ML20054C175
| ML20054C175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Randazza J Maine Yankee |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204200191 | |
| Download: ML20054C175 (25) | |
Text
-
APR 011982 38 Docket No. 50-309 s
/
g.
..c.
ATTN: Mr. John Randazza 2
't - "l? ' '
Maine Yankee Atanic Power Company
~
.c37.7 -
Vice President 9
T9 4
83 Edison Drive O
^
'),qijM Augusta, Maine 04336 7
e.g.# 9 l
\\
/\\kg Gentlemen:
f
Subject:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
This refers to the SALP perfomed by this office on Septen6er 15,1981 regarding the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station and to the discussions of our findings held with your staff en October 14, 1981. That SALP covers the period of July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981.
The attached SALP report for your facility is being issued and distributed in accordance with recently established NRC policy. Although this report was prepared under previous criteria, the results have been reclassified under present guidance.
No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, Crisinal Sicned By:
Ronald C. Haynes Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
SALP - Evaluation Report cc w/ encl:
- 3. H. Garrity, Senior Director, Nuclear Engineering and Licensing E. C. Wood, Plant Manager E. W. Thurlow, President R. H. Groce, Senior Engineer, Licensing J. A. Ritsher, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR) tiuclear Safety Information Center (14 SIC) 11RC Resident Inspector l
State of Maine C. lielson, NRR, LPM
"~
B204200191 820401 hDRADOCK 05000309 Q{
g PDR R QPR M.f. RI.:.DP l.R,I:D P
.l,RI;PRP.
[RI:DEP,ADM.l..RI;REGgDM,!j j,
J.Keimi StarosteckiiAllan Hayne g
" " Ga1
.[.Qru nn. r,.
J# 76..,t.,%;$h...l.. 4.1,. N?..W..!.
.1 4
ar&.. i
.j..&#..i
""5 rowmes overcigwg cao cgv y
l Maine Yankee Atossic Power 2
5 0 1 199g W1 bec w/ enc 1:
Region ! Docket Room (with concum)
Chief. Operational Support Section (w/o encis) i 4
1 l
1 f
t I
t I
\\
s N
i L
J
3 MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Maine Yankee Region I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Evaluation Period:
7/1/80 - 6/30/81 Board Date:
September 15, 1981
3 FOREWARD The Region I SALP Board performed this assessment prior to the decision of the fiuclear Regulatory Cormissicn to revise the f4RC's program of Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance. An ir.portant change in this revision was to retitle and redefine the performance categories.
This change affords better characterization of the staff's evaluations of licensee performance.
These revised performance categories were used for this report. The SALP Bocrd formally evaluated the licensee's performance l'efore the revised guidance was available.
These initial rankings were subsequently equated with and ccnverted to the new performance categories without fornally reconvening the Board.
The performance categories are to be printed in the Federal Register within a few weeks.
Each functional area evaluated is characterized as being in one of tia following categories:
a.
Ca tego ry_1 :
Reduced fiRC attention may be appropriate.
Licensee r,anagement attention and involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level of per-formance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
b.
Ca tegory_2_:
fiRC attention should be maintained at nornal levels.
Licensee nanagement attention and involver.ent are evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and are reescnably effective such that satisfactory perforrance with respect to operational i
A safety or construction is being achieved.
c.
Category 3:
Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased.
Licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not effectively used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construc-tion is being achieved.
In characterizing the licensee's performance in a functional ' area as being in one of the Categories, performance is evaluated against the following criteria:
a.
Management involvement in assuring auality, b.
Approach to resolution of technical issues from safety standpoint, c.
Responsiveness to NRC initiatives, d.
Enforcement history, e.
Reporting and analysis of reportable events, f.
Staffing (including management), and g.
Training effectiveness and qualification.
ii
A MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle 11 Maine Yankee Performance Evaluation Report September 15, 1981 REGION I LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Facility:
Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance 50-309 DPR-36/ September 15, 1972 Reactor Information:
NSSS Combustion Engineering MWt 2630 Appraisal Period: July 1, 1980 - June 30, 1981 Appraisal Completion Date:
September 15, 1981 Review Board Members:
G. Requa, Licensing Project Manager, NRR R. R. Keimig, Chief, Projects Branch #2, DRPI, Region I J. H. Joyner, Chief, Technical Inspection Branch, DETI, Region I G. H. Smith, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Operational Support, Region I l
W.J. Lazarus, Senior Resident Inspector (Acting),
Maine Yankee Other Attendees:
P.D. Swetland, Resident Inspector, Maine Yankee
{
l l
T MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle ZI PERFORMANCE DATA A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items 1.
