IR 05000309/1985029
| ML20198E472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1985 |
| From: | Bissett P, Dev M, Jerrica Johnson, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198E467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-85-29, NUDOCS 8511140037 | |
| Download: ML20198E472 (12) | |
Text
y
'
'
--
.,
,
r'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
REGION.I
- Report.No. 50-309/85-29 Docket No.
50-309 License No.
DPR-36 Category C
Licensee: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04355 Facility Name: Maine Yankee-Atom.c Power Station Inspection At: Wiscasset,.%ine
' Inspection-Conducted: -October 7-11, 1985
[
"/h
!
//ff Inspectors:
,
T. Petrone, Lfad Reactor Engine (f date
- /3//f5'
'
4@
-
P. Bissett, Reactdr Engineer date bilim; 6 A"*1 -
- a/v Is s'
M. Dev, Reactor E' gineer date '
n R
I t[t [ff Approved by:
~J. Johnson / Chief, fj
//
dat6 Operations Program SectioN, 08, DRS Inspection Summary:
Routine unannounced inspection of fuel load verification, startup testing of modified systems, surveillance testing and calibration of plant equipment and measuring and test equipment, and QA involvement in these activities. The inspection involved 102 hours0.00118 days <br />0.0283 hours <br />1.686508e-4 weeks <br />3.8811e-5 months <br /> onsite by three region based inspectors.
Results: No violations were identifk J.
%h
!
G
,
m,
, _-
.
y
-
e
-
.
x
.
~ 1'. 0 Persons Contacted Maine Yankee i
- R. Crosby, QA Section Head J.- Forthingham, Operations Manager
- J..Garrity,. Plant Manager R.-Grant, Lead Electrical Engineer D. Lemieux, I&C Supervisor L*L. Lawson, QA Lead Engineer; 14. ! Paine, Operational Functional Testing Coordinator D..Stevenson, Assistant Operations Manager
- D. Whitter, Manager Nuclear Engineering & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- J. Robertson, Resident Inspector
'C. Holden, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit meeting on October 11, 1985.
During the course of the inspection, the inspectors contacted other supervisory, technical and administrative plant personnel.
2.0 Fuel Load Verification The Core Reloading Procedure 10-1, Revision 10, dated August 20, 1985, was reviewed to verify that the reactor fuel had been loaded correctly.
~ Review of the completed verification sign off sheets,' prerequisite sign offs, cavity inspection maps, core _ reloading technical specifications checklists, and the Appendix B Core Component Verification Check lists indicated that all required procedure steps had been completed satis-factorily, and that all data had been recorded correctly.
During their core verification inspection, the licensee noted that one fuel assembly had been loaded 180* out of position and that one thimble was missing.
-These were corrected by the licensee prior to completion of the core inspection.
As required by Procedure 10-1, the licensee's QA section had performed an independent review of the core verification videotapes. This review was documented in Surveillance Report 85S-113, Core Component Verification, dated July 8, 1985, and September 10, 1985.
This review confirmed the mis-oriented fuel assembly and missing thimble noted above and identified
,
that the serial number for one fuel assembly had been recorded incorrectly.
These discrepacies were subsequently corrected.
The inspector independently viewed part of the core videotape and verified thot all. the fuel assemblies in the Northeast quadrant of the core had been loaded correctly. The licensee appears to have adequate controls in place to ensure the final fuel load was correct.
No deficiencies were
)
identified.
L___
y
.
-
p
-
.
3.0 Plant Modifications The following modifications were reviewed to ensure:
The modifications had been reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59;
--
-The modification had been installed as described in the modification
---
package;
.
QA-QC had performed appropriate verification inspections;
--
Revised drawings had been issued when necessary;
--
Appropriate post modification testing had been performed
'--
satisfactorily; Instrumentation had been calibrated properly;
--
Operational personnel had been trained where necessary; and,
--
The modification did not adversely affect existing systems.
--
3.1 EDCR 85-4, Installation of Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Check Valves The inspector reviewed the design change package which was completed on May 16, 1985. This package included all plant modification documents, implementation instructions, review sheets, correspond-ence, "as-built" drawings, and QA/QC inspection documentation.
