IR 05000259/1987045

Insp Repts 50-259/87-45,50-260/87-45 & 50-296/87-45 on 871130-1204.Major Areas Inspected:Program for Layup & Preservation of Equipment.Three Unresolved Items,Including Layup & Monitoring of Standby Liquid Control Sys,Identified

ML20150D541
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	03/07/1988
From:	Elrod S, Walton G, York J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150D540	List: IR 05000259/1987045 ML20150D538
References
50-259-87-45, 50-260-87-45, 50-296-87-45, NUDOCS 8803240333
Download: ML20150D541 (16)

Text

-

.

. .

Sa stov .

UNITED STATES .

. o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'"','

@' -

REGION 11 h* , 101 MARIETTA STREET, e ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%,g

+...+

)f

, . ,

Report Nos.: ;50-259/87-45, 50-260/87-45, and 50-296/87-45 v Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2901 Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Facility Name: Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: Nov mber 30 - December 4, 1987 Inspectors: /! 7M/c[/9F J. Y6rk, Senior Resident Inspector, Bellefonte Date, Signed Team eade 1) b'.

G. Walton, Senior Resident Inspector, 7 & 1W9 Date Signed Watts Bar, Assistant Team Leader Team Members: G. Humphrey W. Ross mit Approved by: - $ 7 Aa //196'

S. A. Elrod, Section Chief Date Signed Division of TVA Projects ,

SUMMARY Scope: This special inspection covered the Browns Ferry program for the layup ,

and preservation of equipmen *'

Results: Three Unresolved Items were identified concerning layup and I monitoring of the standby liquid control system, inadequacies in the layup procedure and its implementation, and Quality Assurance (QA) overview of the layup progra ,

8803240333 880315 FDR ADOCK 05000259 Q DCD

_ _ _ . - , . --. - . . , - - , .

-

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

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

. .

.

.

.

.

REPORT DETAILS' Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• E. Civera, Design Nuclear Engineering

• J. Daniel, Plant Operations Review Staff

• R. Erickson, Plant Operations Review Staff ,

• D. Gallien, Chemistry Technical Support

• T. Golston, Unit 3 Maintenance

• L. Hartley, Maintenance

• E. Hartwig, Project Management

• C. Madden, Compliance Licensing Engineer

.

• B. McKeon, Unit 2 Superintendent

• S.' Rudge, Assistant to Site Director

'

• J. Savage, Compliance Licensing

• B. Thomison, Technical Support

• J. Thompson, Quality Assurance

• J. \lebster, Shift Advisor Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians, and office personne NRC Attendees

• E. Christnot

• S. Elrod

• G. Humphrey

• C. Patterson

• Ross )

'

• D. Smith

• G. Walton

• J. York

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 4,1987, with those persons indicated by an asterisk in paragraph one above. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the report findings listed below. Proprietary information is not contained in this repor No dissenting comments were received by the license (a) Unresolved Item * (URI) 296/87-45-01, "Improper Layup and Monitoring of the Standby Liquid Control System."

.

• An Unresolved Item is a matter about which more information is required to det< ermine whether i t is acceptable or may involve violation (s) or deviation (s).

,

_ . _ _ - . ,, _ _ _ _ , - - - , . , . - _ . .c, , . ., -

-,-w --

. .. -. - - - . _ .

.

.

.

.

.

(b) URI 296/87-45-02, "Layup Procedure and Implementation Inadequacies."

(c) URI 259, 296/87-45-03, "Quality Assurance (QA) Overview of the layup

.

Program". Unresolved Items Three Unresolved Items were identified during this inspection and are discussed in paragraph . Layup and Preservation of Equipment (92050, 79701)

A layup and preservation team inspection was performed during the period November 30 - December 4,1987, to review and assess the effectiveness of tne licensee's program to preserve, during a period of inactivity, the physical condition and operational ability of components, systems, and selected structures of all three Browns Ferry units. The team was divided into two groups with one aroup emphasizing adequacy of the system layup according to industry stanaards and walking down systems to determine if layup and preservation were performed to site procedure The second group selected fewer systems and concentrated on integration of preservation requirements into the preventive maintenance (PM) program along with vendor preservation requirements. A third area shared by both groups addressed the microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) portion of the layup and preservation program. These areas of inspection review are described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, respectivel . Layep and Preservation of Equipment with Emphasis on Industry and Site Requirements , Background Through discussions with cognizant licensee personnel, the inspectors reviewed the status of the three-units since they had been shutdow This period has existed since August 1984 for Unit 2 and the summer of 1985 for the other two unit Because of the uncertainty associated with the length of the shutdown periods for each unit, the licensee did not immediately implement a layup prograni. However, draft procedures for a dry layup program were prepared in October 198 As the result of an inspection in February 198o (Inspection 86-07) j the NRC expressed concern relating to the possible degradation of the i reactor coolant a-essure boundary during the ertended outage. The l licensee was reminded of NRC regulations [10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(11)] l that require licensees to maintain managerial and administrative controls to assure that 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII is me The inspectors were informed that final procedures for dry layup of each of the three units were prepared in early 1986. Subsequently,

! ,, _ _

, _ _ _ . . _ - . -

-- . _,

.