Noncompliance Category:
Violations 0
Infractions 4
Deficiencies 1
Deviations
_4 Totals 23 2.
Areas of Noncompliance:
(Tabulated on Page 2-6)
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Reports 1.
Tabular Listing:
Type of Events:
A.
Personnel Error 5
B.
Design / Man./Const./ Install.
1 C.
External Cause 0
D.
Defective Procedure 3
E.
Component Failure 6
X.
Other
_2 Totals 17 Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report Nos.):
Report No. 80-14/01X-1 through 81-011/03L-1 Security Event Reports Reviewed:
None Reported 2.
Causal Analysis (Review Period July 1,1979 through June 30, 1981)
LER's 80-17, 81-3, 81-6, 81-7, and 81-11 are related in that all involve personnel error / procedural inadequacy and they fall into the category of Technical Specification compliance.
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties:
None Orders:
A generic Order for Modification of License was issued October 24, 1980, concerning environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment.
Immediate Action Letters:
None D.
Management Conferences Held 1.
Meeting held at Maine Yankee site on October 16, 1980 to discuss the results of SALP Cycle 1.
2.
Meeting held at Region I on May 18, 1981 to discuss corrective action for a containment leak and unplanned release from April 8-17, 1981.
E.
Licensee Activities The plant operated at power from 7/1/80 to 5/8/81, except for two forced outages 9/15/80 - 9/18/80 and 12/8/80 - 12/20/80 caused by reactor coolant pump seal failure. A refueling outage was conducted 5/9/81 - 7/20/81.
F.
Inspection Activities One NRC resident inspector was onsite for the entire appraisal period.
A second region based NRC inspector was onsite 40% of the period.
The Health Physics Appraisal was conducted in January 1981.
G.
Investigations:
Allegations regarding security force weapons qualification were investigated by a region-based security specialist in June, 1981. The allegations were not substantiated.
An anonymous allegation regarding the qualifications of the Quality Assurance Supervisor and unqualified personnel assigning hold points was investigated by the Senior Resident Inspector. The allegation concerning assignment of hold points by Level II inspectors was substantiated but was determined to be an acceptable practice.
1 MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II H.
Cycle 1/ Cycle 2 SALP Overlap (7/1/80-8/31/80)
One item of noncompliance and one LER were statistically recounted in Cycle 2.
There are no other significant occurrences during the overlap period.
G CCC C
O N
O C CCC O
O N2 O
CC CCe O
O O
O OO OO O
O oe
-OO a
e a W Ob C -C NO e
e O
O C
e-COC O
O Cc Ob-
- J W tt W.
to O oO>
0CC C
C C
C CCCO O
O OC O
e L
V O
C 6
m O
L W
C C
2 0
OCC C
C O
C CO O O O
O CO d
C a
m V N
C fu o
e CC O
C C
e CCC C
e-Cc ll E
9 O
W O
O-0>
0 N O
to C
0 >~
mCC C
C C
e OC O-O C
eC C
e-Z U
m m
.J h
tQ a
a-E r O OO O
C O
C CCC-C C
Oe O
m 6-0 3
O C
O O
L
O C
C C C OC O
C CO -
to od u ao e O
CCO C
O O
O OCCC C
O CO >=
ed N ec
&M C
W OC 6
- - O ON a-f5 M VO OOW O-
-OL eNen N
r-D O
ONND N
O
-O 4a3 CO.P-O 3
C O
C
- N Ch3 3
5 N
Lb WWO M
M N
CU G) C r a
O
>-C C
=
V G1 C
to 4
o W
aC 1
-4E sJ M
V
-to to C
C d
w 6
ce to C
O Le C
4)
C E
O C
O a
E C W E
o
>Q Q
W W O L
O-4
.m a oV U
4 O
C M -
W L
C es O C L oh C
e5 4
(
m 4O 4
fc C
CJ m
OC s' t C =
0 C
w W
E C
W C
-- es
~
x C
4 ME C L C
s O
C o
<(
W *J C
4 O
L cc c W
=
m-u:
Li C
C L 4
C CQ A
C' b )
C d
C C et C
f5 O
W WdC 0
et C O
O
-V C
O E
C 6
CW OWC 6M m
L0 g
Z en
+J C C
+J C &C L es - eta eJ v 3a 4
Z ee e C C O OC CO a 3 *J u 4 CW mC C
VC C
L o C
=W c-en -
te C >
LC L 0; >c c
C-J h
L C C C cc
-C
- J C.C & CCw 0 0 >
ME-- C VE E -
- C CC cc CL O C O ec OOL E C W
