IR 05000213/1988017

Insp Rept 50-213/88-17 on 880822-26.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Program Per ASME Code & Regulatory Requirements

ML20155F305
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/26/1988
From:	Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155F288	List: IR 05000213/1988017 ML20155F283
References
50-213-88-17, NUDOCS 8810130216
Download: ML20155F305 (8)

Text

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

, ..

,

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /88-17 Docket N License N DPR-61 Priority -

Category Licensee: . Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270 IIartford, Connecticut Facility Name: Haddam__ Neck Plant inspection At: Haddam, Connecticut Inspection Conducted: hgust22-26,1933 Inspector: [h ' hW$)

R. A. McBrearty, Reactor ()hgineer hf )tl) J')W da Approved by: u MM

' J. 5. Strosnider, Chief, Materials and

_ 9' (/88 date (j' Processes Section, EB, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on Aucust 22-26 a 19S8 (Inspection Report N $0-213/88-17 Areas Inspecte_d: A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted of the licensee's inservice inspection (151) program to ascertain that the program complies with applicable ASME Code and regulatory requirements. Particular emphasis was placed on the licensee's control of ISI activities such as ISI vendor selection and qualification, control and tracking of nonconforming items, and the incorporation of plant modifications into the ISI program. In addition, the licensee's response to previous inspection findings was examine Results: The inspector concluded, based on the areas inspected, that the TTGn~s~ee's ISI program complies with the mandated edition of the ASME Code, and maintains adequate control over the licensee's routine ISI activitie The licensee's response to unresolved item 50-213/S4-21-02 was determined to be acceptable and the item is close B01010 3 PDR ADOCK 0500 _ _ _ _

_______________ ________ __ -

..

,

.

I. Persons Contacted Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company

• J. Beauchamp, Quality Services Supervisor

• G. Bouchard, Unit Superintendent

• E. DeBarba, Station Services Superintendent J. Delawrence, Inservice Inspection Supervisor

• C, Gladding, Engineering Supervisor

• W. Heinig, Quality Services Specialist

• M. Hornyak, Quality Services Technologist

• M. Smith, Inservice Inspection Engineer M. Surprenant, Procurement Vendor Services Supervisor -

Nuclear Engineering and Operations U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission

• J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meetin . Scope of Inspection Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides rules for the examination, testing, and inspection of components and systems in a nuclear power plant.Section XI mandates that the plant owner develop a program which will demonstrate confornance to code requirements, and the licensee performs inservice inspection to comply with those requirements and with its inservice inspection program pla The following areas of the inservice inspection program were selected for inspection:

• ISI organization

• ISI vendor selection and qualification

+

System for tracking reported flaws and deficiencies to assure proper review and closeout

• Process by which plant modifications are incorporated into the ISI program In addition to the above, unresolved item 50-213/54-21-02 was selected for inspe: tio _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l

.

. Inservice Inspection (I_SI) Program ,(73051)

The inspectuc d?+armined that the Haddam Neck facility is in the third ten year inspection interval which commenced on January 1, 1988, and will continue until December 31, 1997. The next refueling outage, scheduled to begin on September 9, 1939, will be the first outage of the interva The applicable code, as specified by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii) is the 1933 Edition of Section XI through Summer 1983 Addend The extent of examination of ASME Class 1 piping (Table IWB-2500 and IWB-2500-1, Category B-J) will be determined by the requirements of Table IWB-2500 and Table IWB-2600, Category B-J of Section XI, 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda as permitted by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ie).

The extent of examination for Code Class 2 welds in carbon or low alloy steel piping will be determined by the requirements of paragraph IWC-1220, Table IWC-2520, Category C-F and C-G, and paragraph IWC-2411 in the 1974 Edition and Addenda through the Sumner 1975 Addenda of Section XI as permitted by 10 CFR 50.554 (b)(2)(iv)(B). Code Case N-403, the alternate rules for examination of Class 2 piping shall be used for all pressure retaining welds in austenitic stainless steel or high alloy pipin Examinations for the ten year interval have been scheduled in accordance with Inspection Program 8, as described in Section XI, IWA-2400 for all Class 1, 2, and 3 components and supports.

