ML20136E703

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of 851121 Clarification of 850225 Initial Response to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-213/84-26. Automated Production Maint Mgt Sys Will Reflect Master Equipment Parts List Per Each Component QA Indicator
ML20136E703
Person / Time
Site: Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date: 12/30/1985
From: Ebneter S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Opeka J
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8601070102
Download: ML20136E703 (2)


See also: IR 05000213/1984026

Text

,

s..

., ..

. ,. 8

.

DEC.3 01985

Docket'No. 50-213-

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

ATTN: Mr. J. .F. Opeka

Senior Vice President - Nuclear

. Engineering and Operations Group

P. O.-Box 270

' Hartford, Connecticut _ 06101

Gentlemen:

Subject: Inspection 50-213/84-26

This refers to your letter dated November 21, 1985, sent to clarify your

initial response dated February 25, 1985 to the results of NRC inspection

report number 84-26. We agree to the clarification that the automated Produc-

tion Maintenance Management System (PMMS) will reflect the Master Equipment '

Parts List as it relates to each identified component's QA indicator.

Thank you for informing us of these actions documented in your letter. These

actions will be. cxamined during a future inspection of your licensed program.

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

Sincerely,

origimi Sir. " ! W

'

LeeB. Ecttoonausen

Stewart D. Ebneter, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

cc:

'R. Graves, Plant Superintendent

  • D. O. Nordquist, Manager of Quality Assurance

_

' R. T. Laudenat, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing

  • E. J. Mroczka, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
  • Gerald Garfield, Esquire

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

  • 'NRC Resident Inspector

. State of Connecticut

"

8601070102 851230 3

DR ADOCK 05

JE0b

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL HN 84-26 - 0001.0.0

12/26/85

.,

'

,.

b' Connecticut' Yankee Atomic 2

Power Company

bec w/ encl:

-Region I Docket Room (with' concurrences)

, Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)

.Section Chief, DRP

M.-McBride, RI, Pilgrim

i J. Shedlosky, SRI, Millstone 1&2

,T. Rebelowski, SRI,-Millstone 3

,J. Akstulewicz, LPM, NRR

.

/

. RI:DRSS j. s RI:DRSS RI:DRSS

./ Prell/gcb cW Eapen Bettenhausen

12////05 # 12// 7/85 - 12Er/85

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL HN 84-26 - 0002.0.0

12/17/85

-

_

Y . _

,

. *

'

.

~

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

B E R LI N. CONNECTICUT

  1. P.o. box 270 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270

TELEPMoNE

203-665-5000

Noveuber 21, 1985

Docket No. 50-213

A04582

Mr. Thomas T. Martin, Director

Division of Engineering and Technical Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1

+31 Park Avenue

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

References: (1) T. T. Martin letter to W. G. Counsil dated

December 28, 1984

(2) W. G. Counsil letter to T. T. Martin dated

February 25, 1985

(3) S.D. Ebneter letter to J. F. Opeka dated

August 26, 1985

"entlemen:

.

Haddam Neck Plant

Follow-up to Inspection Report No. 50-213 /84-26

MEPL .

..

-'

~1 _ [A.-~~

Reference (1) transmitted the results of Inspection Report

50-213/84-26. Reference (2), which responded to that inspection

report, delineated several commitments. Reference-(3), which

transmitted the results of Inspection Report 50-213/85-17

f avorably addressed the status of most of the Reference -(2)

commitments. The Coanecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

(CYAPCO) is in agreement with the conclusions of Reference (3) .

The purpose cf this letter is to clarify the one Reference (2)

comnitment not addressed in Reference (3). .

Reference (2) stated, in part: "By January 1, 1986, the majority

of the information currently in the MEPL (excluding certain items

such as consumables , pipe supports , etc.) will be incorporated

m n w .t -) .?Q 3nV'

v v.wr T *

r -

.

..

-

.

_2

into the automated Production Maintenance Management System

(P99tS) ." Since the MEPL is a somewhat complex document and the

1991S system's ability to replace it is limited, some clarifi-

cation is in order.

The PMMS System is a component-based automated maintenance et

'

management system. To access information from PMMS for a given

component, the component identification number must be used.

This allows several "pages" of data on that component to be

displayed. Part of that data is information on the QA Category

of that component. This system lends itself well to aid in the

storage and retrieval of QA Category (and, therefore, supports

the MEPL) for certain components such as pumps, valves, motors ,

etc.

The MEPL has several parts. It includes guidance on determining

the QA status of components, blanket statements to cover broad

areas of QA applicability, (e.g., " All equipment within the fire

protection progras shall meet fire protection quaxity assurance

requirements"), descriptions of structures which are QA and

component by component listings of Category 1 equipment. This

last area is compatible with the PMMS data base and it is this

portion of the MEPL which we were addressing in the commitment

quot'ed above. To rephrase that commitment: "All components

(excluding certain items such as consumables, pipe supports, etc.

and some minor subcomponents of electrical equipment) which are

individually listed in the MEPL will have their PMMS QA

indicators verified as properly reflecting their QA status by

January 1,1986." It should be noted that, currently, this

+

commitment has been virtually completed.

Other components in the PMMS system which are indicated as not

QA have an evaluation referenced which is the basis for that

status._ Many components have their PMMS QA indicators

" undefined," which according to our procedure (NE0 6.01,

Material, Equipment and PartJ- Lists for In-Service Nuclear

Generation Facilities) will require a QA evaluation prior to

commencement of any work on the component. Any components waich

are not in the MMS data base are entered as the need arisas with

their QA indicators " undefined" and are evaluated as above.

In summary, the probram we have established is one that will

simplify quality assurance determinations while making them more

rigorous and conservative. This will ensure that the proper

controls will be utilitt.ed for each activity.

I

$

i

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

. - ,--

e

,

es

,

.

. '. _3

We do not believe that this letter changes the intent' of my

previous commitment and is provided for information only. My

staff is available to answer my questions you may have on this.

.

Very truly yours, ,

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

i .

J. F. Opeka

Senior Vice President

By: C. F. Sears

Vice President

4

e

m


,.-,---,------,-,.--.w- - m.,__-.. -, , ..,,s,--_.- .,-._,.-,m,.e. 9, - , , -_ - -m - ,

- , ,.,7_,_y