- J WC M-03 C-A W
Cl-C -C C3 L0 0 --C C C-W-
-L O4 W
bo J C-OQ C m%
ra to W L k 3- -. -*J >
C CL LO
-C CV GE C-M *J C C C L to Q O -
.C
-O kO en 3D E-U -
to 9
C:
-O
=
0 C
C 2 C > +2 mO OW---- - C C OV 4J EC L C. 4 0
h O
e O
cc 6--
LW LC L
WVV V c:
> E C 3OV6 OCO OW OO Z
6 e
cc 3C CL-- O o O tu en L CwW 4 cc <C c O 6>-
O-O 4J A REM >~A C 6.C Q E Z L MW A Q.
O
- 4. r It J
C a.N m
a
=
30e E tn w
Nm2 D
4 to Ch er-~
~
w
=
f 1
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Category Category Category Functional Areas 1
2 3
1.
Plant Operations x
2.
Refueling Operations x
i 3.
Maintenance x
4.
Surveillance and Inservice Testing x
l l
5.
Personnel, Training, and Plant x
Procedures 6.
Fire Protection and Housekeeping x
j 7.
Design Changes and Modifications x
8.
Radiation Protection, Radioactive 1
Waste Management and Transportation x
i 9.
Environmental Protection x
l 10.
)
- 11. Security and Safeguards x
l
- 12. Audits, Reviews, and Committee l
Activities x
2
- 13. Administration, QA, and Records x
- 14. Corrective Actions and Reporting x
l f
1 i
I
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle Il 1.
Plant Operations a.
Cycle 1 Plant Operations including operator responses to non-routine operational occurrences (equipment failures, inadvertent safety injection actuation, etc.) were adequate.
Two instances of damage to plant equipment occurred due to operator error / procedural inadequacy (damaged containment spray pump:
LER 79-23 and chloride intrusion into RCS from improper performance of a surveillance test).
b.
Cycle 2 (381 Hours, 22%)
Resident Inspectors identified six items of noncompliance in this area.
(1)
Infraction - Failure to document permission to release equipment f rom service (4 examples)
(2) Infraction - Failure to obtain approval and tagout power supplies prior to maintenance (3) Level V - Failure to review and document the blocking of safety system functions.
(4) Level IV - Failure to identify and correct containment leak rate in excess of Technical Specification limit.
(5) Level IV - Failure to maintain decay heat removal capability in accordance with Technical Specifications.
(6) Level IV - Failure to filter containment purge gases prior to release.
An inadvertent plant trip was caused by an unsupervised trainee improperly performing surveillance.
The number of non-compliances may be contributed to increased inspection coverage as a result of the resident inspection program.
However, the increased number of personnel error / management control related vic'.ations of technical specifications may be related to a re oced personnel experience level due to recent promotions, i'.reased personnel turnover, and the accelerated operator training program.
= -
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II c.
Conclusion Category 2 2.
Refueling Operations a.
Cycle 1 i
Several significant operational events occurred during the January -
February 1980 refueling outage as noted below:
(1) CE worker fell into the Spent Fuel Pool (he removed the safety line so he could perform his work more easily).
(2) An irradiated fuel assembly was reloaded into the core, set down off its alignment pins and subsequently fell over (due to inadequate refueling machine procedure and inadequate refueling cavity water clarity).
(3) CEA inadvertently withdrawn from a fuel assembly (refueling machine grapple operate zone limit switches not set properly or operator failed to follow procedure).
(4) Two noncompliances concerning failure to follow an RWP and audible count rate not in service.
b.
Cycle 2 (72 Hours, 4%)
Resident and regional inspection in this area during the May -
July 1981 refueling identified no items of noncompliance.
