IR 05000309/1990020
| ML20058D346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1990 |
| From: | Blumberg N, Finkel A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D342 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-90-20, NUDOCS 9011060066 | |
| Download: ML20058D346 (7) | |
Text
-_
{l * i
':e,
.
,
[-
i
. t-
,
.
'
E-F U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.:
50-309/90-20 Docket No.:
50-309 License No.:
DRP-36-
!
Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company J
s 83 Edison Drive j
,
Augusta, Maine 04336 j
'
s,
.;
Facility'Name: Maine. Yankee Atomic Power Company
!
,
C Inspection At: Wiscasset,. Maine
'l Inspection Conducted:
. September 24'- 27, 1990 j
y
,
Inspectors:
O #
N#
A. Finkel, fenior Reactor Engineer
'Datv
,
LOperational' Programs Section
' Operations Branchi DRS
!
,
,
LApproved by;
_
!d
!
_
N. Blumberg, Chief
...
(/
Date
.
.,
Operational'?rograms Section
'!
. 0pera tions, Branch, ' DRS
'!
Inspection Summary:- ' Unannounced-Inspection on September 24 - 27, 1990
]
~
(Inspection Report No. 50-309/90-20).
- l A'reas' Inspected: The inspection. examined the. licensee's actions with respect-l
.to open items =from NRC. Inspection' Reports 50-309/88-200 and 50-309/88-80.
f]
!
cRe'ults:' No deficiencies were identified.. The licensee's actions to resolve j
s the issues were acceptable;' thorough,'and, timely.
l
.
>
tt
}:
9011060066 901030 n
PDR ADOCK 05000309
'
O PDC-l
.
J
P
_(@;
.
..
.
.
'
.
!
l DETAILS
.
,
-1.
Person Contacted Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
- R. Arsenault, Assistance Maintenance Manager
- R. Blackmore, Plant Manager
_
w
- R. Crosby, ' Senior Licensing Engineer
- J. Herbert; Plant Engineering Manager
.
- T. Leclerc,-Quality Section Head
-
M
- C Shaw, Plant Engineering.Section Head
.
- G. Whittier, Nuclear' Engineering i
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.
- C, Marshall, Senior Resident Inspector
!
R. Freudenberger Resident' Inspector-
,
During.the course of:the-inspection, the inspector-contacted other members o
.'of the licensee'sf 0perations, Technical', Quality Assurance and Licensing
- i-r y
staffs.
!
t
- Denotes those present at the. exit meeting held on September 27, 1990.
~
-
'2..
Background:
oIn response to:the maintenance team inspection.(MTI), report 50-309/88-80, o
i
- the3 licensee,cin. their letters dated April 13,'1989,
- and March 30, 1990,
.. i
.provided writtenLresponses to the identified violation and observed weak-
.nesses :in the Maine Yankee maintenance program. 3This. inspection reviewed theLlicensee's initiatives and assessed management support of the main-:
'
- tenance process., Maintenance'has undergone improvements 1n the areas,of
- ,
tr#nding and work order procedures' implementation,
.
,
(3[
Review of Maintenance Team Inspection Findings-q 1,
=;
-To evaluate the'1.icensee's response to the MTI findings, the. inspector.
treviewed,the data package for closing the item:and then verified the work?
by-performing a walk-down of the. system (if applicable), reviewed the.
corrected documentation land verified that the test performed for accept-4 - 1 ance:to _ determine if-thel item complied with the criteria of the documen-
'
7"
,tation.
If--a; task was to be completed at a later date, the inspectorf verified that:the management control system assured that thel task was
! scheduled land that at least 30*4 of the work had. started. 'The documenta-ls ition: reviewed by the inspector to verify items described in ~this report is listed in Attachment A.
,
,
z.
.
I,
.
n
'
.
'
-
.
s
-
y
.
o I
- 4.
Maintenance Team Inspection Findings (MTI) (62700)
4 I (Closed) Weakness 11.5.1.4 inis weakness consisted of two parts:
(A) ' Lack of a clear method to identify the applicable vendor manual for instruments having the same model number but differing dates of
-
manufacture.
'
(B) No independent review of instrument calibration set points developed by I&C.-
- l
\\
<
'The licensee's existing vendor manual program ensures that the vendor
!
'
'
manual data is reviewed for both model and date change information prior l
to-use.
The date change of the manual has been added to their existing
~
,
manual review program.
Procedure No. 0-06-07, Revision 2, January 1990,
'
c
.