The modification was performed to upgrade two small bore AFW lines located at the steam driven AFW pump to seismically qualify the Emergency Feedwater portion of the AFW system. The check valves provide a seismic pressure boundary between the connecting small bore AFW piping which has not been analyzed for seismic loads.
The check valve will limit the inventory loss from the Demineralized Water Storage Tank (DWST) should a pipe failure occur in the small bore AFW lube oil cooling and turbine bearing cooling water piping.
The inspectors review of the design package verified that it contained the supporting documentation and seismic analysis necessary for installing the check valves and the pipe support upgrades. The records of the 10 CFR 50.59 review and the completed weld data sheets were included.
The inspector examined the as-built installation of check valve AFW-358 and root valve AFW-359 against drawing 11550-FM-73A, and verified the check valve and the pipe supports had been installed correctly. Also, the inspector verified that the AFW drawing in the control room had been updated to reflect the modification. However,
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r
.. -
i
.
during a walkdown of the AFW system, the inspector did identify that the as-built routing of the 1" diameter (DIA) AFW feedwater line was not in agreement with the drawing.
The drawing shows the 1".DIA line connected to the 6" AFW pump suction lines between valves AFW-6 and AFW-8. However, the 1" DIA line actually connects to the 6" AFW pump suction line upstream of
. both valves (AFW 6 and AFW-8). This inconsistency appears to be a minor drawing error. The licensee issued Drawing Change Request (DCR) DCR-141 on October 9, 1985, to correct the drawing error. The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedure 0-01-2 and verified that the DCR process requires that Plant Engineering Department to review the change to verify that the change does not adversely affect plant operations or constitute a potential 10 CFR 50.59 concern.
The inspector also reviewed the post modification test results con-tained in EDCR 85-41 and noted the check valve was flow and opera-bility tested satisfactorily on March 13, 1985.
In addition, sur-veillance test procedure 3.1.5, " Auxiliary Feed Pump Testing," had been revised on October 3, 1985, to require quarterly operability testing.
3.2 EDCR 85-15 Primary System Inventory Trend System Modifications The Primary Inventory Trend System (PITS) utilizes three differential pressure transmitters to trend mass inventory in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). Transmitter 3001 senses differential pressure (d/p)
across the entire system from the tip of the pressurizer to the bottom of the core; transmitter 3002 senses the d/p across the reactor vessel; and transmitter 3002 senses d/p from the top of the reactor vessel to the bottom of the hot leg. This design change provides protection from a simultaneous loss of all instrument reference lines due to a single pipe break; it minimizes the affects of partial draining of the reference leg and improves the submergence capability of the PITS transmitters.
The inspector reviewed the modification package and noted a safety evaluation had been performed; the implementing instructions contained appropriate QC hold points, signoffs, and acceptance criteria; and hydrostatic testing of the installed piping had been completed satisfactorily.
The inspector also reviewed the control panel installation in the control room and noted that the chart recorder was not adequately labeled.
The chart recorder has three pens (red, blue, green) which trace a line on a chart labeled 0-100.
Each transmitter was con-nected to a different pen and was calibrated for a specific range.
The blue pen was calibrated for the full span (0-100) with zero being the bottom of the core and 100 being the top of the pressurizer. The green pen was calibrated to read from zero to 50 which is the top of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.=
.
/
the reactor head. The red pen was calibrated from 25 to 50. The
,
chart recorder is labeled "All Scales PSID". There was no clear indication of what the pen traces actually represent, or that the readings were saly calibrated for cold conditions with reactor coolant pumps not operating. The inspector discussed these concerns with the licensee's management.who stated that these items would be addressed when the final implementing instructions and procedures are established. The actual use of the PITS systems is still undergoing engineering review and is not considered operational.
Calibration data sheets for pressure transmitters 3001, 3002, and 3003 were also reviewed by the inspector.
Instructions for calibrating the pressure transmitters were contained within the EDCR package.
Calibrated test equipment was used during the calibration of the pressure transmitters and test-equipment identification numbers and calibration due dates were appropriately noted on the respective data sheets.