.

Inservice Inspection Oraanization Staffina The onsite staff at Haddam Neck includes the following:

• ISI Supervisor

.

• Two 151 Engineers

Two ISI Technicians The ISI Engineers are responsible for pipe weld and steam generator activities,respectively, and each is assisted by an ISI Technicia The inspector determined that, excluding ISI vendor NDE technicians,

'

during the last refueling cutage twenty-eight individuals ( site, NUSCO, and contractor personnel) were involved with ISI activities at the sit The licensee's staff was found to be technically capable of performing their assigned duties, and staf f size is adequate to meet the scneduled nork load.

I l

,

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

,

Inservice Inspection Vendor Selectt'n The licensee's Quality Services Department performs audits and evaluations of prospective vendor's to determine their qualification as a supplier to the licensee. An initial audit is performed at the prospective vendor's facility, and once a vendor is placed on the licensee's Approved Suppliers List followup audits are performed at least once every three years to maintain the vendor on the list. Interim evaluations of vendor performance are done to ascertain that the vendor maintains its qualification, The inspector reviewed Procedure No. Q50-303, entitled, "Review and Approval of Supplier QA Programs," and the nost recent audit of EBASCO Services. Inc., the licensee's ISI vendor, to ascertain that the licensee's audit was perforred in accordance with applicable requirement ,

Audit No A0 3262 was performed on February 1-5, 1988, at tha EBASCO

facility at Two World Trade Center, New York, New York and continued on April 13-15, 1988, at the ESASCO facility at Lyndhurst, New Jersey, The scope of the audit was to verify compliance of EBASCO Services Company QA Manual to the applicable elements of ANSI N45.2, 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, 10 CFR 21, and to evaluate EBASCO as an engineering services contracto The following elements were examined by the NUSCO auditors:

• Organization

• Design control

'

• Procedures and Drawings

• Nanconforming items

• Corrective action

• Control of special processes

• Control of measuring and text equipment

• Identification and control of materials

.! No areas of nonccmpliance were identified by the licensee and the audit verified that ECASCO is satisfactorily implementing and complying with its QA progra Based on the results of the audit EBASCO was maintained as an Engineering Services contractor on NUSCO's Approved Suppliers Lis This was related to EBASCO by licensee letter QSD-SE-2110 cated February 29, 1983, and letter QSD-S3-2265 dated May 12, 19S _ _ _

. _ _ _

.

.

The inspector determined that the audit was performed in accordance with procedure QSD-3,03, and that the audit checklist was appropriate for its intended us No violations were identifie Control of Nonconforming Items The licensee's system for tracking inservice inspection items which do not clearly meet the applicable acceptance criteria includes the use of unresolved indication reports (UIR), nonconformance reports (NCR), and plant information reports (PIR).

To ascertain that the licensee's system for tracking ISI nonconforming items provides for adequate licensee review and resolution of these items the following procedures were selected for inspection:

+ Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedure No. NEO 3.13, Revision 1, entitled, "Inservice Inspection Unresolved Indication Reporting"

• Administrative Control Procedure No. ACP 1.2-15.1, Revision 17, entitled, "Nonconformance Reports"

• Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedure No. NE0 3.05, Revision 0, entitled, "Nonconformance Reports"

• Administrative Control Procedure No. ACP 1.2-16.1, Revision 21, entitled, "Plant Infornation Report" The inspector determined that a UIR is issued by the ISI Coordinator when an ISI report identifies a condition or an indication which require evaluation to ascertain its acceptabilit The evaluation is performed by a level II or III Examiner and, when required, a Responsible Engineer provides a disposition based on the evaluation result If the VIR is dispositioned as "rejectable" a nonconformance report is issued. The UIR is closed out after review and approval by a Level II or III, the NUSCO and site ISI Coordinator and the Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector ( ANII), or when a NCR is issue Anyone may initiate a nonconformance report, but it must be forwarded to the Quality Department for processing. A copy of each NCR is forwarced to the Operations Shift Supervisor for his review and appropriate action, and the NCR is sent the responsible supervisor as determined by the Quality Department, Disposition is provided by the assigned Plant / Discipline Engineer. NCRs are reviewed by various levels of management up to the Plant Superintendent, and the Quality Department is respons'ble for completing a trend analysis data input sheet and closeout of the NCR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - -_ *'

.

l

.

