IR 05000245/1987014

Insp Rept 50-245/87-14 on 870720-24.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Surveillance & Calibr Programs,Surveillance & Calibr Testing,Control of Measuring & Test Equipment & Qa/Qc Involvement

ML20237L237
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	08/11/1987
From:	Bissett P, Blumberg N, Mather P, Prell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237L227	List: IR 05000245/1987014 ML20237L223
References
50-245-87-14, NUDOCS 8708200135
Download: ML20237L237 (10)

Text

.

} l

I

'

-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I REGION I 1 Report N /87-14 Docket N License No. DPR-21 ,

!

Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270  :

Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270

,

Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

.

Inspection At: Waterford, Connecticut l

Inspection Conducted: July 20-24, 1987 Inspectors: # I!///87 l P" B'issett, Reactor Engineer, DRS dat6 '

.

cawW~~

J. Prdll, Reactor Engineer, DRS r&lr7 da'te /

l l

'LS _f ,

P. Mather, Reactor' Engineer, (Intern), DRS Yt lEi?

date I

Approved b ctuY d2<d //// 8 ')

l rr N. BlumbeTT,~ Thief, ,

date ' !

l Operational Programs Section,

! Operations Branch, DRS Inspectinn Summary: Routine unannounced inspection on July 20-24, 1987 !

(Report No. 50-245/87-14) l Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's surveillance and calibration programs, surveillance and calibration testing, control of '

measuring and test equipment and Quality Assurance / Quality Control involvemen Results: No violations were iaentifie i J

G l

l

-_ _ .

l

,

' DETAILS l 1.0 Persons Contacted

!

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company i l

R. King, Assistant Instrumentation and Control Supervisor J. Leason, Inservice Inspection Supervisor

• R. Palmieri, Unit-1 Operations Supervisor

• P. Przekop, Unit-1 Instrumentation and Control Supervisor

• S. Scace, Millstone Station Superintendent *

• Sforza, Senior Engineer, NUSCO Quality Assurance

• J. Stetz, Unit-1 Superintendent

• J. Venable, Senior Engineer l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• E. Conner, Project Engineer

• T. Rebelowski, Senior Resident Inspector, Units-1&2 The inspector also held discussions with other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection, j

• Denotes those present at the exit meeting on July 24, 1987.

2.0 Surveillance Testing And Calibration Program 2.1 Scope / Criteria Administrative controls were reviewed to evaluate the licensee's program for implementing requirements associated with surveillance .

testing and calibration activities. Also reviewed was the usage and l control of measuring and testing equipment utilized during the per-formance of various surveillance / calibration activities. The objec-l tives were to assure that the licensee programs in place were

! consistent with the Technical Specifications, Regulatory Guide 1.33, 1 ANSI N18.7, Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 and applicable site administra- '

tive procedure Administrative Control Procedure (ACP)-QA-9.02 delineates how the conduct of the surveillance / calibration program is accomplishe Specific surveillance procedures are utilized during the performance of surveillance / calibration testing. Attachment A lists those ACPs and surveillance procedures that were reviewed during the conduct of this inspectio .2 Review / Implementation A review of administrative procedures, surveillance and calibration procedures, the master surveillance schedule, several departmental

! surveillance schedules and Unit-1 I&C Forms Index was conducted to verify the following.

l.

t l

r

_ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - - u

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

,

. . . .. .. .

, . .

.

..

.

!

,

.' 3 i

• Procedures, written to an approved format, met technical specification rectuirements and existed for conducting each surveillance test of calibratio * Responsibilities had been assigned for reviewing and evaluating I

the results of surveillance or calibration data.

!

