IR 05000423/1986025
| ML20212P863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1986 |
| From: | Finkel A, Jerrica Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212P862 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-86-25, NUDOCS 8609030317 | |
| Download: ML20212P863 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-423/86-25 Docket No.
50-423
,
License No. NPF-49 Category C Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P
O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: July 21-25, 1986 Inspectors:
A. Finkel, Lead Reactor Engineer grdat(
Approved by:
h d- )
klI/M
'
J. Vohnson, GP.ief, date Operational Programs Section, Operations Branch, DRS
,
Inspection Summary: Routine, unannounced inspection on July 21-25, 1986
!
(Inspection Report 50-423/86-25).
i Areas Inspected: Maintenance program and procedures, calibration control, quality assurance / quality control interfaces and licensee actions on licensee event reports.
.
Results: No violations were identified.
j
8609030317 860022 PDR ADOCK 05000423 G
.. - -
-
_,... - - -__... _- -.-
.. -...
- -. -.
..
. -.
. _..
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
- W. Romberg, Station Superintendent
- G. Closius, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. Crockett, Millstone Unit 3 Superintendent
- J. LaWare, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- F. Casella, Resident Inspector lhe inspector also held discussions with managers, supervisors and other licensee employees during the course of inspection, including operations technical and administrative personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on July 25, 1985.
2.
Maintenance and Instrumentation and Control Organization 2.1 Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed and evaluated the licensee's program control-ling safety-related maintenance and I&C activities to assess if the administrative controls established were consistent with the plant Technical Specification (TS), Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7 and Appendix B, Part 10 CFR 50. Documents reviewed are listed in Apper dix 1 to this report.
The Maintenance and Instrumentation supervisors are responsible for the overall conduct of maintenance activities at this site. The supervisors report directly to the Unit 3 Superintendent who reports to the Station Superintendent.
The Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) is used for tracking, trending and control of maintenance activities by both the Maintenance and the I&C supervisors. The planning groups under both supervisors plan and coordinate the activities that are to be performed by the mechanical, electrical and I&C areas and update the PMMS program when the tasks are completed.
Both preventive and corrective work orders are generated by the PMMS program as well as providing completed work order status dat.
.
The review and approval of the work order system generated by the PMMS program and reviewed by the Maintenance and I&C supervisors is to ensure that the operability and maintainability of a designated system before and after maintenance is not impaired.
The inspectors review of the PMMS verified that the Technical Speci-fication requirements for both preventive and corrective maintenance were identified and that the maintenance staff was complying with the listed scheduled dates.
No violations were identified.
3.
Maintenance and Instrumentation Control Activities 3.1 Program Implementation The inspector held discussions with the maintenance and I&C supervisors as well as managers in technical functions, quality assurance and pro-curement to evaluate controls in place to identify, schedule, track and doo.nent preventive and corrective maintenance. The work order (WO)
which is one of the documents that is an output of the Production Mair.tenance Management System (PMMS) is used for generating as well as tracki6g the maintenance and I&C activities.
The PM iS, an automatic maintenance management system, provides the following type of information:
A component data base containing equipment nameplate data, TS
-
schedules and maintenance status; Oa-line inquiry of Work Order status by component, work center
-
or system; f,torage of maintenance and I&C history by task, component and
-
system; Identification of maintenance backlog, priorities and approval
-
delays; Scheduling of Preventive and Corrective Maintenance tasks and
-
Technical Specification surveillances; and On-line updating on a per shift basis.
-
The PMMS program and the procedures associated with the program are prepared and issued by the licensee. The implementation of this program has been in operation during the 1986 year.
The inspector verified that the automatic maintennace management system portion of the PMMS was issuing the above outputs and that work orders were updated on-line by the maintenance staff.
No violations were identified.
3.2 Documentation Review and Equipment Inspected
_...
.
_ _.... _.
. _..
__
m..
...
_ _._
_ _...
7..
'
.
,
.
I i,
The inspector reviewed the records and work orders of selected safety--
related equipment to. verify that the following subject areas were con-
,!
trolled as required by TS and the Quality Assurance Program for this site.
.
i Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiation
-
i t
of work;
.
'
i Appropriate approved procedures, instructions and/or drawings were
-
used; Post maintenance testing was required prior to returning equipment
-
to service; Hold points were appropriately identified and implemented;
-
j Qualified test equipment and tools used were identified;
-
j Procedures and appropriate data sheets were properly completed;
-
!
- Acceptance criteria identified and complied with; and j
Records were assembled, stored and retrievable as part of the
-
maintenance and I&C history.
i
During the course of the above verification process the inspector j
inspected and made observations of the following in progress maintenance and I&C activities:
,
Verification of torque wrench 0-2000 lbs., No. 5837, Maintenance
-
Procedure 1154;
Anacon Ambient Air Monitoring hcl and HF Probes.
