ML20136G565
| ML20136G565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1985 |
| From: | Partlow J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Randozza J Maine Yankee |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136G570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508190554 | |
| Download: ML20136G565 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000309/1985015
Text
p recy
-
be s-o/g
- ~g
UNITED STATES
,p.,-
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
g
\\....+/
Docket No. 50-309
AUG
61%5
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
ATTN: Mr. J. B. Randazza, Vice President
Nuclear Operations
83 Edison Drive
Augusta, Maine 04336
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INSPECTION REPORT 50-309/85-15
This letter forwards the report of the Performance Appraisal Inspection conducted
by T. O. Martin and trembers of the Operating Reactor Programs Branch, Office of
Inspection and Enforcement, from May 13-24 and June 3-7, 1985, of activities
authorized by NRC Operating License DPR-36 for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power
Plant. This letter also refers to the observations presented to you and members
of your staff on June 7,1985, at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant.
The report includes observations that may result in enforcement actions; these
matters will be followed by the NRC Region I Office. The report also addresses
other observations and conclusions made by the inspection team. Enclosure 1 to
this letter is an Executive Summary of the conclusions drawn for the eight
functional areas inspected. Enclosure 2 is Performance Appraisal Inspection
Report 50-309/85-15.
Although a response to this letter is not required, you are encouraged to review
and evaluate those areas in which weaknesses were identified and take appropriate
actions to improve your existing management controls over licensed activities,
l
.
8508190554 850806
ADOCK 05000309
G
_-
.
__ _
A
o
,
,
t
,
,
"
Mr. J. B. Randazza
-2-
.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we woul'd'be pleased to
'
discuss them with you.
Sincerely, 3
-
LI1
i
-
-~
,j TJ
[ 43,
t '-
James G. Partlow, Director
Division of Inspection Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
l
1.
Executive Summary
)[-
Report 50-309/85-15
2.
IE Management Appraisal
cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. John H. Garrity
Plant Manager
P.O. Box 408
Wiscasset, Maine 04578
Mr. G. Douglas Whittier
Manager Nuclear Engineering and Licensing
83 Edison Drive
Augusta, Maine 04336
l
,
e
e
i
'
i
I
f
-
-
A
>
s.
,
,
Mr. J. B. Randazza
-3-
Distribution (w/ report):
ORFB Reading
DI Reading
SECY
OPE
OCA (1)
W. J. Dircks, ED0
H. R. Denton, NRR
C. J. Heltemes, AEOD
D. B. Vassallo, NRR
P. M. Sears, NRR
H. Boulden, OIA
J. M. Taylor, IE
R. H. Vollmer, IE
J. G. Partlow, IE
R. L. Spessard, IE
B. K. Grimes, IE
J. A. Axelrad, IE
T. E. Murley, RI
R. W. Starostecki, RI
E. C. Wenzinger, RI
T. C. Elsasser, RI
C. F. Holden, Jr. RI
Region I Reading
State of f!aine
All Licensees (Distribution GP)
PAS files
DCS 016
LPDR
Project Division Directors, RI through RV
Concurrence:
i
e
$
D:DIlkE
,
ORPB/DI/IE
ORPW/DI/IE
0;
'I ' IE
T0 Martin:mlr
LJCallan
P.
Kee
JGPar tlow
07/2 2 /85
07/ g /85
07/q'b/85
g/}/85
.A
_______ _________ _
.. .
.
.
>
h
l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A team of 10 inspectors from the Operating Reactor Programs Branch conducted an
announced inspection at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant, the Maine Yankee
Atomic Power Company offices, and the Yankee Atomic Electric Company offices
I
during the period May 13 to June 7, 1985. Management controls in eight function-
al areas were evaluated and assigned performance categories as follows:
Functional Area
Category
Plant Operations
Two
!
Surveillance
Two
Maintenance
Two
Training
One
l
Design Changes and Modifications
Two
Quality Programs
Two
Procurement
Two
,.
Radiological Controls
Two
Within the 8 areas inspected, 13 potential enforcement findings were identified.
l
These findings, referred to in the inspection report as Unresolved Items, will
l
be followed up by the NRC Region I Office. The following summarizes the obser-
vations and Unresolved Items in each area.
'
Plant Operations:
Category Two
Strengths included the number of licensed operators, the operational knowledge
l
and experience of the support staff, and the shift technical advisor program.
Weaknesses were noted in the independent verification of operating activities,
the management review of temporary plant modifications, and efforts to ensure
that all major valves were labeled.
Surveillance: Category Two
l
Aggressive inservice testing and equipment reliability monitoring programs were
a strength. Weaknesses included the frequent failure to incorporate acceptance
criteria into procedures consistent with licensee procedural format requirements,
!
the lack of an integrated master schedule, the lack of a cross-reference of Tech-
nical Specifications surveillance requirements with corresponding implementing
procedures, and not consistently including as-found test data as part of the sur-
veillance test record.