.

.

.

.

in October 1986, layup engineers were designated for Units 1 and 3 and actions were taken to protect the Control Rod Drive Mechanisms and the steam side of the HPCI and RCIC Systems (High Pressure Coolant Injection and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Systems).

In April 1987, the licensee reorganized the layup efforts for Units 1 l and 3 and made the decision to maintain Unit 2 in wet condition in l anticipation of a December 1988 unit startu The new organization !

is headed by the Superintendent of Units 1 and 3 and is being directed by a Layup Project Manager an6 a Layup Coordinator with ,

assistance from maintenance, electrical, operations, and chemistry l personne The layup procedures were revised and the Layup i

'

Coordir.ator was made responsible for making these procedures workable, Status of Layup Program for Units 1 and 3 Through a briefing by members of the Layup Program Organization and attendance of the weekly status meeting of this organization, the i inspectors established the degree to which each component and system j had been placed in order to provide an acceptable level of protection j for the duration of the outag Although the licensee had set a target date of December 1, 1987, for the completion of layup for each unit, the inspectors observed that these dates were not me I Although procedures were established for the layup of each system, the Layup Coordinator was unable to conclude that all systems were in l the desired condition. All systems except the tube side of each main !

condenser, the suppression pools, the reactor, and reactor cooling '

water system were being layed up dry. However, the licensee did not have complete assurance that this dry state would not be violated through seepage of water at interfaces with systems that contained water. During this inspection the licensee refilled the shell side of the Unit 1 main condenser and drained the tube sioe in an effort to identify condenser tube leaks that had prevented long-term drying of the shell side and hotwel The inspection revealed several hundred ieaking condenser tubes which had to be plugged. The inspectors were also informed that the number of plugged tubes in waterbox 1A may exceed the design limit for operational us A copy of the layup status report as of December 2, 1987, is provided as Appendix A to this repor Review of Layup Procedures The licensee's layup program was developed in a series of procedures that provided both general guidelines and procedural steps for implementing dry layup of fif teen systems. All of these procedures received approval from the Plant Onsite Review Committee (PORC) and the Plant Manage . .-.

__ . _- __.

. .

.

-

.

,

The inspectors reviewed procedure G0I 100-13.0, entitled, Guidelines for Plant Layup, which provides upper-tier guidance for scheduling, sequencing, and implementing layup of systems and components. It also provides the technical bases for the implementing procedure In addition, this' document provides references on which the layup program and philosophy were based as' well as precautions and instructions specific to each syste The inspectors reviewed the following implementing procedures used for achieving dry layup of systems in Unit GOI 100-13.1, Condensate /Feedwater 1-GOI 100-13.2, Main Steam 1-G01 100-13.3, Feedwater Heater Shellside 1-GOI 100-13.4, Hotwell 1-GOI 100-13.5, Condenser Tube Cleaning 1-G0I 100-13.6, Generator / Turbine 1-GOI 100-13.8.a, High Pressure Coolant Injection - Water System 1-G01 100-13.8.b, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Water 1-GOI 100-13.8.c, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Water -

Steam Side 1-GOI 100-13.8.f, High Pressure Coolant Injection - Steam Side 1-G01 100-11.15, Standby Liquid Control On the basis of this review, the inspectors concluded that the licensee had adequately documented guidance for achieving dry layup of the specific systems, Review of Licensee Layup Activities The ~ inspectors reviewed the actions that the licensee had taken in layup imp ?1 mentation of selected systems. This review involved a review of the layup packages maintained in the Control Room of Unit 1 by the Operations Cepartment and a walkdown of three systems, i.e.,

condensate /feedwater, RCIC, and HPCI - both water and steam side In addition, parts of the following systems were also walked down: l m. sin steam, hotwell, and generator / turbin l (1) L. yup Packages Each system had been placed in dry layup through the coordination of a responsible system engineer from the Maintenance Department, craft personnel from Maintenance and Instrument and Control Departments, a shift advisor in the Operations Department, and the Chemistry Unit. Coordination was controlled by the Layup Coordinator and Project Manager, both members of the plant Chemistry Uni The i spectors verified that implementation of system layup was l being documented and the records wore maintained in the Control !

