IR 05000309/1985010

Insp Rept 50-309/85-10 on 850422-26.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Maor Areas Inspected:Document Control & Corrective Action Program & Followup on Previous NRC Findings

ML20126M253
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	05/23/1985
From:	Eapen P, Prell J, Racho E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126M242	List: IR 05000309/1985010 ML20126M237
References
50-309-85-10, NUDOCS 8506200271
Download: ML20126M253 (8)

Text

_____- ___ ____

i

"

. I i

I

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N REGION I i Report N /85-10 '

' i Docket N i

'

License N OPR-36 Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company ~~ I

~83TdlToTDRve i

.

~ Augusta. Maine 6M6  !

l Factitty Name: Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station

,

l

'

Inspection At: __ Wiscasset. Maine Inspection Conducted: _ April 22-26. 1985 Inspectors i

I .' hell,' Reactor Engineer _ff,M d te h ;

i 2!Na c /ic--

E?ficho,ReactorEngineer _ 9/Mhr ~ ,

date ,

Approved by:

_f j" Quality Assurance Section  !

Operations Branch, DRS

]

Inspe  !

Condu_ction_

ctedonAFFtSummary: RoutinoUnannouncedinspection_(R_eport_No. 50-309/,8J-101 1 2226Z19851 L

, i l Areas _In_spechd: Document control program, corrective action program, and

V6110wup on previous NRC finding The inspection involved 68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br /> by two ;

,

region-based inspector j

{

Eelub: No violations were identifie !

!

!

,

$ 1

-

!

I l

L

-

, . . - _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

,

I

.

.

! .

I 2 l

l 1.0 Persons Contacted I

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company

,

,

I

• T. Boulette, Technical Support Department Head / Assistant Plant Manager

• B. Castonguay, Office Services Section Head C. Cornish, Office Services Supervisor

• R. Crosby, Quality Assurance (QA) Section Head

• R. Forrest, Maintenance Section Head

>

'J. Frothingham, Assistant Operations Department Head

• J. Garrity, Plant Manager

• F. Gleason, Plant Engineering Department Section Head A. Jones, QA Engineer L. Lawson, Lead QA Engineer

• Lawton, Director, QA L. Maillet, Executive Vice President-Of ractor of Administration

• S. Nichols, Licensing Section

• R. Prouty, Maintenance Department Head

• 0. Ross, Lead Engineering Assistant i

'

• E. Su111 van, Otractor, Of fice Services

• V. Withee, Document Control Supervisor

!

LS._ Nucigar Regulatory Commission

!

• Forlic, Project Engineer The inspectors also interviewed other Itconseo personnel during the inspectio * Denotes those present at the exit interview on April 26. 1985, 2.0 Licensee's Actions on Previous _NRC Findings (Closed)Unronolved! tom (309/82-08-13): Lack of depth by the Plant Engineering Department (PED) in performing corrective action (CA) review This item had also been identified in the licensee's Corrective Action

,

audit 81-16A. As a result of MY audit 81-16A, the PE0 provided training to engineering personnel on the importance of performing in-depth analysis of identiflod problems. The licensee's QA group concurred with this corrective action and closed their item on 6/25/82, i

' The inspector reviewed recent QA findings against the PED and the correc-tive actions taken by the PED. In all casos, the correctivo action was tr dopth and appeared to identify the root cause. Based on this review, this item is close (Closed)UnrosolvedItem(309/84-18-02): Lack of proceduros for administrating the document control program. Based on the results of an inspection in this area, see Section 3, this item is closed, t

i

,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.

!

"

l 3.0 Document Control Program 3.1 References / Requirements

--

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI

--

Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program, Revision 2, Section VI l

--

ANS 3.2/ ANSI N18.7 - 1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants t

--

ANSI N45.2.9 - 1974, Requirements for Collection, Storage, and i Maintenance of QA Records for Nuclear Power Plants

'

3.2 Documents / Activities Reviewed Administrative Procedure 0-05-1, Revision 2, Document Control , Revision 0, QA Records Management System , Revision 0. Transfer of Quality Assurance Records to the Technical File Center , Revision 0, Corrections or Supplements to Quality Assurance Records , Revision 0, Retrieval of Quality Assurance Records , Revision 2, Procedure Preparation, Classification and Format , Revision S, Procedure Review, Approval, Ofstribution and Adherence , Revision 2, Discrepancy Reporting Procedure , Revision 5, Control of Activities Affecting Design , Revision 3. Drawing Control Administrative Department Procedure 16-25-1, Revision 1, Receipt of Quality Assurance Records into the Technical File Center Plant Engineering Department Procedure 17-22-1, Revision 1, Document Revision Procedure , Revision 0, Design Drawing Control , Revision 0, Drawing Updato l , Revision 0, Design Drawing Control Interface i

.