The licensee implemented more supervision and management coordination of this refueling outage. The procedural modifications that were made and the absence of off-normal conditions such as poor reactor cavity water clarity resulted in no significant refueling related events.
c.
Conclusion Category 1 3.
Maintenance a.
Cycle 1 A regular maintenance inspection in accordance with MC 62700 has not been done since December 1977.
Resident inspector followup has generally determined adequate maintenance practices.
1
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II b.
Cycle 2 (103 Hours, 6%)
The resident inspectors identified two items of noncompliance.
(1) Deficiency Failure to complete the report required by the yard crane inspection procedure.
(2) Level IV The licensee performed maintenance of safety equipment without a procedure or maintenance request.
Regional inspection of this area identified no items of noncompliance.
Safety significant problems are corrected in a timely fashion but the backlog of maintenance items leads to delayed correction of less significant items.
(e.g., packing leaks, annunciator malfunctions) c.
Conclusion Category 2 4.
Surveillance and Inservice Testing a.
Cycle 1 One noncompliance (failure to test redundant safeguards equipment during maintenance) and one significant event (injection of chloride contaminated water from Spray Chemical Addition Tank during HPSI testing) occurred during the appraisal interval.
No patterns suggesting increased inspections are necessary have been identified.
b.
Cycle 2 (42 Hours, 2%)
Regional inspection identified one item of noncompliance.
Infraction Failure to calibrate gauges for safety related equipment; and conversion charts for safety related measurements not certified accurate, or approved.
I Resident inspectors have observed surveillance testing frequently.
Testing is performed at the required frequency in accordance with technically adequate procedures.
Identified discrepancies are corrected promptly.
A major revision of the Inservice Testing Program was implemented during this cycle.
.. _ =
I MVAPCo (Maine Yankee) l SALP Cycle !!
c.
Conclusion l
Category 1 5.
Personnel, Training, and Plant Procedures a.
Cycle 1 No routine training inspections have been conducted (MC 41700).
j.
Special inspections in this area for TMI Short Term Lessons Learned have not identified any shortcomings. Most recent license exams had all applicants pass with fairly high scores.
4 l
Several operational / refueling incidents which were the result of personnel errors, inadequate procedures, and lack of management attention.
b.
Cycle 2 (61 Hours, 4%)
Personnel error and procedural deficiencies contributed to six licensee events, three of which resulted in Level IV noncompliances listed under Plant Operations.
The licensee's management practices are based on the previous experience, work-load, and quality of its 4
personnel.
The accelerated operator training program (to meet July 1982 staffing requirements) has reduced the experience level at which new operators are licensed and experienced reactor operators have been rotated off-shift to SR0 training programs. Additionally, personnel turnover has increased the workload and reduced the experience level of site personnel.
The training of non-licensed personnel is largely on-the-job type training.
T e reduced experience combined i
with increased workload and proced' al implementation designed for more experienced personnel results on personnel error / procedural inadequacy related occurrences.
No routine programmatic training inspection was conducted during Cycle 2.
The June 1981 NRC licensing exams showed a high failure rate for the SR0 exam.
(3 of 7 passed with I not recommended) l c.
Conclusion Category 2 6.
Fire Protection and Housekeeping l
a.
Cycle 1 Routine inspections (MC 42703) in this area January 1978 and January 1979 uncovered weaknesses in the licensee's training / drill requirements and implementation. The indication is that while no specific noncompliance was identified the fire protection training program is marginally satisfactory and could be improved.
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II b.
Cycle 2 (46 Hours, 3%)
Regional inspection of this area identified two deviations from licensee commitments.
(1) Failure to lock and administratively control fire protection system yard main valves.
(2) Failure to complete modifications (2) committed to in the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report.
The fire protection training program onsite has been upgraded; including more frequent and more extensive exercises.
Housekeeping and cleanliness have been a noteworthy strength, c.
Conclusion Category 1 7.
Design Change and Modifications a.
Cycle 1 The last regular inspection in this area (October, 1979) identified one minor unresolved item (subsequently cleared) concerning location of documentation to support a completed PDCR.
The licensee identified one noncompliance in this area in which a i
plant design change (installation of an additional valva in a Safety Injection Tank recirc line) was accomplished without a PDCR and the
~
associated reviews.
i b.