/

- . . _ _ .

. .

.

.

.

.

Room of each unit. These records included: check-off lists for the steps in each . procedure, valve lineups, temporary modifications, maintenance request numbers, instrument layup checklists, and surveillance record Some layup packagas had been previously audited for completeness while others had no The inspectors noted that temporary notatf ors wer9 attached to i som? layup packages. These notes were being ased b; the Layup '

Coordinator and System Engineers to denote steps in the procedure that required additional attention and the notes were not considered part of the documentatio (2) System Walkdowns The inspectors selected the Unit 1 Condensate /Feedwater, the .

HPCI, and the RCIC systems as candidates for walkdowns. These l walkdowns were performed with the assistance of the Layup Coordinator and the cognizant system engineers while using the appropriate flow diagram drawings, j (a) Condensate /Feedwater Syste )

This system had been defined as the normal pathway of !

condensate and feedwater from the discharge of the three ,

condensate pumps (isolation points at valves 2-509, 2-518, '

and 2-527) to feedwater isolation valves FCV 3-75, 3-76, ;

and 3-77 (downstream of the startup recirculation line to the main condenser). The layup procedure also identified isolation points associated with interfaces of the ,

condensate /feedwater lines with systems that would remain ,

filled; e.g., condensate storage tanks, and glard seal ,

water. Purging of this system was being implemented with three dehumidifier units located at chemical cleaning j connections on the following lines: l CondensatG pump discharge header '

'

Condensate booster pump discharge header l Reactor feed pump discharge piping between these pumps !

and the three trains of feedwater heater I The purge air was being exhausted through High Efficiency Particulate (HEPA) filters located in other chemical I cleaning openings on the suction headers of the condensate l booster pumps and the reactor feedwater pump l Because of multiple flow paths ia portions of the condensate /feudwater System (e.g., pumps, feedwater heaters, and air ejectors) the layuo team continued to analyze the effectiveness of the purge paths accomplished with the configuration described abov Secondary isolation points had been selected to redirect the purge paths to ensure that each line was satisfactorily i

I

. . _ .

^

g

. . ,

.

.

.

.

%

dehumidified (i.e. , relative humidity of less than 30%)

prior to considering the systems to be completely layed u A third exhaust path would normally be through the

, recirculation line to -the condenser. However, during this-inspection this pathway was isolated due to the filling of the condenser with water in an effort to identify condenser tube leaks. At the conclusion of this project the licensee

, plans to drain the condenser again, and_ maintain it in a dry condition by means of driers in the bottom of the hotwel The upper portion of the hotwell was open to air because the low pressure turbines had been disassemble (b) High Pressure Coolant Injection System (HPCI)

The HPCI System had been layed up in a dry and dehumidified condition on both the water and steam sides as follow Water side - this portion of the HPCI System included the following stainless steel lines:

Suction for the HPCI pump from the condensate supply system (14-inch diameter)

Suction for the HPCI pump from the suppression

, pool (16-inch diameter)

Discharge from the HPCI and Booster Pumps to feedwater piping (14-inch diameter)

Cooling water. for the HPCI steam driven pump's gland seals (1.25-inch to 4-inch diameter)

Booster pump miniflow line.(4-inch diameter)

A dehumidifier had been installed in a 10-inch check i valve 1-73-566 (line common to HPCI and RCIC) after the bonnet and flapper of this valve had been remove The flow path was configured to exhaust the purge air throt1h a HEPA filter that had been installed in a disseabled suppressiun pool suction check valve 1-73-51/. The flow path had been isciated from the partially filled suppression pool at valve FCV 73-26, i

'

a few feet downstream from the exhaust poin Likewise, the HPCI system had been isolated from the condensate supply system at valve FCV 73-40, leaving a short run of this 14-inch pipe as a dead leg. A one-inch line from the gland condensate return line (2-inch diameter) had been left open so that part of ,

the purging air was being discharged into the clean l l

l l

. .. .

. . . .o .

.

.

.