-During the inspector's review of the calibration data sheets, it was determined that a discrepancy existed between the date of the actual
.
calibration versus that denoted on the calibration sheets. The inspector stressed the importance of performance activity dates-corresponding with applicable records, and the' licensee acknowledged the inspector's concern. Action was subsequently taken by I&C personnel to correct the discrepancy. The inspectors had no further
- questions at this time.
3.3 EDCR 84-3, Replacement of RWST Level Switches This modification replaced the existing Recirculation-Activation System (RAS) level switches on the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) with a combination of Rosemont 11538 level transmitters and Acromag bistables. This was done to reduce the maintenance required and to improve accuracy.
The inspector reviewed the modification package, the functional test results, and discussed the modification with the cognizant engineer.
The inspector determined that the post modification testing and calibration included a complete loop check and appeared to ensure that the new level transmitters would function adequately in service.
Calibration of the level transmitters, level indicators, and bistables was accomplished in accordance with Procedure No. 3-6.2.1.41,
" Indication and Safeguard Channel Calibration for RWST". The inspector reviewed the applicable calibration data sheets and noted that calibrated test equipment was used and was appropriately listed.
No discrepancies were identifie.
-.
W '...
p
[.
.
r.p 4.0- Surveillance Testing and Calibration Program 4.1 References / Requirements-L L
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear
--
!
Power Plants; Technical Specification, Sections 4 and 5, " Surveillance
---
,
"
Testing" and " Administrative Controls";
i I
Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix B, Quality Assurance
--
Program;
}'
Regulatory Guide 1.33-1978, Quality Assurance Program
--
Requirements (Operation);
ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance
--
for... Nuclear Power Plants; and, IEEE Std. 498-1980, IEEE Standard Requiraments for the
--
calibration and control of measuring and test equipment used in the Nuclear Power Plants.
The following administrative procedures were reviewed to determine conformance with the above requirements.
0-10-2, " Surveillance Tests and Records", Revision 4;
--
-
1-200-8, " Operations Department Surveillance Schedule,
--
i -
Implementation and Records", Revision 0; 1-200-4, " Operations Department Routine Surveillance Schedule"
--
Revision 1; 3-17-8, " Inservice Testing" Revision 1;
--
5-212-5, " Administration of the Maintenance Department
--
Surveillance Program," Revision 1; and, 6-03-4 " Instrument and Controls Department Preventative
--
Maintenance," Revision 4 4.2 Program Review
The inspector reviewed the program for surveillance tests, calibra-tions, calibrations checks, and instrument functional tests required by the Technical Specification; and calibration of plant installed instrumentation used to verify satisfactory performance of Technical Specification Surveillance Testing and Inservice Testing.
The program and administrative procedures were examined to verify that:
E
,
-
- .
Responsibilities have been assigned for performance of tests and
--
test schedule;
,
Implementing procedures for performance of tests have been
---
established; Responsibilities for training and qualification of personnel
--
have been defined;
--
A master schedule for surveillance and calibration tests has been established; Methods and responsibilities have been established for review
--
'and evaluation of data, for reporting of deficiencies and failures identified during surveillance test and calibration;
.and, Controls have been established for review and storage of test
--
records.
The inspector reviewed 'the following test procedures to verify the program compliance in accordance with the requirements cited in the referenced documents noted above.
3-6.2.1.17, Protective and Safeguard Channel Calibration, Tc Stop Valve Interlock Channel 3-6.2.1.19, Appendix A, Cold Functional Check of Control Element
- Assemblies 3-6.2.2.2, Reactor Coolant Flow 3-6.2.2.6, Steam Generator Pressure 3-6.2.2.9, RPS Logic Matrix Test 3-6.2.2.1C, Reactor Trip Breaker Monthly Test 3-6.2.2.18, Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Rate 3-6.2.2.21, Steam Dump Controller Output Test 3-6.2.1.35, Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Indicator Transmitter Calibration 3-6.2.2.1, Power Range Safety Channels Monthly Test 3-6.2.1.12, Pressurizer Level Regulating Channel Calibration 3-1.15.3, ECC Operational Test Pump Flow and Check Valve Testing
p
-
8
.