~" Control of Vendor Instruction - Manuals," has been revised to add the
.date of the vendor manual as part of the documentation review and accept-ante cycle,
,
.
.
!
%
In: addressing the'I&C set point weaknesses,=the 1icense has taken the
'
'
following actions:.
i.
- ~
. Procedure No. 6-07-1, " Instrumentation-and Controls Corrective Main-'
i tenance," has been revised to prepare a discrepancy report for engi-
'
neering evaluation if a set point or range: change.on an instrument
~
<
.is required;:and,
. During an NRC Safety System Functional,-Inspection:(SSFI) 50-309/
- '
'
90-80, the. team determined that-the licensee's multi phase program'
gt l'
for addressingcthe, set point' subject was acceptable.
Phase 5 of this-
- program,is to revise calibration procedures:to.. agree _with: loop-
~
t (accuracy calculations 1which are to'be completed lby December:31; 1991.
, Phases;1-4:have'been completed. The SSFI Team. concluded that the
texisting-instrument set point. review process was sufficiently struc -
s
@'
'
tured as to' evaluate any new substantially different uncertainty
! margins 1found-via the new methodology.
o e'
'
+,
This-item 1s closed.
,
j l,1
L4.2i-(Closed)' Weakness-II.4.7 - Need to consider NRC Information' Notice.
.
.
.
88-66 tin a. review of practices for procurement and use of commercial.
n grade.Agastat relays.
i Y
,
.
1
_.The! plan was to develop a plant relay data base during the 1990:
{
~
'
refue, ling' outage; however, in March:1990 (MN-90-35) the ' licensee
+
'
informed the NRC that_the current completion date is December 31, yi 1990-.The_ inspector reviewed the 1,1censee!s program for establishing the data base, and it appears that the December date would not present a, safety concern. At rresent, the licensee has completed 1,
approximately 70% of their task effort.
I
i
'
.
This. item is, closed, i
h
-
w
,
.
.
.
.
__
_
_ ___.._.
.
.
.
.
.
4.3 (Closed) Weakness 111.5.4 - Need to provide additional information on work orders.
The licensee has re-written procedure No. 0-16-3, Revision 3, June 1990, " Discrepancy Reporting Proceduce (CRD-15)." The latest revi-sion of this procedure provides specific direction for the reporting, identification and tracking of plant components, equipment, systems and structures in need of repair or modification.
The procedure facilitates the authorization and management controls for maintenance activities and for authorizing Design Change installation and test-ing.
This item is closed.
4.4 (Closed) Weakness 111.7.1 - Location of the machine shops within the radiological controlled area.
The concern of the NRC involved the potential for clean material being brought into a potentially contaminated environment with the possibility of contaminating clean material in addition to workers being unnecessarily exposed to radiation.
The licensee records indicated that no cross-contamination to the clean side of the plant, originating from the RCA shop, has occurred within the last 10 years.
A radiation evaluation of this area has it listra as essentially background.
The licensee program has large machin'.ng requirements performed by of f-site machine shops.
Based on their plant history and the program to have large machining performed off-site, the licensee plans to make no changes in this area.
A review of both the plant history, the radiation level in the areas and the use of off-site machine shops to perform large machining tasks the inspector determined that the plant history indicates that there exists no safety concern in this area.
This item is closed.
4.5 (Closed) Weakness 11.4.3 - No PRA consideration incorporated into the maintenance process.
The licensee's Safety Assessment organization issued criteria for using an equipment ranking system on May 25, 1989.
Using the cri-teria from the May 25, 1989 Safety Assessment Memorandum, attachment G of Procedure No. 0-16-3 was issued and is being used by the staff personnel. This attachment provides the rules for establishing prior-ity categories which include PRA criteria in establishing the equip-ment risk f actor and priority level.
The inspector verified that the licensee's staff has been trained in the procedure concepts and are using the criteria during their system and part/ component analysis.
This item is closed.
_. _ _... _
.p g7o
,, _
,
..
'
5-
.
4. '6 (Closed) Weakness 111.6.3 - Need to improve the trending and f ailure
"
analysis efforts.
The-licensee had their Computer Steering Committee define the elements of a computerized integrated data management system for evaluation by Senior Management. A " Functional-Specification. for a E
Comprehensive Maintenance History Records System for Main Yankee,"
Revision 1, August 25, 1989, has been issued.