• Calibration requirements had been established and maintained for installed instrumentation associated with safety-related systems but were not specified in Technical Specifications as requiring calibratio * Responsibility had been assigned for ensuring that required schedules for all surveillance and calibrations were satisfied.

l

! *

The technical content of surveillance testing procedures complied with technical specification requirement *

Calibrations were performed to the required accurac *

Measuring and test equipment used during the performance of calibrations were traceabl The documents and procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed to verify the above attributes. Discussions were held with I&C manage-ment personnel to review the automated Preventive Maintenance Management System (PMMS) program used for scheduling all surveillance and calibrations via automated work orders. In addition, the inspectors reviewed the status of all required l refueling outage surveillance as indicated on the master surveillance index and verified that all required surveillance were either completed or in the process of being completed. The program used for identify!ng and controlling "high risk" surveillance was also reviewed. It was verified that high risk surveillance were

. identified as such by the PMMS on the automated work orders printed for those surveillanc These work orders required written acknowledgements by the Operations Superviso A review of the program used for calibrating technical specifica-tions-related instrumentation was made. This included identifying instrumentation needed to satisfy Technical Specifications and then

'

verifying that the instruments were identified and calibrated under

,

the licensee's calibration program. It was verified through PMMS

!

that these instruments had been calibrated at the frequency specified by the licensee and that procedures or data sheets had been develoned l for each instrument. Most M&TE are calibrated annually.

!

L-_______-__-_____--_-_ .

l

.

,

l During the review of Surveillance Procedure (SP)-412K, LPCI/Contain- i ment Cooling System Logic Test, the inspector discovered that the '

p ocedure did not restore the LPCI pumps suction valves from the j torus to the open position, However, it was verified that the Opera- l tions department would perform a valve lineup of the LPCI system i prior to declaring the system OPERABLE following the surveillance test. A review of the operations valve ' lineup sheet showed that the subject suction valves were identified and their position correctly j l

indicated. The licensee made a procedural change to correct the l above procedure prior to completion of this inspection.

!

l 2.3 Test Witnessing

]

The inspectors also observed the performance of three Technical Specification surveillance / calibration tests performed by licensee personnel during the course of the inspection. The three surveil- ,

lances witnessed included: (1) pump operability tests for the )

l electric fire pump and the Standby Liquid Control pumps, and (2) the l calibration and functional tests of the Average Power Range Monitors '

(APRM). NRC observation of these surveillance was to verify the following was accomplishe I i

,

Applicable surveillance procedure was approved, up-to-date and ,

! utilized throughout the conduct of the s surveillanc l l

Appropriate personnel were notified prior to the start of the l tes I

• Calibrated test equipment was use *

Appropriate safety precautions were take l

• Acceptance criteria were met and if not, appropriate steps were take *

Personnel performing the tests were properly trained and qualified and had a clear under. standing of their responsibility in regards to the tes *

Following completion of the test, the system was realigned for normal operatio The pump operability tests were performed by Operations personnel and the APRM test, by I&C personnel. In reference to the APRM test, Operations and I&C personnel verified that the Safety Parameter Display System computer points matched the APRM input signal I

p

-

.

.-

i

.!

.- 5 -!

. . .

i 2.4 Findings q

.

During the conduct of the electric-fire pump surveillance test, thel

inspector questioned the operators as to the station's policy regarding the usage of' lead seals. The inspector had~ noticed that' i l both.a pressure switch isolation valve and a gauge drain.line-I isolation valve had been operated during the test even though lead- ,

seals were . attached to the valve ' handles. Further discussions with  !

other licensee personnel indicated that the lead' seals' intended -  !)

purpose was to prevent inadvertent operation of the-valves. . The valves had been. lead sealed per an American Nuclear Inspector (ANI) 'jl inspection conducted ~in 1985, since shutting the. pressure switch isolation valve would' prevent an automatic start of the electric fire pum .It was evident, however, tha.t the lead. seals affixed ~to the isolation - j and. drain valves, as observed, would'not have prevented. inadvertent- i operation of these valves. It was also' determined that a station 1 policy in regard to the purpose,and usage of lead seals did not exist. The-inspector also noted that lead seals had been affixed in' l a similar manner on the diesel fire pump syste l

!