Unresolved Item:
The failure of surveillance procedures to require the recording of as-found con-
ditions (Observation 5).
.
. - - _________.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
\\
.
..
,
Maintenance:
Category Two
Strengths included a highly qualified staff, a strong training program, a compre-
hensive and effective preventive maintenance program, and an effective motor-
operated valve (Limitorque) maintenance program that has improved high pressure
safety injection system reliability. Weaknesses were noted in the implementation
of the measuring and test equipment program and in the timeliness of developing
and implementing a program to control vendor technical manuals in accordance with
commitments to the NRC.
Unresolved Item:
Various inadequacies relating to the implementation of the measuring and test
equipment program (Observation 4).
Training:
Category One
Strengths in the training area included a highly qualified instructional staff,
effective management involvement in the training process through the Training
Qualification Review Board, and positive training results as evidenced by both
a high passing rate on NRC licensing examinations and a lack of incidents that
could be related to training. Additional strengths were noted in plant modifi-
cations training, licensed operator requalification examination quality, auxil-
iary operator training, fire brigade training, and maintenance staff training.
Weaknesses were noted~with the level of participation by licensed personnel in
the licensed operator requalification program, the review of procedure revi-
sions by licensed operators, and chemistry technician training.
The licensee
was considered to be making satisfactory progress toward INP0 accreditation.
.
Design Changes and Modifications:
Category Two
Strengths included the establishment of a consolidated design change program be-
tween the Maine Yankee site and the Yankee Atomic Power Company organization and
the programs for closecut of engineering design change requests (EDCRs) and re-
turning the system to operation.
Weaknesses in the design change program included
poor control of design information, inconsistencies among sets of controlled draw-
ings, lack of adequate control over design change quality assurance records and
Plant Operation Review Committee reviews occurring too early in the design change
process. Problems also were identified with the testing and design calculations
of individual EDCRs.
Unresolved Items:
1.
The failure to adequatel, conu eI design inputs and design information flow
between internal and external organizations (Observations 2 and 3).
2.
The failure to make an adequate design calculation (Observation 4).
3.
The failure to test a newly installed system before releasing it for oper-
,
ation (Observation 5).
I
-2-
- - - - - . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
,
l
.
\\
..
>
4.
The apparent failure to follow procedures for the control of drawings
(Observation 7).
5.
The failure to provide adequate controls for design change quality assur-
ance records (Observation 8).
Quality Programs:
Category Two
1
The corrective action system was effective in that there was a strong procedure
that coordinated plant and corporate activities. However, the corrective action
system apparently did not encompass certain operations-related problems. The
following weaknesses in the implementation of the corrective action system were
identified:
(1) out-of-date chemicals were found in use in the chemistry labora-
tory, and Unis issue had been previously identified by the licensee on numerous
I
occasion: and (2) bypasses were installed that eliminated the backseat limit
switches on a reactor coolant system loop stop valve despite a warning given in
an IE Information Notice. The operational quality assurance program was general-
ly satisfactory. However, significant weaknesses were identified in several QA
internal audits.
Oversight of the QA audit process by the Nuclear Safety Audit
and Review Committee was also weak.
'-
Unresolved Items:
1.
The failure to conduct adequate audits in 1983 and 1984 of Technical Specif-
ications and Plant Changes (Observation 2).
2.
The repeated use of expired chemicals in the chemistry laboratory (Observa-
tion 7).
Procurement:
Category Two
A strength was identified in the station administrative procedures for control
of procurement, receipt, handling, and storage of safety-related material and
services. Weaknesses identified included the inadequate specification of stor-
age and handling requirements on purchase orders and the failure to procure en-
gineering services for safety-related systems from a qualified vendor.
!
Unresolved Items:
1.
The failure to adequately specify receipt, handling, storage, and packaging
l
requirements on material purchase requisitions and purchase orders (Observa-
tion 2).
2.
The failure to provide adequate controls for the purchase of safety-related
l
engineering services from an unapproved contractor (Observation 3).
.
Radiological Controls:
Category Two
Strengths were found in the ALARA program and the control of external radiation
p
j
exposures. Weaknesses were identified in the routine survey program in the areas
-3-
_____________ _ ___ - _
..
s.
A
of monitoring personnel for contamination, sorting of low-level waste, and air-
borne monitoring of plant areas. Weaknesses also were noted in the calibration
of laboratory counting equipment. Poor practices were identified in posting and
labeling.
Unresolved Items:
1.
The limited scope of the routine airborne survey program (Observation 2.c).
2.
The failure to provide a procedure to calibrate an instrument used to
measure concentrations of liquid radwaste (Observation 4.a).
1
,.
t
-4-