6 l l

The PIR is used for reporting and review of potential reportable occurrences, and for the reporting of significant equipment failures, conditions, or events which would be of interest to management. The PIR is reviewed by various supervisors and by the Station Superintendent who determines whether further action is required, and whether PORC review i and followup is regt. ire In addition to the above, the following NCRs and associated VIRs were selected for inspection to ascertain whether closecut was properly done and was based on the documented engineering disposition:

• NCRt 87-182, VIR# 87-014 - opened to track a linear liquid penetrant indicatio * NCR# 87-203, VIR# 87-025 - opened to track an unacceptable magnetic particle indicatio * NCR* 37-214, VIR# 87-045 - opened to track nonconforming conditions documented by a visual inspection repor .

NCR# 87-343, VIR# 87-124 - opened to track nonconforming coi.ditions documented by a visual inspection repor * NCR# 87-351, VIR# 87-139 - opened to track nonconforming conditions documented by a visual inspection repor * NCR# 87-352, VIR4 37-140 - opened to track nonconforming conditions documented by a visual inspection repor The NCRs resulted from unresolved indication reports which addressed conditions which were found to be unacceptable and required rework or repair to become acceptable. The inspector determined that initiation, processing, review and closeout of the reviewed VIRs and NCRs was in accordance with the licensee's established syste No violations were identifie Incorporating Plant Modifications into the Inservice Inspection Program Plant modifications are controlled by the licensee with Nuclear Engineering and Operating Procedure No NEO 3.03, Revision 6, entitle,

"Preparation, Review, and Disposition of Plant Design Change Records (PDCRs)."

The inspector reviewed NEO 3.03 and found that ISI Engineering is required to review the plant design change with respect to inservice inspection requirements including preservice inspection of new weld The ISI Department has established a checklist of itens which must be

.

- ___________

-

.

considered by the ISI reviewer and which must be signed and attached to the PDC The PDCR requires an ISI sign off to indicate that the ISI review was completed, whether a detailed review / evaluation is required, and that the evaluatior, is attache The design change package can't be closed until all required sign offs are complete In addition to the above, tne inspector reviewed the following PDCRs which were completed during the 1987 refueling outage to ascertain l compliance with NE0 3.03:

'

• PDCR No. 854 - Long Term ECCS Modification

• PDCR No. 862 - Service Water MOV 5 & 6 Modification The inspector found that all required reviews were performed as evidenced by the ccmpleted sign offs. Additionally, the Inservice Inspection Program New Issue Revision, or Change Request was attached as rsquired by Procecure NEO 3,10 Revision 1 which controls the preparatioa and processing of a proposed revision, change, or interim change to the ISI program which verified that the items were incorporated into the ISI progra No violations were identifie Licensee Action on Previous Inspe.ction Findings _(92701)

(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-213/84-21-02: Deficiencies with nonconformance syste The item involved the review, issuing and reporting of nonconfor-rances within the Plant Information Reporting System. The licensee committed to establish a system which would correct the identified deficiencies, and that the system would be implemented by December 15, 1984, The inspector determined that the appropriate procedures were revised and that the licensee's program now adequately controls nonconforming items with the use of nonconforcance reports (NCRs). This item is considered close . Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1.0) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 26, 1933. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio At no tire during the inspection was written material provided by the inspector to the licensee, The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the sccpe of this inspectio .. ________ ____ _________________ _____-

_ _ _ _ . _

,.. .

OCT 101903 Connecticut Yankee Atomic 2 Power Company cc w/ encl:

D. B. Miller, Station Superintendent i D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services R. M. Kacich, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing W. D. Romberg, Vice President, Nuclear Operations Gerald Garfield, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR)

local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident lnspcetor State of Connecticut

_ .... ...