The inspector determined that this_ problem did not present a 1 significant safety concern since' both pumps were housed in'a locked {

building and were routinely checked by operations personnel, however, ,

there was still a need for further clarification as to the usage of-  !

lead seals.- The Operations Supervisor agreed with the inspector's concern and stated that action would be taken to resolve the ,

situatio Prior to exit meeting on July 24, 1987, the Operations Supervisor presented to the inspector'the following actions that would'b ,

take l l

l

Lead seals would be removed from the valves in question. .The

'

ANI inspector concurred with this action'. ~

All reference to lead seals for these valves would be removed from applicable procedure (

An Operations Instruction would be written delineating the 'i station's policy in regard to usage and intent of. lead seal The inspector stated that these actions adequately addressed his  !

concern _____L_-____-____-______-_-___________-________ - _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ - . . - - - .

-

, , .

j 1

'

,

I

~

' ', l 3.0 Measuring And Test Equipment (M&TE) Calibration Program 3.1 References

"

The following references were used:

• ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance' ,

for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, Section 1 5.2.1 ]

.

(

• 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XII, Control of Measuring- 1

! and Test Equipmen l 3.2 Review / Implementation '

The inspector reviewed the administrative program for M&TE, ]

ACP-QA-9.04, against the standards / requirements identified above and q verified the program met all regulatory requirements. .In addition,  !

the inspector reviewed implementation of the program by the I&C-department, the maintenance department and the calibration la ]

The inspector verified that I&C had 1) a. department list of M&TE; 2) 5 an automated program (PMMS). for issuing work orders each week' for ' 4 M&TE requiring calibration; 3) controls on logging out and of M&TE;  ;

4) had tagged each piece of equipment which-identified the- .l calibration due date and the calibration completion date; and 5) 3 developed positive access controls over the area where M&TE was-  !

stored. The maintenance. department was found to have' established j similar controls over their M&TE except that the PMMS did not j identify work orders specific to a piece of equipmen Instead PMMS.- i produces a weekly generic work order which requires maintenance to  !

check each piece of equipment on their M&TE equipment' list against the calibration due date. It was noted that the maintenance depart-

ment calibrated most of their own equipment and that a small backlog l l of M&TE awaiting calibration existed at the time of inspection,

'

However, sufficient spare calibrated equipment was available so that ]

the maintenance program was not impacte j i

The onsite calibration laboratory either calibrates all the M&TE the '

receive or send it out to approved vendors for calibratio It was i verified that M&TE was calibrated against NBS standards or against ]

calibrated equipment which was.at least four times as sensitive'as the M&TE being calibrated. It was also verified that adequate ];

administrative controls existed f.or all M&TE undergoing calibratio ;

3.3 Findings No violations or deviations were identifie J q

1 1

'1

- _- - - - __ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ a

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

l

$

'

'

,

4.0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control'(QA/QC' Interface .f-l Discussions with QA/QC. Supervisors and QC inspectors.and a review:of completed audits, surveillance and acti ity' observations indicated l adequate involvement by the QA/QC~ group in the area of surveillance, :I '

calibration, and the control of measuring and test equipment. activitie Audits, surveillance and activity observations reviewed by the inspectors included the following:

• Quality Activity Observation Reports 18~7-7,8,9,10,11,12,13 - -l Establishment 'of departmental surveillance schedules for Maintenance, q Operatio'ns, I&C, Chemistry, Production Test and Engineering (Reactor !

and ISI),  !

• Quality Activity Observation Report 187-21,26 - Calibration of .

measuring and test equipment used during the performance of local i leak rate testing and a maintenance activ.ity,-

]

• Surveillance Report (SI)-86-07 - I&C measuring and test equipment j program, l

Audit A21001 (February 1986) 'and Audit A 21002 (October:1986) j

- Nuclear Review Board audits'which covered the review of station

.

surveillance procedures to verify their adequacy in . meeting technical .