3-1.9, Fire Pump Weekly Testing 3-1.4,.
Emergency Diesel Generator Monthly Surveillance Testing Other documents reviewed included Operations, I&C, and Maintenance monthly' surveillance schedules.
For I&C, the inspectors also examined their preventive maintenance schedule which includes the calibration schedule for those plant installed instruments, gages, etc. used to support T.S. requirs..ents.
4.3 Program Implementation Implementation of surveillance tests and calibration program, as-delineated in the licensee's administrative procedure 0-10-2, Rev. 4
" Surveillance Tests and Records", and department procedure 3.1.1
"Routica Instrumentation Surveillance", was verified. The plant organizations such as Maintenance, I/C and Operations Departments, which are. responsible for performing test, calibration and inspec-tion, have individually established their own surveillance test program. Thus each department maintains the status for the equipment under its program.
Each department, which performs plant surveil-lance tests and calibration, has developed and implemented a sur-veillance and/or calibration schedule. A review of documentation noted in paragraph 4.2 indicated that the Technical Specification surveillance tests, calibrations and inspections are conducted in accordance with the approved procedures which includes appropriate acceptance criteria.
The licensee has established respon ibilities for performance of these tests and test schedules.
The I/C personnel performing surveillance activities are adequately trained and know-ledgeable of their trades and the procedural requirements. The respective section heads and supervisors review all completed cali-bration and surveillance tests and evaluate any failures and deficiencies identified during the performance of the associated tests. The documentation reviewed was found to be current and adequate.
The licensee representative stated that the calibration of the safety related components not identified in the Technical Specification receive the same attention as those that are identified. Each plant group has established a component calibration frequency and main-tained the calibration status. All calibrations are conducted in accordance with approved procedures.
During the inspection, the inspectors also observed the calibration of containment pressure indication channels P-2012 and P-2013.
During the performance of the calibration, the inspector verified the following:
~
.. ___
-
.
..
'
.4 '.
.
C
Calibration procedure 3-6.2.1.24, was available and followed;
--
Test prerequisites were met;-
--
Test equipment used was calibrated;
---
--
Acceptance criteria was. met; Following completion of the calibration, the pressure
--
transmitters were returned to normal system lineup; and, Realignment was independently verified.
--
4.4 Findings No violations were identified; however, during the inspectors review of completed operational surveillance tests, it was noted that for procedure 3.1.4 " Emergency Diesel. Generator Monthly Surveillance Testing," Step 5.8.1 was quite often completed differently by various test personnel,.in that some recorded numerical values (for fuel oil systems pressures),
while others just. initialed.that system pressures were checked and were within acceptable limits. Discussions with the Assistant Operations Manager indicated that it was intended for fuel oil system pressures to be recorded, primarily for trending purposes.
He stated that appropriate changes would be made to clarify the fact that pressures are to be recorded.
The inspectors also'noted that.the surveillance test procedures did not-require independent QA/QC verification and discussed this concern with licensee representatives. They stated that they would evaluate if such inclusion would enhance their surveillance and test program. The
. inspectors had no further questions.
5.
Measuring and Test Equipment 5.1 Requirements / References 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XII, Control of Measuring and
--
Test Equipment; IEEE Std. 498-1980, IEEE Standard Requirements for the
--
Calibration and Control of Measuring and Test Equipment Used in Nuclear Power Plants; Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Operational Quality
---
Assurance Program for Control of Measuring and Test Equipment, Rev, 2;
- -
-q
-
'
l g.
il '
k
'
i ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance
--
for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants; and, L
Regulatory Guide 1.33-1978, Quality Assurance Program
--
Requirements (Operation).
.5.2 Program Review The. inspector reviewed the licenree's M&TE program and determined that the licensee has:
Established responsibilities for developing.and implementing an
--
M&TE program; Developed an equipment inventory list which allows for the
--
addition of new equipment as well as, identifying M&TE used on Safety-related structures / systems
and components;
,
identifying the calibration and adjustment frequencies;
and,_
listing the Calibration Standards and Procedures;
Established a recall system which includes the calibration and
--
adjustment frequencies and assures that the equipment will be submitted on or before due date; Established out-of-cc.libration controls including cause and
--
_ traceability to previopsly tested or measured items; Established the requirement to prohibit use of
--
out-of-calibration M&TE; and, Established a program which provides the calibration status of
--
M&TE.