-
f j
These observations of the above listed items verified that the following
.
!
actions were accomplished:
'
Approved, up-to-date procedures were used;
-
Procedures were adequately detailed to assure satisfactory
-
,
performance; Properly specified parts and materials were identified;
-
Radiation protection controls were identified; and
-
.
,
Calibration equipment was listed when required.
<
-
i j
The inspector reviewed the qualification-records for the maintenance and I&C personnel performing the work order function and determined
'
.
that the personnel had received their required training for the last
/
year.
!
No violations were identified.
i
!
4.
Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program The Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) Program was reviewed to assess licen-
'
l see compliance with the requirements of the FSAR and the Quality Assurance
-
j program requirements.
!
!
i
!
. _,,... _. -. _ _,,, _ _,..
.
.
.....
. -
. -
_ _, _ _ _. _. _ _. _. ~. _ _ _.
.
.
A random examination of the M&TE equipment used by the maintenance personnel disclosed that the equipment sampled was within the required calibration dates and that the personnel using the equipment were knowledgeable of the require-ments for maintaining the calibration status of equipment. The records of the equipment were in an updated condition and in compliance with their pro-cedure ACP-QA-9.04, Control and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment, Revision 18, April 2, 1986. The responsibility for this procedure is the Unit 2 I&C supervisor, but it is also used by the Unit 3 Maintenance Group.
The inspector reviewed the equipment recall system and verified that the maintenance and I&C records for their sections were in compliance with their site procedures. The Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) main-tains the status of the recall system which is updated on a daily basis by the various sections. Using the latest PMMS run, pertaining to the M&TE records, the inspector verified that the equipment and dates were within the required calibration time window.
4.1 Trouble Reporting / Work Orders The Trouble Reporting System (TRS) is a method that the licensee 'ses for various departments to report problems.
It identifies the c apo-nent and the problem but does not, in itself, constitute a work order.
The TRS allows personnel to report, inquire, update and approve prob ^ ems requiring the generation of a work order and functions in the same manner as filling out a maintenance request. This informatior becomes part of work order (WO) where the request is processed further and a formal work order is issued and tracked as part of the Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS).
Work Orders are used to i:ontrol and document work (both QA and non QA) performed at Millstone.
In addition, the W0 system performs the following functions:
Report of failures / problems requiring corrective action;
-
Disposition of work requests including necessary approvals; I
-
- Aid in the determination and documentation of QC requirements; Documentation of retests or functional verifications performed;
,
-
(
and I
- Provide a means for inquiry of work scheduled, in progress or completed.
i The purpose and applicability of the Work Order procedure is defined in Administrative Control Procedure (ACP) ACP-QA-202C, Work Orders.
,
I l
No violations were identified.
l l
l l
.
.
i
.
-
5.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Quality Assurance representation is established both at the Millstone site and at the corporate level, located in Berlin, Connecticut. However, both corporate and on-site QA groups are totally separate from each other, in that they report organizationally under different Vice Presidents. On-site QA activities are controlled by the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO),
whereas corporate QA is part of the Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO). Both NNECO and NUSCO Vice Presidents report to the same Senior Vice President. NNECO QA activities are governed under Administrative Control Procedures (ACP) and NUSCO QA follows Nuclear Quality Assurance procedures (NQA).
The audits that were performed on the maintenance functior :; the site were by the NUSCO organization and were in accordance with Nuclear Quality Assurance procedure (NQA) 2.06, Revision 1, June 26, 1986, titled, "A Con-duct, Reporting and Follow-Up of Audits." The following audits were se-lected by the inspector for compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.144 Auditing of Quality Assurance Programs for Nuclear Power Plant September, 1980, ANSI N45.2.12, 1977 and NVQAP Topical Report:
Audit A-40970 Maintenance of Environmentally Qualified Electrical
-
Equipment by NNECO, March 13, 1985 r.o May 31, 1985; and Audit A-40975 Millstone Unit 3 Matccial Equipment Parts List (MEPL),
-
February 27, 1986.
Audit findings identified in the above audit reports have been closed ex-cept for one finding which is identified in the Commitment Follow-Up Pro-gram. This program which is part of the Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) tracks various types of commitments.
No violations were identified.
6.
Licensee Event Reports (LER)
To assure that the licensee's LER program is in compliance with the re-quirements of "10 CFR 50.73 Licensee Event Reporting System (a) Reportable Events," the inspector selected the following LER's for review and evalua-tion:
LER-86-29, Area Temperature Monitoring, ES-07 exceeded specified limit; LER-86-31, CBI Signal from Chlorine Detector B Train failure due to non performance of required bi-weekly PM program;
LER-86-36, Unperformed modification to battery charger 301A-2 for seismic event; i
i r
-,
.
-_
.._s_.m.
., _ _ _. _ _..
-
-.
.
r..
_~_ -._
. _, _
-
, - -.- -
-
.
