ML20029C250

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of in Response to NRC Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-231/90-80
ML20029C250
Person / Time
Site: Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date: 03/19/1991
From: Durr J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Mroczka E
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 9103270055
Download: ML20029C250 (2)


See also: IR 05000231/1990080

Text

._

_

. . _

_ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

p-

-.

.

s ... -

,

i'

i

l

MAR 101991

,

'

Docket No. 50-213

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

ATTN: Mr. E. J. Mroczka

Senior Vice President - Nuclear

Engineering and Operations Group

P.O. Box 270

Hartford, Connecticut 06141

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Inspection 50-213/90-80

-This refers to your letter dated January:11,1991, in response to our letter

.

dated December 12,.1990.

.

Thank you _ for informing us- of tSe corrective and preventive actions documented

in your letter. 'These actions will be examined during a future-inspection of

your licensed program.

,

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

Sincerely,

-

'

cp

. it

.

.g

. , v 1.

,

Jacque P. Durr, Chief

Engineering Branch

,

Division of Reactor Safety

'

cc w/ enc 1:

.W. D.-Romberg,~Vice President, Nuclear Operations

J. P. Stetz, 5:ation Director (Receives 2.790.Information)..

-D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services

R. M. Kacich, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing

S._ E. Scace,; Station Director, Millstone

Gerald-Garfield, Esquire

K. Abraham, _ PAO:(30)-SALP Reports and (2) All. Inspection Reports

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local = Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear l Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident. Inspector

' State of_ Connecticut

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

RL HN 90-80 - 0001.0.0

J:

.

02/21/91

9103270055 910319.

T,

' PDR - ADOCK 05000213;

"

O-

PDR

IC '. (J T

'

.

.

.

_..._ ___.._.__ . _. _ ...__._ _ _ __. _,

.

. -

__

. ~ - , -

1

l

!aAR 101991

.

.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 2

.

bec w/ enc 1:

4

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)

(-

R. Bellamy, DRSS

f

DRP Section Chief

g

M. Conner, SALP Reports Only

J. Shediosky, SRI, Haddam Neck

W. Raymond, SRI, Millstone

J. Caldwell, EDO

r

A. Wang, PM, NRR

i

>

s-

!

q.

  1. f

&

RI:DRS

R

RS

RI:DRS

Prividy

E

Durr

2/25/91

24[/91

J//9'/91

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

RL HN 90-80 - 0002,0.0

02/21/91

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

.

4

NOttTHEAST UTILITIES

'

c.n.,.i ore,ce. . som.n sir.1. e.rnn. conn.cocui

' " * *

J C,[$,'[".7.7, .'c'$'.,

HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

L

L 1

(203) 665-5000

j

January 11, 1991

Docket No. 50 213

B13711

Re:

Response to Inspection

Report No. 50-213/90 80

'

Mr. T. T. Martin

Region I Administrk w

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

475 Allendale Road

i

King of Prussia, PA 19406

Reference:

M.

W.

Hodges letter to

E.

J.

Mroczka,

"NRC Region I

Inspection Report No.

50-213/90 80,"

dated December 12,

1990.

Dear Mr. Martin:

Haddam Neck Plant

Inspection Report No. 50-213/90-80

Resovese to Notice of Violation

On December 12,1990 (reference), the NRC Staff transmitted to Connecticut

Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) Inspection Report No. 50 213/90-80.

As discussed in the Inspection Report, the NRC Staff cited CYAPC0 for one

violation of the Commission's regulations for fai mre to assure that

conditions adverse to quality were promptly corrected and failure to aesure

corrective action taken to preclude repetition was adequate.

In addition,

this Inspection Report identified several weaknesses in the effectiveness

of maintenance activities at the Haddam Neck Plant.

Pursuant to 10CFR2.201, and in accordance with the instructions contained

in the Ir.spection Report, CYAPC0 hereby provides the attached information

.

in response to the Notice of Violation cited- in the Inspection Report.

This information is provided as Attachment 1.