Cycle 2 (50 Hours, 3%)
f Inspections by resident and a specialist inspector identified two items of noncompliance.
l (1) Level IV -
Modification of containment sampling i
equipment without an approved Plant Alteration.
(2) Level V Failure to identify nonconforming status of component cooling pipe supports.
1 The licensee frequently modifies design change packages based on verbal contacts with design engineers.
No formal method of documenta-tion of these changes or approval of these changes occurs until final processing of the package, which often occurs after the system is returned to operation. Because of this lack of stringent' controls, the potential for operation of a system with incomplete design i
changes exists.
I a
L
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee) c SALP Cycle XI c.
Conclusion Category 2 8.
Radiation Protection, Radioactive Waste Management, and Transportation a.
Cycle 1 (1) Radiation Protection No significant noncompliances or program shortcomings have been identified, however, there appears to be a philosophy of making RWP protection requirements vague so that noncompliance is difficult to prove.
(2) Radioactive Waste Management No major noncompliances or program shortcomings have been identified.
(One noncompliance, lack of procedure for baling machine, has been corrected.)
(3) Transportation Several minor discrepancy reports were issued to Maine Yankee from the burial site (Barnwell, South Carolina). One signficant report involved shipment of a HN-100 cask which left the site properly restrained but reached Barnwell without the necessary chains, binders, or tie-downs. Apparently the driver had re-adjusted the tie-downs after leaving the site and they subsequently worked loose. One noncompliance was identified during an inspection at Barnwell:
Improperly marked LSA shipment.
b.
Cycle 2 (340 Hours, 20%)
(1) Radiation Protection During the period under review there was one HP inspection by a regional inspector during refueling operations and routine inspections were performed by the resident inspector.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
A Health Physics Appraisal was performed in January 1981.
Several areas were identified as needing improvement. Weaknesses were identified in the areas of organizational structure, personnel resources, procedures (e.g. instrument calibration, use of protective clothing, issuance of RWP's) and air sampling programs.
_.-. =
.-~
~
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle XI P
(2) Radioactive Waste Management J
I The Health Physics Appraisal revealed deficiencies in several areas, including the need to:
(a) establish personnel responsi-4
(
bilities to provide for overall coordination of the program, (b) revise the calibration procedures for process and area monitors, (c) ensure that information required on the licensee's Radioactivity Release Permits is properly recorded, and (d) determine the effects of line losses on monitor results.
(3) T_ransportation Three shipments were inspected by a Region II inspector at the Barnwell, South Carolina burial site. No items of noncompliance were identified.
In the course of the Health Physics Appraisal, a weakness was identified in the licensee's procedures for handling and shipment of radioactive waste in that additional detail was nepded on shipping regulations, burial site criteria
]
and method used for determining the activity in containers.
The resident inspector identified one item of noncompliance.
Infraction - Failure to follow Radwaste Shipping procedure.
c.
Conclusion i
Category 2 9.
Environmental Protection a.
Cycle 1 The last routine inspection in this area was in February,1979.
b.
Cycle 2 (22 Hours, 1%)
One region based inspection was conducted in April 1981. No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Conclusion Category 2
- 10. Emergency Preparedness j
a.
Cycle 1 No inspection of facilities, equipment, and offsite agencies has not been conducted since December 1978.
Licensee is presently completing revisions to the plan to implement new requiremerts.
4 1
,,,_.m__
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II 1
i I
b.
Cycle 2- (92 Hours, 5%)
Resident inspectors observed the conduct of the annual emergency drill in December 1980.
No significant deficiencies were noted.
t Review of the Emergency Preparedness program was conducted during the Health Physics Appraisal in January 1981. The inspection included administration of the Emergency Plan, organization, training, facilities and equipment, and procedures.
Four administrative deficiencies and one technical issue regarding post-accident sampling capability were identified. The Emergency Plan was revised on April 1,1981 to meet the requirements of NUREG 0654.
The Public Emergency Alerting System (PEAS) was installed and operationally tested the week of July 27-30, 1981.
The delay beyond the scheduled i
July 1, 1981 date was due to delays in the receipt of equipment from vendors involved.
An Emergency Preparedness appraisal is scheduled to be completed during Cycle III.
c.
Conclusion Category 1 1
- 11. Security and Safeguards a.