.
LER-86-37, CBI Signal from Chlorine Detector A Train failure due to an accumulation of dirt on surface of probe sensing element; LER-86-38, Pressure Boundary Violation, a 4 inch" electrical penetration in a wall of the Main Stem Valve Building (MSVB) was not sealed under the scope of the work order.
The above listed LER's have been corrected however, the following condi-tions are to be addressed by the licensee:
LER 86-36 Unperformed modification to battery charger 301A-2. A temp-
-
erature change has been made to Static Inverte, 3VBA*INV-3 and adja-cent cabinet 5BYS*CHRG-3 per Engineering and Design Coordination Re-port (E&CCR) #T-J-07629, June 10,1985.
To resolve a potential seis-mic concern, the two referenced cabinets have been strapped together with three separate x 20 GA.
(MIN) banding straps with shims placed between the top and bottom of the cabinets.
This in effect prevents the cabirets from hitting each other during a seismic event. A per-manent design is required, and is listed on the Commitment Follow-Up
?"ogram chart of the PMMS systers which is the tracking method pre-1ntly being used by the licensee. The three other D.C. electrical sources, 301A-1, 3018-1 and 301B-2 have been corrected early in the prog am.
The permanent modification to the 125 volt Battery Charger 301A 2 is being followed by the licensee using their Commitment Fol-low-Jp Program.
The final seismic installation of the battery charger is an unresolved item and will be evaluated by the NRC during a future inspection (50-423/86-25-01).
7.
Chlorine Monitor The licensee uses the Anacon Chlorine Detector in the Control Building ven-tilation system supply air duct, train A and B, to protect their operating personnel from Chlorine Gases.
On April 19, 1986, Chlorine Detector B Train, gave a Control Building Iso-lation (CBI) signal.
Isolation of the Control Building pressure envelope occurred properly and the Control Building ventilation system was placed into filtered recirculation per the requirements of Plant Technical Speci-fications.
On May 10 and May 12, 1986, with the plant in hot standby, a Control Build-ing Isolation (CBI) signal was received from the Control Building ventila-tion system supply air duct Chlorine Detector A Train as defined above, isolation of the Control Building occurred.
_
.
.
In each of the above LER's the cause of the isolation of the Control Build-ing was the result of failure of the Chlorine Detector caused by probe dry-out and accumulation of dirt on the surface of the probe. To preclude recurrence of the above problems the licensee has modified the surveillance of the Chlorine Detector to include a weekly rotation of the in-service detector with a cleaned and calibrated spare replacement detector.
The I&C supervisor had issued a Plant Modification Request (PMR3-06-371) to remove the CGI input signal from the Chlorine Monitor 3HVC A/B. The rea-son for removal was based on the removal of the chlorine tank cars from the site.
Plant Modification Request (PMR 3-8-150) was issued per a telecon from the chlorine detector manufacturer Anacon. The manufacturer states that the detector should be mounted in an upright position with the sensing tip down and a method to deflect dirt from the sensor probe. The Millstone 3 design has the sensor probe mounted in a horizontal position. This posi-tion allows the electrolyte level of the sensor probe to run out and short-en the life of the device. During this inspection period two more failures of the the chlorine probe occurred which was analyzed as lack of electro-
.
lyte fluid in the probe and dirt on the sensor.
The inspector witnessed the installation and removal of the chlorine detector and verified that the detector was installed in the horizontal position as shown on the as built drawings and not as recommended by the manufacturer Anacon in their letter of July 2,1986.
The inspector determined that the licensee was taking appropriate actions to resolve this problem and had no further questions at this time.
No violations were identified.
8.
Unresolved Item An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, violation or deviation.
An unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 6.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee management representatives (see section 1.0 for attendees) at an exit meeting on July 25, 1986.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at tnat time.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto.
P
.
.
APPENDIX 1 Administrative Control Procedures ACP-QA-1.01 Millstone Administration Revision 5, November 12, 1985 ACP-QA-1.02 Organization and Responsibilities, Revision 18, July 8,1986 ACP-QA-1.06 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program, Revision 8, December 24, 1984 ACP-QA-2.02C Work Ceders, Rev'sion 10, May 31, 1986 ACP-QA-2.08 Preventive Mairtenance (Reference Maintenance Procedure 6402)
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Procedures and Records NUSCO No. NQA-2.06 Quality Assurance Branch Procedure, Revision 1, June 26, 1986, Conduct, Reporting &
Follow-Up of Audits.
NNECO Surveillance Report No. S86-046, July 21, 1986, Aux. Building-Electrical Penetration Area.
NNECO Surve1' lance Report No. S86-041, May 30, 1986, Aux. Building Electrical Penetretion Area.
Site Plant Modification 9equest No, 3314 F, March 86-371, Rework of Chlorine Monitor (CBI).
i
,
,
,