IR 05000206/1987021
| ML13323B304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1987 |
| From: | Johnson P, Obrien J, Qualls P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13323B301 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-87-21, 50-361-87-19, 50-362-87-21, NUDOCS 8710080051 | |
| Download: ML13323B304 (8) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No /87-21, 50-361/87-19, 50-362/87-21 Docket No, 50-361, 50-362 License No DPR-13, NPF-10, NPF-15 Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name: San Onofre Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at: San Onofre, San Clemente, California Inspection Conducted:
gus 10 through September 4, 1987 Inspectors:1:L
--
'
ual s Re ctor Inspector Da e Signed J. O'Br
, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Approved By:
P. nson, Chief Date Signed
.Reactol P-rojects Section 3 Inspection Summary:
Inspection on August 10 through September 4, 1987 (Report Nos. 50-206/87-21, 50-361/87-19, 50-362/87-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection of Units 2 and 3 Maintenance Program and inspection of Unit 2 Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT). The following IE Manual Chapters were used during this inspection:
62700, 30703, 61720, and TI 2500/1 Results:
Of the areas examined, an apparent violation was identified and is discussed in Paragraph 2.i of the inspection repor PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR
DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted
- M. Wharton, Deputy Station Manager D. Stonecipher, Quality Control Manager
- D. Irvine, Station Technical
- P Blakeslee, Station Technical
- J. Hirsch, Supervisor, Station Technical
- T. Nichols, Quality Assurance A. Meichler, Power Generation Engineer M. Jennex, Power Generation Engineer G. Shelton, Power Generation Engineer
- R. Plappert, Compliance Engineer
- M. Zenker, Compliance Engineer
- F. Bolton, Supervisor, Quality Control G. Johnson, Quality Assurance Engineer C. Brandt, Quality Assurance Engineer C. Couser, Compliance Engineer R. Santosuosso, Assistant Maintenance Manager
- S McMahan, Supervisor, Maintenance Engineering W. Lazear, Quality Assurance
- D. Herbst, Supervisor ISEG
- M. Ramsey, Quality Assurance
- Attended exit interview on September 3, 198 "Attended exit interview on September 4, 198 The inspectors also contacted other licensee employees during the course of the inspectio. Maintenance Program (Units 2 and 3)
The inspector selected and reviewed 26 completed Maintenance Orders (MOs)
in the following categories:
o Safety-related (SR) equipment failure leading to a plant shutdow o Non-SR equipment failure leading to a plant shutdow B Equipment failure relating to reduced capability of an SR syste o Recurring SR equipment failur The completed MOs selected involved Electrical, Instrumentation and Control (I&C), and Mechanical maintenanc a. For the maintenance activities reviewed, the inspector had the following findings:
For the failures of charging pump P190 and power supply PS 128 the licensee conducted detailed evaluations to determine the cause of the failure and thus to prevent further failure For the scheduled maintenance, the work procedures appeared to be adequate for the scope of the maintenanc o All administrative approvals appeared to have been obtained prior to starting wor o Limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) were met while components were out of servic o Approved procedures were used for complex activitie Except as noted in Paragraph 2.1, inspections were made in accordance with the licensee's requirements and the records were complet o Functional testing and calibrations were complete prior to returning a component to servic o Personnel performing the activities appeared to have been properly trained and qualified for the activity performe o LERs were written, where required, for the equipment failures examine o Corrective and preventative maintenance was recorded in machinery histor With the exception noted in Paragraph 2.i, the measurement and test equipment (M&TE) was identified and in calibratio o The procedure examined conformed to the licensee's administrative requirement o Post-maintenance testing appeared adequate for the repairs mad o Inspection witness.and hold points were identified in the maintenance orders and were established based on a set of written guideline o For scheduled maintenance, the activity was described in adequate detai o Consideration was given to radiological, temperature, pressure and electrical hazards as require o Provisions were included for fire protection, cleanliness, and housekeepin o Controls were present for control of equipment and lifted lead b. The inspector reviewed machinery history records for P190 and PS28 and verified that the records were up-to-date and properly stored as quality assurance record c. The inspector reviewed the records for several pieces of M&TE used during the different maintenance activities and verified that:
o The M&TE was in calibration at the time of us o The M&TE calibration was traceable to a National Standar o The M&TE was properly stored, controlled, labeled-and identifie o The error of the M&TE was less than the instruments being calibrate d. The inspector verified that, for safety-related instruments used in plant systems and not required by Technical Specification specifically to be calibrated, but used in plant operations or surveillance testing:
o The instruments were being kept in calibration using a computer-controlled schedule; o
The calibration was being kept up-to-date;
The calibrations were traceable to recognized standards with accuracies in accordance with accepted industry standards; and a
An approved procedure was used to perform the calibrations, with the identify of the person performing the calibration clearly documente e. The inspector reviewed the preventative maintenance program and determined that:
o A master schedule is available; o
The computer automatically identifies late or incomplete preventative maintenance; o
Preventative maintenance procedures are available and sufficiently detailed; and
A lubrication control program is kept up-to-date, with oil changes in major components based on results of samplin f. The inspector reviewed the qualification and training of the maintenance staff. The control of job assignments was controlled by Maintenance Policy Guide S0123-G-23 which did not allow new or inexperienced personnel to be assigned to perform maintenance without having completed training for that activity. Initial qualification, training and retraining were being performed using an
INPO certified program. Awareness of maintenance and supervisory personnel of plant problems was kept current through the use of preshift "tailboard" discussions and required readin g. During time spent in the plant, the inspector observed maintenance on the Unit 2 Diesel Generator "B" fire blanket replacement and an electrical inspection with the following observations:
o Maintenance personnel understood the work scope; o
The technicians appeared to be qualified for their respective tasks; o
Supervisory oversight appeared adequate; and o