!

w_.____._-.__

.

. -

4 , Revision 0, Job Order Instructions Operational Quality Assurance Department Procedure 21-204, Revision 3, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings ' Memorandum from F. W. Setchell, dated 12/18/84, Distribution I of License Amendments (Technical Specification Changes) - '

Revision 1 Engineering Design Change Request (EDCR) 84-43, Screen Wash Pump Duplex Strainers l EDCR 83-501, High Rad Monitor Cable Penetration Swap l 3.3 Details of Review The administration of the licensee's document control program is divided between the Plant Engineering Department (PED) and the Administration Department. The Administration Department, Document Control Center (DCC), controls plant procedures, records and i documents. The PED controls as-built drawing .3.1 Administration Department The inspector reviewed the procedures in Section 3.2, items a through h, k, q and r, and verified that a program had been developed for controlling procedures, documents and record The licensee's Controlled Distribution Book, which is the Master Index for all Class A and B procedures, was reviewed to deter-mine if it correctly reflected the latest procedure revision A sampling of the following procedures used by the Operations, Maintenance, and Instrumentation and Control (I&E) Oepartments was made and it was verified that they were using the latest I

revision:

Operations Maintenance 1-1 Revision 18 5- Revision 6 1-1 Revision 17 5- Revision 12 1-1 Revision 10 5-1 Revision 8 1-1 Revision 4 5-1 Revision 4 1-2 Revision 1 5-3 Revision 12 1-10 Revision 10 5-4 Revision 5 1-10 Revision 13 5-4 Revision 0 3- Revision 3 5-6 Revision 6 3- Revision 5 5-6 Revision 7 3-5.11 Revision 1 3-6.2. Revision 9 I&C 3-6.2. Revision 10 l 3-6.2.1.13 Revision 9 6-0 Revision 5 l 6-0 Revision 3

-

6-0 Revision 1

__ __

-

.

-

The inspector also verified that all "C" classified documents are controlled by their respective departments. Departments are notified three months prior to a procedure's review date that the procedure is required to undergo review. Two months later, the Department is sent a second notice. If a procedure fails to undergo a review by the required review date, monthly notices are sent to the Department and upper managemen The inspector reviewed this program and verified its implementatio The inspector verified that a program exists and is being imple-mented for assuring that all Technical Specification changes are incorporated into the appropriate procedures, instructions, and drawing The Maine Yankee Technical File Index was reviewed to determine if the following documents were located and stored as indicated:

20.2.15 Chemistry Surveillance Control Charts 20.2.18 Chemistry Surveillance Trend Graphs 20. I&C 3"x3" Well Detector (NAI) Calibration 20.4. I&C Efficiency Calibration MY 1 Maintenance Equipment History Files MY 1 Welding Procedures and Quality Records MY 11.10 Maine Yankee Q-29 Pressurizer Pressure Chart Maine Yankee Q-45 TA/ TREF Channel 2 Chart The program for assuring that records and documents are periodically sent to the DCC for storage was reviewed and its implementation verified. It was also verified that the location of inactive files are documented in the Maine Yankee Vault Inde .3.2 PED The inspector reviewed the procedures in Section 3.2, items 1, j, I through p, s and t, to verify a written program had been esta-blished for the control and revision of as-built drawings. This program assures that correct as-built information is provided on plant controlled drawings after implementation of an EDCR. Items s and t of Section 3.2 were reviewed and verified that the changes were accurately reflected on the as-built drawings and the drawing changes were properly reviewed and controlled. The inspector also verified that procedures have been established for control-ling changes to drawings between Yankee Nuclear Service Division and the sit .

.