.7

<

s %

radwaste syste The Layup Coordinator and cognizant system engineer were continuing to assess the effectiveness of the flow path ,

Steam-Side - Dry layup had also been provided to the large diameter (8 to 20-inch)' steam and exhaust lines associated with the' steam-drive HPCI pump s and . the small (1 to 2-inch) auxiliary lines that discharge into the gland seal cor/Jenser. This portion of the HPCI System had been isolated . from the main steam lines (at valve FCV 73-3), from the startup . steam supply (at valve 73-587), from the suppression pool (at valve FCV 73-23) as well as at other points associated with small drain line This system was being purged with air from a dehumidifier connected to the HPCI turbine exhaust rupture disk. The flow path had been designed to allow the purging air to exhaust through a HEPA filter in talled in disassembled check valve 73-586, immediately upstream from isolation valve 73-587. This contiguration resulted in portions of the 20-inch turbine exhaust line and the 10-inch steam supply line being without exhaust points and, consequently, potential dead legs in the flow patter This situation was being analyzed by the Layup Coordinator and cognizant System Engineer (c) Reactor Core Injection Cooling System (RCIC)

The RCIC system had also been layed up dry as two separate sub-systems; i.e., water and stea Water Side - This sub-system was being purged with dry air by means of the same dehumidifier used to purge the HPCI water side. The flow path had been designed to achieve flow of air through the larger piping (4 to 6-inch diameter) that provides feed to the RCIC pump (i.e. , from the suppression pool and fr(1 the condensate supply system)

as.well as through the small piping (1 to 2-inch diameter)

associated with the RCIC pump cooling system. The air flow exhausted through a HEPA filter attached to suppression pool suction check valvo 1-71-508 immediately upstream from the suppression pool isolation poin The Layup !

'

Coardinator and cognizant system engineer were continuing l to snalyze the rate of flow of air through the l small-diameter pipe and those runs of pipe that terminated at isolction points. Also, these personnel were monitoring I

potential leakage of water from the suppression pool i through isolation valve FCV 71-1 Steam Side - This sub-system consisted mainly of pipe of diameter less than four inches that provides steam and I

e

.- ._

-

,

s

. .

.

.

drain paths for the steam-driven turbine of the RCIC pum In addition the licensee was maintaining the 8 to 10-inch turbine exhaust lines (to the suppression pool)_ in dry condition. A dehumidifier had been connected to an~ 8-inch spool piece of the turbine exhaust rupture disk and a HEPA

-

filter for exhausting the air had been connected to check valve 71-564 in the pre-startup steam lin In this configuration the 10-inch turbine exhaust -line was-dead-headed by isolation from the suppression pool and the main steam supply was also dead-headed at isolation valve FCV 71-3 off of the main steam line. Most of the multiple pathways of the small diameter pipe flowed through the RCIC pump turbine barometric condenser. Consequently, the Layup Coordinator and cognizant system engineer were analyzing the effectiveness of the purging configuratio Conclusions The inspectors reached the following conclusions: i After Units 1 and 3 had been shutdown for more than two years, a l systematic, acceptable layup program had been developed, but was

'

not fully implemente !

i All of the principal systems had been drained and were being dried. However, the extent to which all parts of each system was being continually purged with dehumidified air had not been established by the layup tea An acceptable program for monitoring the relative humidity of all pipe environments had not been finalize An acceptable program had been developed for documenting actions taken during layu Continued management attention is necessary to expedite completion of layup of Unit 3 and to provide support to the Layup Coordinator in the resolution of purging configurations and subsequent revision of procedures if neede . Layup and Preservation of Equipment Emphasizing Vendor Requirements and Preventive Maintenance Equipment preventive maintenance and storage procedures associated with the lay-up and storage program at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, were reviewed by the inspectors to determine the adequacy and maintenance of this progra The licensee the inspectors that the physical layup had not been completed for many of the systems as of December 1, 1987. The inspector informed the licensee that considering a the extended time the units have been shut down, the layup program might be satisf actory but implementation appeared to be ineffective. A copy of

-

,

. .

.

.

.

.

9 ,

the layup status report as of December 2,1987 is provided as Appendix A to this repor The results of the inspectors' review of the procedures and plant equip-ment to evaluate the layup program and the QA evaluation of this program are described herein. The only safety-related system that had been -

completed for dry layup was the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) system and, for that reason, it was selected for inspectio The Unit 3 SLC system lay-up requirement was reviewed by the inspector The upper tier lay-up procedure, G01-100-13.0, Rev.1, "Guidelines For Plant Layup", Section 5.1.9, and implementing procedure G01-100.13.15 Rev. 1, "Draining SLC Tank Boron Solution for Layup" require that the SLC system be layed up in the dry stat At the request of the inspector, the licensee opened valves63-505 and 63-537 which are low point drains for the SLC. Approximately 3 gallons of water drained from the 63-505 valve and a small amount drained from the ;63-537 valve. Also the SLC Test Tank was found to be approximately 1/3 full of water (100 gallons). The implementing procedure, G0I-100-13.15, omitted the requirement to initially drain the SLC Test Tank. However, procedure G01-100.0 requires the SLC system be layed up dry. The Valve, 3-63-532, on the water supply to this tank was identified by the licensee on January 20, 1987, to be leaking. A tag, attached to the valve, stated that the valve is leaking .through and filling the test tank to the !