Cycle 1 A recent regional inspection in this area uncovered three noncompliances in the security program. The inspector was unable to perform detailed inspections in any particular area due to time restrictions. However, the impressions was that an in-depth inspection may uncover more significant weaknesses in the program.
I b.
Cycle 2 (246 Hours, 14%)
l Five physical protection inspections were conducted during the evaluation period. The resident inspectors also periodically reviewed security program functions.
Eight items of noncompliance were identified.
(1) Level IV -
Failure of alarm system sensors l
t t
I
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II (2) Level III -
Failure to comply with access control requirements.
(3) Level V Failure to maintain required alarm coverage.
(4) Level V Failure to update a required card-key authorization listing.
(5) Level V Failure of security systems to have battery back-up power supplies.
Two inspections were in response to a strike by the licensee guard force.
The licensee followed their contingency plan and no violations were identified.
Management support and supervision of the security program reflect a weak commitment to this area.
During this period a breakdown in the security program occurred which resulted in one Level III noncompliance.
Licensee reaction and weak initial corrective action indicated a lack of comprehension of the significance of the incident.
The licensee must expend more effort in the administration of people, equipment, procedures and systems performance in order to identify and correct weaknesses in the overall Physical Protection Program.
A new security contractor has been hired and stabilization bas occurred.
c.
Conclusion Category 3
- 12. Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities a.
Cycle 1 Lack of depth or substance in 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. Most consist only of a conclusion that no unreviewed safety questions exists, without first giving a basis for that conclusion.
Reviews of operational events by PORC are generally too shallow to adequately address the causes and long term corrective 3ctions which may be necessary.
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee) l SALP Cycle II b.
Cycle 2 (45 Hours, 3%)
1 j
Resident inspection in the areas of committee activities and 10 CFR 7
50.59 safety evaluations (including attendance at selected PORC meetings) revealed that safety evaluations for design changes /
1 modifications are adequate using the body of the modification package as technical justification for the conclusion.
Safety evaluations for procedures do not document a basis for concluding that no unreviewed i
safety question exists, however no instances were identified in r
1 which an unreviewed safety question did exist. The lack of timely reporting (Plant Information Reports) of operational events removes the PORC from an advisory role with respect to corrective actions although they subsequently concur in the action taken.
l No noncompliances were identified in the audit program but the failure to identify or correct programmatic problems in the areas of security, radiation protection and plant operations may be related to a weakness in this area, i
c.
Conclusion t
Category 2
- 13. Administrative, QA and Records a.
Cycle 1 J
Reorganized the Plant Staff in such a way that it was nearly impossible l
to determine whicn organization was in effect. The confusion extended to plant staff members.
The licensee's submittal of Proposed Change 66 Supplement 2 to Technical Specifications, which will remove any responsibility for plant operation from Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC will be retained as consultants), strongly indicates a need for increased l
attention to this area to insure that the proposed reorganization will not further weaken management controls.
Recent regional inspection of QC uncovered only minor instances where corrective action was necessary.
No patterns are identified which would indicate increased inspection effort is required.
I The last inspection of QA audits (October, 1979) identified that one procedure needed to be revised to define the authorities and responsi-bilities of the Plant Engineering Quality Assurance Group. This has been addressed in a new topical report (YTQAP) which is under review.
This report addresses the planned reorganization to separate plant management from YAEC.
~-:
a a
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle ff 1
Two noncompliances have been identified in which new equipment / vendor services were o'tained and necessary plant procedures were not o
written / revised. The procurement procedure has been revised to require a review to determine whether procedural changes are necessary.
b.
Cycle 2 (72 Hours, 4%)
No QA programmatic inspection has been conducted since Cycle 1.
The new QA Program has been approved by NRR but was not implemented during this appraisal period.
Resident inspection has identified one item of noncompliance:
Level V Failure to properly disposition nonconforming materials prior to use.
Two site senior management and engineering staff members departed during this cycle, and new staff members were added. Administrative management appears weak in that no formal means exists to ensure that operational occurrences are promptly reviewed to determine proper means of preventing recurrence. Occurrences are treated individually, if at all, and patterns are not identified.
c.
Conclusion Category 2
- 14. Corrective Actions and Reporting a.
Cycle 1 Lack of followup on unresolved items in order to correct or otherwise resolve the issues in a timely manner, b.