5.3 Program Implementation Implementation of the M&TE Program, as delineated in the licensee Administrative Procedure 0-06-05, " Measuring and Test Equipment",
Rev. 3, was verified. The controls identified in this procedure were verified by randomly selecting M&TE records pertaining to Maintenance and I/C Departments.
The records indicated that each piece of equip-ment was:
Properly identified, including its calibration status;
--
,
k
.
..
.
_
- _
_.
__
_
_
_
_ _ _
.n
._-
Calibrated on an established schedule, in-house or by outside
--
facilities (contractor) in accordance with specific calibration procedures and standards traceable to National Bureau of Stan-dards; and, Stored. issued and returned in accordance with the approved
--
procedures.
The following M&TE documentation was reviewed:
I/C Department:
--
Part ID 62-020 and -021, Decade Resistors62-027, DC Milliammeter 62-051, Pneumatic Tester 62-060, H 0 DP Gauge
,62-080, ECS Calibrator 62-103, Digital Thermometer 62-111, Oil Dead Weight Tester
~62-120, Electrometer 62-153, mA Calibrator 62-171, Torque Wrench Plant Maintenance Department
--
.Part ID 61-014, Megger 61-027, Megohmeter 61-037A, Buchanan Crimping Tool 61-041, Mitutoyo Vernier, 40"61-063, Vernier Calliper, 0-12"
'61-115, Welding current Calibrator 61-144, Micrometer Depth Gage, 0-9"61-148, Dynamometer, 0-5000 lbs.61-162, Chatillon Push Scale, 0-10 lbs.
The inspector also interviewed I/C personnel responsible for the M&TE program implementation. A discussion with the instructors regarding M&TE related training and training schedule indicated that the licensee has not included formalized M&TE instruction in their curriculum. The interviewed personnel were found to be know-ledgeable of their trades and accompanying procedural requirements.
However, documentation for employee on-the-job training, for the I/C personnel, could not be verified.
.5.4 Findings The licensee's M&TE procedural controls in the areas of plant main-tenance, and instrument and control are adequate.
However, isolated cases of incompleteness or inaccuracies in M&TE document control were I
.
.
.
.
l
noted.
In one instance, review of Maintenance Department equipment, ID No.61-144, Depth Gage,_ indicated that it was sent for calibration to an outside facility and at the same time signed out for use in the plant. The discrepancy was resolved by verifying that the user had used the wrong record for sign-out (equipment record 61-144 instead of61-143). On a second occasion, equipment 61-37A could not be traced easily and immediately. Also, an I/C equipment log book could not reveal the status for Water DP Gauge,62-060. A further invest-igation indicated that the equipment control for 62-060 had been transferred to the Plant Engineering Department. The I/C personnel updated the equipment documentation accordingly.
Also, the inspector noted that M&TE under maintenance department custody was cramped and piled up indiscriminately in the equipment cabinets.
The storage problem was discussec with the plant management. They committed to resolve equi nent overcrowding by reorganizir.g availability of space at the p'e.,t.
No violations were identified.
6.
QA/QC Overview The inspector reviewed the following Maine Yankee Quality Assurance (Operational) Surveillance Reports and found that the procedural compliance and resolution of deficiencies were adequate.
85E-139, September 25, 1985, Thermal Margin / Low Pressure Channel
--
Calibration 85S-016, March 19, 1985, Shock Suppressor Surveillance
--
85S-039, June 28, 1985, Emergency Power System PericJic Testing
--
85S-051, August 13, 1985, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
--
85S-052, August 15, 1985, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
--
85S-053, August 13, 1985, Chemistry
--
However, there is no evidence or any procedural requirement for independ-ent QA/QC verification during the performance of surveillance tests. As discussed in paragraph 4.4, the licensee was made aware of the inspector's Concerns.
7.
Exit Meeting The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1 on October 11, 1985 and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
No written material was provided to the licensee by the inspectors.