specification requirements, acceptance criteria, frequency, appro- j'

vals, et Departments covered included Operations, Maintenance',

I&C, Reactor Engineering, and Chemistry,

Audit A60459 - Fabrication activities wh'ich; included the usage of measuring and test equipmen Reviews of the above verified that QA/QC is adequately involved in the operation of daily station activities. Management is kept apprised of f associated findings and resolution, and subsequent . implementation of l corrective action appeared adequat Site management for operations has effectively utilized.the station QA/QC group. It was noted during the' inspector's review of Surveillance l Inspection (SI)-86-07, that management had requested a review of the !

measuring and test equipment (M&TE) program being implemented.at Unit- The M&TE program had previously been controlled by Unit-2. -This request for a review was to ensure that control of M&TE was in conformance'with the station procedures and applicable codes'and standards'. Several problems were identified which were subsequently corrected as verified during this inspectio _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ - - - _ _

,

i

'.

.

.- g i

The inspectors also discussed with various QA/QC personnel the organizational realignment scheduled to take effect August 1, 1987. All QA/QC activities will fall under the cognizance of the Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCo). Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) quality assurance activities will become the responsibility of NUSCo. These activities primarily include the performance of inspection hold points, quality observations and the review of procedures.

i 5.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives on July 24, 1987, to l summar17e the scope and findings of the inspectio l

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the Q

licensee by the inspectors. The licensee did not indicate that any 1"

! proprier.ry information was contained within the scope of this inspection.

i i

i

I

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

'

.

.

'

-

ATTACHMENT A PROCEDURES / DOCUMENTS REVIEWE0 i Ll l

Unit-1 I&C Form Index, Rev. 314 IC 400A, Rev. 12, Calibration of Instruments Used To Satisfy Technical Specification Requirements And/0r Computer Core Performance Calculation Input ]

ACP-QA-9.02, Rev 15, Station Surveillance Program ACP-QA-9.04, Rev 19, Control and Calibration Of Measuring and Test Equipment SP 402C, Rev.11, IRM Calibration SP 4060, Rev 5, Maine Steam Line Radiation Monitor Detector Calibration SP 406T, Rev 7, Air Ejector Off Gas Isolation Radiation Monitor Detector l Calibration l SP 406AA, Rev 5, Stack High Range Radiation Monitor Calibration  !

l SP 406JJ, Rev.1, Stack Sample Flow Calibration (GE) I SP 408G, Rev. 10, Turbine Control, Valve Fast Closure Functional Test / Calibration l

SP 411C, Rev 5, Steam Tunnel High Temperature Functional Test / Calibratio '

SP 412J, Rev. 7, Core Spray System Automotive Actuation SP 412K, Rev 5, LPCI/ Containment Cooling System Logic Test IC 412N, Rev. O, ECCS Trip Test Timing SP 408J, Rev. 5, Condenser Low Vacuum Scram Functional and Calibration Test SP 661.4, Rev. 5, Standby Liquid Control Pump Operational Readiness Test SP 680A, Rev. 3, Weekly Fire Protection System Lineup Check l

SP 6808, Rev. 8, Electric Fire Pump Monthly Run SP 680H, Rev. 1, Transformer Deluge Systems Functional Test SP 692, Rev 1, Reactor Protection System Inoperable SP 680I, Station Deluge Value Functional Test SP 627.5, Isolation Condenser Initiation Valve Functional Test

!

-

-

2 Attachment A i

!

(

SP 608.32 PASS Value Operability Test l

t SP 668.2 Gas Turbine Emergency Fast Start i

SP 646.10, Standby Gas Treatment Value Operability Test  ;

SP 623.17, Main Steam Isolation Value Leak Test Measurement SP 1093, Main Stream S/RV Discharge Vacuum Breaker Valve ISI Readiness Test SP 1094, RBCCW Drywell Header Inlet Check Valve ISI Readiness Test SP 1060, Control Rod Drive Pump Operability Test ,.

SP 1060, Fuel Pool Cooling Pump Operability Test SP 1081, Fuel Pool Cooling System Discharge Check Valve ISI Operabi'ity Test

!

SP 1088, Secondary CCW Discharge Check Valve Operability Test

<

)

l l

l

l I

l I

l l

i l l l

j s

I l . _ _ _ __--_d