The program assures that obsolete drawings are update The inspector reviewed the aperture card files which are the master index for the status of all drawings. He verified that the correct status of drawings are reflected on the aperture card The program provides means to resolve discrepancies found between the as-built drawings and the as-constructed facilit The inspector reviewed the Drawing Change Request (DCR) Log, located in the Control Room, and verified that the DCRs were properly documented on the following drawings:

Drawing N DCR N FM-828 84-025 FM-92A 84-38 FM-92A 84-39 The program also assigns responsibility for the control and storage of site as-built drawing .4 Findings While reviewing the Maine Yankee Technical File Index, the inspector noted that the Maintenance Department had failed to send any of their 1984 records to the DCC for microfilming. In subsequent discussions with Maintenance Department management, it was determined that this was caused by insufficient administrative staff. The licensee also indicated that this item had been identified in a recentaudit, MY-85-13, Document Control, and, therefore, has recently hired an extra administrative person to work in the Maintenance Departmen Prior to the inspector leaving the site, all records had been transferred to the DCC for microf41 min While reviewing the DCR Log, the inspector noted that completed DCRs were not being documented in the Log. Again, management indicated that the above-mentioned audit had identified this. Prior to leaving the site, the inspector was notified that the Log had been updated.

i No violations were identifie .0 Corrective Action Program

4.1 Reference / Requirements

!.

--

10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI

--

Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program, Section XVI

!

l _

!

'

E

_

,

--

ANS 3.2/ ANSI N18.7 - 1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants

--

ANSI N45.2.12 - 1977, Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs for Nuclear Power Plants 4.2 Documents / Activities

--

Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Procedure 0-00-3, Revision 7, Internal Audits

--

0-08-2, Revision 4, Corrective Action 4.3 Details of Review The implementing procedure 0-08-2, Corrective Action Program, Revision 4, was reviewed to verify that the requirements of Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, are adequately addresse The program provided guidance for initiation of corrective action, evaluation of identified deficiencies, and followup to assure proper and timely implementatio The inspector reviewed findings of QA audits and QA Surveillances to verify that identified conditions adverse to quality were properly evaluated to assure appropriate correction action; that the action was timely; that the action was designed to preclude recurrence of the condition; that significant conditions adverse to quality were reviewed by appropriate level of management and reported to NRC as required; and that adherence to established implementing procedures was maintained. The documents reviewed were the following:

--

MY Audit Reports #82-16A/B, Corrective Action

--

MY Audit Reports #83-16A/8, Corrective Action

--

MY Audit Reports #84-16A/8, Corrective Action

--

MY Operational Assessment Program, 84-17

--

MY Operating Experience Assessment, 84-17

--

MY Surveillance Report No S-413, 0QAD

-

84S-451, I&C

-

84S-023, Maintenance, I&C, QA

-

84S-015, Maintenance

-

84S-479, Maintenance

-

84S-012, I&C

.

-

.

.

.

4.4 Findings No violations were identifie .0 Annual QA Program Review Based on the results of inspections of the Document Control Program, Section 3, of this report; the Records Storage Procram, Section 5, of 50-309/84-18; the Corrective Action Program, Sectic.n 4, of this report; the Procurement Program, Section 3, of 50-309/85-05; and the Receipt, Storage, and Handling Program, Section 4, of 50-399/85-05, review of this program is complete .0 QA/QC Interface The inspector reviewed the audits (MY82-13, MY83-13 and MY84-13) Document Control for the past three year The audits were thorough and identified many discrepancies later identified by the NRC. Corrective actions appeared timely and in dept The inspector also verified that the licensee's Quality Assurance group audits the Corrective Action program. These audits reviewed corrective actions related to previous in plant audits (e.g., Document Control, Operations, etc.), NRC findings, LERs. The licensee performs three in plant audits a year related to the corrective action program. There were two Corrective Action audits per year and an Operational Assessment Audit. Among the three audits, the licensee audits covered all corrective action program .0 Exit / Management Meetings The findings of this inspection were periodically discussed with MY representatives during the course of the inspection. An exit interview was conducted on April 26, 1985, at the conclusion of the inspection (see Paragraph 1 for attendees) at which time the findings were presented to MY management. Management acknowledged these finding At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.

l I

-

-