Cycle 2 (170 Hours, 10%)
Resident inspection in this area identified one item of noncompliance and two deviations.
(1) Level IV -
Failure to report Steam Generator Safety Valve setpoint Drift within 30 days.
(2) Deviation -
Failure to complete STA training in accordance with licensee committments.
(3) Deviation -
Failure to provide procedures for iodine monitoring as committed.
After the Cycle 1 management meeting, the licensee made a distinct effort to resolve those issues outstanding at that time.
The licensee does not track current issues such that specified corrective action
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle II is initiated, completed and reported in an accurate and timely fashion. Nine IE circulars are outstanding due to incomplete evaluation or documentation. Several TMI action items such as those deviations listed above were inadequately completed.
The over-extension of site personnel and conflicting priorities have degraded licensee performance in this area.
The licensee has no formal procedure for resolving reportability of equipment failures and operational events.
Consequently the resident inspector has found that his inquiry of the management staff with respect to reportable occurrences has been the trigger which generates an LER, c.
Conclusion Category 3
l MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle il INSPECTION HOURS
SUMMARY
Functional Area Inspection Hours Percent 1.
Plant Operations........................
381 22 2.
Refueling Operations....................
72 4
3.
Maintenance.............................
103 6
4.
Surveillance Inservice Testing..........
42 2
5.
Personnel Training and Plant Procedures..
61 4
6.
Fire Protection and Housekeeping.......
46 3
7.
Design Changes and Modifications........
50 3
8.
Radiation Protection, Radioactive.......
340 20 Waste Management and Transportation 9.
Environmental Protection 22 1
- 10. Emergency Preparedness.....
92 5
- 11. Security and Safeguards................
246 14
- 12. Audits, Reviews and Committee...........
45 3
Activities
- 13. Administration, QA, and Records.
72 4
- 14. Corrective Actions and Reporting.......
170 10 Total 1,741
MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle il MYAPCo (Maine Yankee)
SALP Cycle il NONCOMPLIANCE DATA July 1, 1980-June 30, 1981 noncompliance inspection Number Date Sub_i ec t Seve ri ty A rea 80-12-01 8/25-29/80 Failure to calibrate safety-related gauges INF 4
80-16-02 10/6-31/80 Failure to follow procedure for RADWASTE Shipment INF 8
80-16-03 10/6-31/80 Failure to follow Crane testing Procedure DEF 3
80-18-03 11/3-28/80 Failure to tagout equipment prior to ma intenance INF 1
80-18-01 11/3-28/80 Failure to document permission to release equipment INF 1
f rom Service 80-18-02 11/3-28/80 Maintenance performed without a procedure INF 3
61-02-01 1/27-30/81 Fa ilure of tamper switches to indicato in the access 4
11 mode 81-04-02 2/23-27/81 Fa i lure to complete requi red modi ficat ions DEV 6
81-04-01
' '3-27/81 Failure to administratively control fire system valves DEV 6
81-05-02 J// 27/81 Failure to record and disposition nonconforming 5
13 materials 81-05-01
- 5 J'/81 Fa ilure to review and tag RAS ci rcuit prior to 5
1 blocking 81-06-06
^/31- '7/81 Failure to have procedures to determine lodines D EV 14 81-06-02
'l/81 Failure to complete STA training DEV 14 81-08-01 Failure to comply with access control requirements 3
11 81-12-01 4/13-24/r3 Plant modified without an approved Plan Altera tion 4
7 81-12-02 4/13-TA/Sr failure to promptly identify and correct excessive 4
1 containment l ea k ra te 81-13-04 4/27/81-6/5/81 Fa ilure to ma inta in residua l heat removal ope ra b l e 4
1 81-13-03 4/27/81-6/5/81 Failure to filter containment purge during refueling 4
1 81-14-01 6/8-30/81 Failure to identify nonconforming status of pipe 5
7 supports (81-13-02) 6/8-30/81 Fa i lure to report failed surveillance within 30 days 4
14 (81-02-02) 6/8-30/81 Failure to provide backup power supplies to security 5
11 equipment 81-15-21 6/22-25/81 Fa i lure to ma inta in a la rm coverage of protected a rea 5
11 81-15-02 6/22-25/81 Failure to updato card-key authorization list 5
11 XX-indicates those items not issued as of September 14, 1981