The technicians performing the tasks had a copy of the procedures and were using them for guidanc h. The licensee performed several MOs during performance of S0123-I-8.85, Pumps - Charging Pump and Gear Reducer, Routine Maintenance, which the inspector reviewed. The MOs were written to give the maintenance supervisor or cognizant engineer the ability to determine if certain steps, such as changing the oil, were required and to direct the technician not to perform those steps of the MO if the step was not required. In most cases observed, the technician did not perform some of the steps called out in the MOs because the cognizant engineer or maintenance supervisor determined that the work was not necessary. The technician did not record in the MOs the reason for not performing these steps; writing on the Maintenance Data Record Form (MDRF) reflected only the abbreviation NCO or NU meaning not called out or not used. There was no documentation in the MO or MDRF which would indicate why the steps were not performed. Due to the LCO controlling this job, the licensee had a supervisor controlling the maintenance performed, so the proper person did determine that the work was not necessar Licensee procedures, Maintenance Procedure S0123-I-1.7, and Administrative Procedure S0123-VI-1.0-3 provide guidance on the proper documentation of actual work performed during maintenanc Licensee representatives stated that they would conduct training for maintenance personnel in the proper method of work documentation in this area. The completed training will be examined during a future inspection. (50-361/87-19-01)
i. Maintenance Procedure S0123-I-1.7, Paragraph 6.12.21, states that the Maintenance General Foreman or Responsible Supervisor is responsible to review Work Package Documentation for accuracy and completeness; and when satisfied that the work activities and documentation are complete, one of them shall sign and date the hardcopy of the MO in the Supervisor Approval block. MO 86071243001, performed in late September 1986, was signed as complete by the technician and signed by the Responsible Supervisor in the Supervisor Approval block indicating that the work activities and documentation were complete even though a QC witness point was not signed and the M&TE and calibration due dates were not recorded
as is required by 50123-1-1.7. The licensee, when made aware of this discrepancy, was able to locate and verify that the M&TE that was used was in calibration but was not able to show that QC had witnessed the missed witness point. This is an apparent violatio (50-362/87-21-01)
The improper documentation of completed work discussed in paragraph h and the failure of supervision during the review to identify the missing signature and data in paragraph i indicated to the inspector that first line supervision may not be reviewing all of the completed work packages in sufficient detail. When this issue was discussed with licensee representatives, they stated that additional training for supervisors would be performed. This training will be reviewed during a future inspection. (50-361/87-19-02)
3. Containment Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT) (Units 2 and 3) Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's LLRT procedures as described in Engineering Procedure S03-V-3.13, Revision 5 of August 27, 1987, (and latest applicable temporary change notices) entitled
"Containment Penetration Leak Rate Testing."
This review was to ascertain compliance with plant technical specifications, regulatory requirements, and applicable industry standards as stated in the following documents:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 2 and 3 FSAR,
"Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test," (Section 6.2.6.1)
and "Containment Leak Rate Test" (Section 14.2.12.20).
o San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, Technical Specifications; 3/4.6.1.1 Containment Integrity, 3/4.6. Containment Leakag o Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, "Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors."
o American National Standard, "Leakage-Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors," ANSI N45.4-197 o Topical Report BN-TOP-1, Revision 1, "Testing Criteria for Integrated Leakage Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants," Bechtel Corporatio o American National Standard, "Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements," ANSI/ANS-56.8-198 The inspector verified that all applicable Containment Penetration Boundaries (CPBs) and Containment Isolation Valves (CIVs) subject to local leak rate testing were addressed by the procedure. Also, the inspector determined that the LLRT program utilizes approved methods for testing, appropriate test pressures and maximum pathway leakage
for CPBs, appropriate acceptance criteria, and response for failed LLRTs consistent with Industry Standards and NRC requirement Records Review The inspector reviewed licensee records for 10 Maintenance Orders for each of Unit 2's and Unit 3's CPBs and CIVs that were worked since the last Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) outages. The inspector verified that an LLRT was performed after completion of the maintenance, and the running sum total leakage of all the B and C type tests was less than the 0.6La allowed by the Technical Specification The inspector reviewed the LLRT schedule, and balanced it against outage maintenance orders for the fall 1987 ILRT outage of Unit The inspector verified that these repairs/modification will be preceded and followed by an LLRT of the applicable penetration This will allow total "as found" leakage to be determined for the ILR c. Observation of LLRT The inspector witnessed the actual pre-maintenance LLRT on Unit 2 penetration #67 and its respective CIV' The inspector made the following observations:
Testing was performed in accordance with the approved procedur o The test equipment used was properly calibrate o ALARA planning was conducted, although just before entering containmen o Job site planning was not done. Numerous trips out of the area were required to obtain the proper fittings, tools and a ladde o The test engineers involved were not current on respirator training. The assistance of a plant mechanic was required to make up the test connections that were in Class III Rad Con area The latter three items contributed to increased radiation exposure by those performing the LLRT, and are weaknesses that need prompt licensee attention. At the exit meeting on September 3, 1987, the Assistant Technical Manager and the Senior Test Engineer committed to address these concerns. These licensee actions will be examined during a future inspection. (50-361/87-19-03)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
Facility Tour During the course of the inspection, the inspector made several tours through each of the units to observe work in progress and made the following observations:
o Housekeeping at the local work stations appeared to be improving significantl o HP practices were being followe o Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) practices were being strictly followe o Personnel performing maintenance had procedures available and were using the o No equipment deficiencies, not previously identified by the licensee, were discovere.
Exit Meetings Exit meetings were held on September 3, 1987, for the LLRT issues and on September 4, 1987, for the remaining issues. The items listed in this report were discussed at that time.