IR 05000245/1982013
| ML20055B447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Caphton D, Eapen P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B445 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-82-13, 50-336-82-13, NUDOCS 8207220324 | |
| Download: ML20055B447 (6) | |
Text
,
e e
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos. 50-245/82-13 50-336/82-13 Docket Nos. 50-245 50-336
,
License Nos. DPR-21 DPR-65 Priority
-
Category C
Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P; 0. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Millstone Nuclear Power Station and corporate offices Ir.:;:ct.:en Conducted:
June 1 - 4, 1982 b!/f!84 Inspector:
k-4:)t.f%
P. K. Eapen, Ph. D.1, Reactor Inspector da'te signed M/
-
dbd Approved by:
/ rs e
D. L. CaphtB7i,/ Chief, Management Program date sfgned Section, EPB, DETP Inspection Summary: (Report Nos. 50-245/82-13 and 50-336/82-13)
Inspection on June 1 - 4, 1982 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of facility modifications.
- The inspection involved 24 inspection hours at site and eight inspection hours at corporate offices by one Region based inspector.
Results: One violation was observed in the inspected area - failure to follow the procedures.
(See paragraph 2.e),
f
~
8207220324 820708 PDR ADOCK 05000245
. P DR. _ _ _.
,
.
.
Details 1.
Persons Contacted R. Bates, Senior Engineer J. Beauchamp, QA Engineer D. Clemons, NUSCO Project Engineer R. Colello, NUSCO QA Engineer J. Donohue, NUSCO Project Engineer E. Farrell, Service Superintendent R. Herbert, Unit 1 Superintendent
G. Johnson, NUSCO Director, Generation Engineering J. Kelley, Unit 2 Superintendent
A. Magid, NUSCO Manager, Piping System Engineering E. Mroczka, Station Superintendent
R. Palmieri, Unit 1 Engineering Supervisor
R. Place, Unit 2 Engineering Supervisor
J. Quinn, Senior Engineer J. Resetar, Senior Engineer J. Stetz, Operations Assistant, Unit 1 NRC T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector
D. Lipinski, Resident Inspector
The inspector also held discussions with other members of the power station and Northeast Utility Service Corporation Technical and Admin-istrative Staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview conducted onsite, June 4, 1982.
2.
Design Change / Modification Control a.
. References
--
--
--
ANSI N 45.2-1977 ANSI N 45.2.11-1974
--
Regulatory Guide 1.64 (Revision 1)
--
--
Appendix F to Facility FSAR
-
_
.
--
Northeast Utility Quality Assurance Program Topical Report Rev. 4A
--
W. G. Counsil letter to D. G. Eisenhut, dated April 16, 1982 b.
Review The design change packages listed in c., below, were reviewed on a sampling basis to verify that the following requirements have teen rnet, as applicable:
--
. Design Input Requirements, such as design bases, regulatory requirements, codes, and standards were identified, documented, and their selection reviewed and approved.
--
Design activities shall be prescribed and accomplished in accordance with procedures that would assure the applicable design inputs are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, or instructions.
--
Interface controls were established to identify, control, and maintain responsibilities, lines of communications, and documentation requirements for internal and external interfaces.
Design verification was established to determine the adequacy
--
of the design to meet the requirements specified in design inputs.
--
Document control procedures were established to control the issuance of design documents and their changes.
Design change control procedures were established to control
--
design changes.
Design documentation and records were maintained.
--
--
Audits were conducted to verify compliance with all aspects (
of QA programs for design and design changes.
--
New or modified systems were installed in accordance with the approved design.
l
--
New or revised procedures relating to the modified system were completed and approved.
'
As built drawings were revised to reflect modifications.
--
--
The operators were trained to use the modification.
l
!
{
.
.
c.
Document / Record Packages The inspector reviewed the following Plant Design Change Requests (PDCR's):
--
1-84-80 TMI 2.1.8(b) Increase Range for Radiation Monitors
--
1-89-80 APR Valve Monitoring System
--
1-113-79 PORV & SV Position Indication
--
1-120-79 Containment Atmospheric Isolation Control
--
1-19-79 Dunking Chamber Cable installation
--
1-20-79 Core Spray Injection Valve Logic Change
--
1-124-80 Jet Pump Beam Bolt Assembly Replacement
--
2-86-80 Relocation of H Analyzer Control Module
--
2-116-80 Containment High Range Radiation Monitor
--
2-117-80 Wide Range Containment Pressure 2-118-80 Containment (Water) Level Indication
--
--
2-40-81 Pressure Transmitter Installation in SI Header
--
2-41-81 Replacement of Mechanical Snubbers
--
2-80-001 RCS Venting System d.
Detailed Interviews and Examination of Certain Documents The inspector interviewed cognizant engineering personnel both at the plant site and at the corporate headquarters to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's design control program as they related to the PDCR's listed in item c. above.
For each PDCR, the following documents were rpviewed to verify the adequacy of the licensee's engineering ove' view and administrative controls e
for design modifications:
--
Design requirements
--
Design drawings
--
Design verification
.
-
i
--
Safety review e.
Findings (1) The inspector reviewed the POCR's listed in Section 2.c with the respective Project Engineers.
During this review, the inspector observed that the measures, used to assure that the design input requirements were correctly translated into final design, were not documented. The bases for independent verification and safety evaluation also were not documented.
The examples of PDCR's that lacked the above documentation are:
2-80-001 1-113-79 2-86-80 1-120-79 2-117-80 1-19-79 1-20-79 The inspector stated that this lack of required documentation is contrary to Section 3.2.1 of Northeast Utility Quality Assurance Program Topical Report and as such constitutes an example of the violation discussed below.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged the inspector's statements.
(2) The installed design for PDCR 2-41-81 was different from that approved.
The inspector stated that the above was contrary to Section 6.14.2.1 of licensee's procedure ACP-QA-3.04 and was an example of the violation discussed below.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged the inspector's statements. A review of the change (use of two PSA Model 3 snubbers in place of one PSA Model 10 snubber at hanger location #507002) and the supporting analysis indicate that the design was consistent with the state of the art snubber design philisophy.
(3) Contrary to the requirements of Section 6.1 of the licensee's Quality Assurance Program Topical Report (Rev. 4A), the final drawings for FDCR 1-113-79 and PDCR 1-19-79 were not revised. The inspector stated that this was another example of the violation discussed below.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged the inspector's statement by stating that they would investigate this matter and take action to correct the situation.
Items (1) through (3) are examples of failures to follow licensee's own procedures and collectively constitute a violation.
(50-245/82-13-01 and 50-336/82-13-01).
The inspector stated to the licensee's representatives that the findings based upon this sample audit are symptoms of generic problems in the design control progra.
.
.
.
.
..
-6 4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee's representatives denoted in para-graph I at the conclusion of the inspection on' June 4, 1982, to summar--
ize the inspection findings. The inspector provided a written summary of the inspection findings. The licensee's. representatives acknowledged the inspection findings.
.
.