrective action. Also, the vendor representatives were onsite to assist in tne evaluatio ,

b L.------ s.L _ _ s . . %

. '

It was determined that the lower structure was not subject to any significant degree of damage and that it could still be utilized within its design capacit However, it was recommended that the upper structure be removed and that a temporary support be installed to support necessary cables needed for operation. Until the necessary modifications were made, defueling of the reactor would be delaye .4 Findings No violations were identified however, the inspector hud some concerns over the completeness _and attention to detail pertaining to completed automated work orders (AWO). In particular, AWO 86-00601, Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) Testing was incorrectly shown as having been satisfactorily performed, when in fact, three of the sixteen valves failed to meet acceptance criteria as specified in SUR 5.5- Upon further discussions with the maintenance supervisor, it was determined that these valves had, in fact, been recognized as failing to met acceptance criteria. A Plant Incident Report, 87-76 had been subsequently initiated along with action to submit a 30 day Licensee Event Report following completion of the test. Miscom-munication between various personnel and the maintenance supervisor resulted in the circling of satisfactory test results on the AW Based upon a previous reevaluation of the allowable tolerance for MSSV lift setpoint, it had been determined that 3% was acceptable versus 1% as currently stated in SUR 5.5- However, formal ap-proval from the NRC of the 13%. limit had not yet been received and thus the 1% limit still applied. Operations and test personnel had, however, mistakenly thought that 13% was the acceptable limit, which is why " SAT" test results had been circled on the AW Although appropriate action (PIR, LER) was taken in regard to these failures, the inspector informed the licensee that it was unacceptable to have shown the test results as being satisfactorily completed. As noted in previous NRC inspections, the licensee has sometimes failed to accurately or sufficiently document the completion of maintenance activities. The inspector again reiterated the importance of management's involvement in assuring that first-line supervisors perform an adequate review of completed maintenance tasks. The incorrect documentation of AWO 86-00601 was the only instance found during the inspector's review of approximately forty completed AW0s, and was thrrefore viewed as an isolated cas Also during the inspector's review of QA/QC activity surveillance and a QA corporate audit of maintenance activities, it was noted that several inspection hold points had been identified as having ; been missed. The inspector discussed this problem with the station superintendent and QA/QC personnel. This area of concern was later presented to department supervisors by the Station Superin+ andent I

.
.

during one of the scheduled morning meetings. The inspector stated that both areas of concern, as noted above, would be further reviewed during subsequent NRC inspection . Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Interface QA/QC is represented onsite thus enabling this independent g, cap to actively monitor daily station activitie The inspector held discussions with site QA/QC personnel to ascertain their involvement with site main-tenance activities. QC reviews all safety-related AWO's for identifica-tion of quality-related aspects prior to initiation of any work activit They also perform a final review of the work package upon completion of the work activity to verify completion prior to forwarding to records for permanent storag Detailed checklists are utilized during this review to ensure that all programs ar.d work activities have been completed as require QA/QC also performs " activity surveillance," which entail brief observa-tions of varying segments of site activitie Those activity surveil-lances reviewed are listed in Attachment 1. As noted in paragraph 4.4, several of these activity surveillance identified the failure of various groups to notify QA/0C when inspection holdpoints had been reache A review of NUSCO OPS QA Audit A60253, " Fabrication", performed in October, 1986 also identified an instance where QC personnel were not notified at an inspection holdpoin It was also noted that the QA Audit group had commenced an audit of Preventive Maintenance (PM) program, the week of July 26, 1987. Discus-sions with the Lead Auditor indicated that it would be completed, tentatively, around mid-September 1987. This audit is to involve a random selection Lf maintenance equipment in which the PM requirements will be reviewed against vendor recommendations, frequency, actual completion, et Respective AWO'S wiil also be reviewed for completeness, adequate documentation, et QA also regularly attends both morning meetings and the afternoon meeting to maintain an awareness of ongoing work activities and any changes thereof that may have occurre . Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives on August 7, 1987, to summarize the scope and findings of the inspectio At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. The licensee did not indicate that any proprietary information was contained within the scope of the inspectio :

l . . . l l Attachmeat 1 Documents Reviewed I ACP 1.2-2.4, Housekeeping Requirements, Rev. 11 ' ACP 1.2-5.1, PMMS Trouble Reporting System and Automated Work Order, Rev. 32 l ACP 1.2-11.2, Review of Test Data, Rev. 6 i ACP 1.2-11.5, QA Activity Surveillance, Rev. 10 i l ACP 1.2-16.1, Plant Information Report, Rev. 20 {

PMP 9.2-0, (I&C) Preventive Maintenance Program, Rev. 3 PMP 9.5-0, Maintenance Department Preventive Maintenance Program, Rev. 3 ADM 1.1-142, Plant Preventive Maintenance Program (Original) Activity Surveillance 87-074 FW Check Valve Rebuild 87-075 FW Reg. Valve Removal 87-076 HPSI Pump Removal 87-082 Weeding - Diesel Generator 87-092 Rx Cavity Housekeeping 87-083 HPSI Pump Maintenance 87-086 Foreign Material Exclusion Automated Wcrk Order CY-87-06491 Hydrostatic Test CY-87-05233 S/G Nozzle Covers Installation CY-86-04686 D/G 2A Air Start Motors CY-86-07476 FW Reg Valve Removal CY-87-05280/05281 S/G Eddy Current Testing CY-87-05644/45/46 RPCS Modification CY-86-06457-1A EDG Air Dryer System CY-87-03991 Containment Hatch CY-85-8749 RCP Seal Housing Repair CY-86-08171 ' A' Auxiliary Feed Pump Turbine Test CY-86-00601 Main Steam Safety Valve Test PMMS Work Inquiry Report July 1,1987 - December 31, 1987, Mechanical / Electrica !

      !
- -- __ - - _ - - - - - - - -    o

 -

. d

   # 1

 * ?

 [[\ e'h ea ke 3
  #o b,.
 ~

g' I, h

 . p -
  -
   >;
  . ,

T '$ cp -4

   '

6 Ql CQ u'tf dO j & Q) s l

   )

i

   ;

i

   -

j

   !

l

i

   '

_ _ _ _ . _ . }}