CYAPCO's response to the

maintenance program weaknesses identified in this Inspection Report will be

provided to the NRC Staff in a subsequent submittal in accordance with the

instructions provided in the Inspection Report,

osuu nev.4 es

gg,

.

..

~

.-

>

. . .

.

.

.

Mr. T. T. Martin

B13711/Page 2

'

January- 11, 1991

We trust you will find the attached information satisfactory and we remain

available to answer any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

'

'-

FOR:

E. J. Mroczka

Senior Vice President

BY:

M'2_

C. F. Sears

Vice President

M. W. Hodges, Director, Division of Reactor Safety

cc:

A. B. Wang, NRC Project. Manager, Haddam Neck Plant

J.'T. Shediosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Attention: Document Control Desk

Washington, DC 20555

,

e

,

. '

i

i

__

__

b

.

.

>

.

Docket No. 50-213

B13711

Attachment 1

.

Haddam Neck Plant

Pesponse to Notice of Violation

,

l

January 1991

- - _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I

i

.

4

Attachment 1

B13711/Page 1

January 11, 1991

Haddam Neck Plant

Resoons! to Notice of Violation

1.

Offerietion o_f_. Violation

10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI stater in part, that " Measures

shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality

are oromptly identified and corrected

and corrective

...

.

. .

action take.1 to preclude repetition."

Contrary to the above, as of September 21, 1990, the licenne's

measures established to assure that condition adverse to quality are

promptly correctr f and corrective action taken to preclude repetition

were inadequate a. evidenced by the following.

Quality

Services

Department

memorandum

CY-QSD 90-Ill7,

dated

February 2,1990, reported to plant management various 1989 work order

deficiencies, such as poor cocumentation and procedure deviations,

that required corrective action.

HowcVer, the licensee's actions to

promptly correct these deficiencies have not been adequate since

similar deficiencies in various 1990 completed work 9rder documents

3

!

were identified where the documentation of the work performed or the

'

retest conducted was either incomplete or nondescriptive.

-

2.

Reason for Viciation

This violation occurred due to lack of attention to detail by first

line supervision and inadequate management oversight of this function.

'

3.

Corrective Action

The issue of work order package documotation deficiencies has been

discussed with maintenance supervisors,

li.sse dis::ussions, with those

who are responsible for ensuring package completeness, have heightened

the awareness of tiie importece of thorough and complete work order

package documentation,

and have emphasized appropriate procedures

including Maintenance Department procedure HA

1.5-1,

' Work Order

Preparation,

Work Control,

and Documentation."

Deficiencies

on

completed, closed out work orders cannot be corrected.

If proper

documentation was not performed at the time the work was done,

reconstructing is uncertain at best.

CYAPC0 has taken action to

prevent recurrence as described below.

4.

Corrective Actions to Prevent Recurrence

Throughout 1991, the Mai

lance Manager will be performing random

reviews of completed work order packages.

In addition, a series of

,

1

- ______ - _ _ --

._

_

_ .

. . _ _ - _ _ . - . _ _ . - __.__-_._.___._-_. _ ____-. __

.

,. .

.

.

!

Attachment 1

,

B13711/Page 2

January 11, 1991

work order reviews will be performed by a task force made up of

maintenance personnel from each of our four nuclear units.

The

Quality Services Department will- continue to review a sampling of

-completed work order packages.

We expect these efforts will achieve

improvement in the very near future, and full compilance by the end of

September, 1991.

We expect that this increased level of internal review of work order

packages will achieve the desired result, and alleviate the concern

over reducing QSD involvement in the verk order process.

We feel

strongly that it is important for the per;ple doing work to do it

properly and that there should not be a need for others to ensure it

is done.

Specifically, the supervisors will complete the work order -

documentation thoroughly, and QSD will not -be needed to . review each

package prior to filing,

u

<

d

_ , ,

..,..J..

. _ .

-.

-

,

--

- - ' - ' ' " *

~

' " ' ~ " "

'