The above procedure defines the requirements _ for a Maintenance History Records System
-
q'
(MHRS) for Maine Yankee.
Senior management has approved a computer
'
' system concept that-is presently being developed,
. The program is to be on line by February 1991 with full implementa-w
-
-
"
tion by June 1991. The. system is called MIPPS or Maintenance, Inven-
'
tory, Procurement, Pay'able,- System.
The scope of the MIPPS will address the weakness described in IE report 50-309/88-80.III.6.4.
"*
.This item is closed.
.
L4.T (Clos _ed) Weakness 'III.S.8 - Inadequate technical guidance in _I&C
[
>
Non-RPS: maintenance procedures and drawings, c
,
y
'The licansee's upgrade program for Class IE loop > drawings and the l
'developuent of procedure No. 6-03-4.2,." Instrumentation and Controls
~
'
Preventative Maintenance' Activity Procedure,!' Revision 1,- April 11,3
'
x a.
L1990,; addresses. the weakness items of Section..III.5.1.3 of inspection
report 50-309/88-80.
The inspector: determined that procedure No.
H 6-03-4.2 lprovides specific guidance for the I&C personnel >to-use i
- during their/ performance of preventative maintenance task when using
' plant: drawings,; vendor ' manuals, manufacturer's drawings, and/or. I&C
,
,
-section-instructions, cThis item'is closed.
~
- 4.81 (Closed) Violation 88'200-02;- Failure to document dedication of
"
,
commercial grade parts: for safety-related applications and failure
. toTimpose Part 21/f ailure 'to validate.c of: c's.
- The licensee has revised' their' Procedure No. 0-04-4, Revision 3,<
September, -1989, " Procurement of Commercial Grade Items.for Safety Cl_ ass' Applications." This procedure provides instructions for the
<i
,+
dedication of Commercialz Grade Items (CGI)lfor. safety class appli-
' cations and those' items with quality assurance (QA)4 requirements.
-i
-
i
. :The procedure hlso includes critical characteristics-tables which i
y
,
' f provides; th'e ruser;with performance guidance 'information.
,
Procedure No. 0-04-01, R'. vision 5, June,'1989,." Material, Equipment, and _ Services Requisitioning," has been revised to apply 10 CFR Part 21-requirements.for all Procurement Level I items.
Procedure No.
- 0-04-01 islused in conjunc. tion with Procedure No. 0-04-04 when evalu-ating the procurement of parts and materials.
The inspector verified
!
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _......
.
.
.
.
6 that training has been given on the two procedures and that an audit has been performed by the licensee to ensure that the personnel understood the use and application of these procedures.
Validation of the C of C is described in procedure No. 0-04-3, Revi-sion 1, January 1990, " Request for Vendor Surveillances, Vendor Audits and Commercial Grade Surveys."
The inspector's review and evaluation of the above referenced procedures, discussions with engineering and procurement personnel, and the training courses given in support of these procedures were adequate to close the licensee proposed corrective action regarding this violation.
Closure of this violation does not provide NRC acceptance of the licensee's dedicated parts program.
The adequacy of the licensee's dedicated parts program and its implementation will be the subject of future NRC inspections.
This item is closed.
5.0 Exit Meeting Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspec-tion at a, entrance meeting conducted on September 24, 1990.
The findings of the inspector were discussed periodically with licensee representatives during the course of the inepection.
An exit was conducted on September 27,1990 (see Paragraph 1), at which time the findings of the inspector were presented.
At no time during the inspection did the inspector provide written mater-ial to the licensee nor did the licensee indicate that areas covered by this inspection contained proprietary information.
...._
..
.-
.
.
...
f9 s
u
.
ATTACHMENT A-Documentation Reviewed'
Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI) 50-309/90-80
Discrepancy Reporting Procedure (CRS-15), Procedure No. 0-16-3 Revision
No. 3, June 1990.
. Prior.ity: Categories (CR5-4)~, Procedure No.-0-16-03 Attachment G.
- Instrumentation and Controls Preventative Maintenance Activity Procedure,
-Procedure'No.'6-03-4.2, Revision 0, February 1990.
Functional Specification for A. Comprehensive, Maintenance History Records
- -
System for Maine Yankee, Procedure No. 20-3-7, Revision 4, December 1989.
'
. Control'of-Vendor Instruction Manuals, Procedure No. 0-06-7, Revision 2,
. *
.
' January.1990, e:
.
'.
,
[ '
'
l 0.
'
)
,
'a
.
'.
,