overflo However, the licensee had proceeded to lay the system up dry, even though the leaking valve existed in the syste Further review revealed that the procedure did not require the system to be monitored for dryness (such as opening drain valves) during layup af ter the initial implementation of the procedur J l

In discussion with the l'censee's engineering personnel, it was identified '

that an engineering evaluation was perfornied that supported the plan to lay the instrument lines up in the wetted stat The licensee advised that the normal operating status for these lines are full and stagnant and that draining of the lines would cause unwarranted efforts and allow for the potential of contamination in the system curing unit restart. The Engineer advised that the root valves on the instrument lines must be ,

closed prior to draining the system to prevent an air-to-water interfac l However, a review of the implementing procedure, GOI-100.15, revealed that !

the procedure failed to require the closing of the root valve These j issues are identified as an Unresolved Item (VRI 296/87-45-01),"Improper i Layup and Monitoring of SLC" pending review of other system The G01-100-13.0 Rev. 01 and implamenting procedures were reviewed to determine the requirement for reporting deficiencies associated with the layup surveillance of major rotating aquipment. It was noted that motor and pump rotations were not always being performed in the time frames required by the procedure. Examples identified in this area were: (1) 3B Motor Generator Set (3 MTR 068, 0000B), (2) 3A Motor Generator Set (3MTR 068, 0000A), (3) 3A Raw Cooling Water Pump (3MTR 024,00007), and (4) 1A

.--

_ . ._ 4

. .

.

.

.

10 )

Component Cooling Water Pump (1MTR 027, 0010). Further review of the program revealed that surveillance of some equipment could not -be performed per the procedure. An example was that the 1A Reactor-Recirculation Pump- could not be rotated. It was further noted that no i procedural requirement existed, - such as deficiency reports, requiring disposition by upper management for surveillances that are overdue, inadequate procedures, or -deficiencies found during the performance of surveillances. This item . is identified as unresolved item (URI 296/87-45-02), "Layup Procedure and Implementation Inadequacies". .

,

The inspectors requested the results of any QA or QC efforts for evaluating the effectiveness of the layup and preservation program. The licensee stated that only one surveillance had been' performed in this area on May 14, 1987. The licensee could not produce a schedule for the next surveillance in this area but stated that some additional surveillances would be performed and this will be identified as unresolved item (URI 259, 296/87-45-03), "QA overview of Layup Program". Microbiological Corrosion Control Program A meeting was held with the licensee to brief the NRC/OSP staff on the

,

status of the MIC Program at the Browns Ferry sit The programmatic efforts being performed were the development of procedures for monitoring, control, and repair of MIC damage, and in a parallel effort, assist in the development of TVA upper-tier corporate' plans for addressing MI Licensee management has requested the first draft for the site specific MIC plan to be available in 4 week With regard to hardware, the main efforts were the assessment of MIC damage that had already occurre Radiographic examination of '

approximately 25*4 of the welds in the stainless steel EECW revealed MIC was present. Of 95 welds examined, 3 welds were positively identified as having had MIC attack and 6 welds as possibly having had MIC attack. TVA Browns Ferry had not made a decision on the need to expand their '

examinations of the EECW at this tim The carbon steel fire protection system was ultrasonically inspected for wall thickness in limited areas, but nothing of significance was foun This systera has developed leaks in the past which were attributed to MI TVA is planning to remove sections of the fire water system for evaluatio The basic approach for minimizing MIC attack in the carbon steel service water systems (such as fire water) is to be chlorinatio In addition, TVA is to analyze water samples from the following systems to determine the types of bacteria present: torus, RHR Service, ;

demineralized water, CCW, EECW, RBCCW, and river wate The only conclusions that can be made at this time is that TVA and the individual sites, such as Browns Ferry are in the developmental stages of a program, and are just starting to assess the extent of MIC damage and to develop procedures for addressing the proble _ _ __ . . - . - - .

. - - . _- .

. .

,

.

.l

.

.

,

.

l Appendix A - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Layup Status Unit 1 System GOI Number Status Comment'

Feedwater 100-1 Partial Layup config- Flow path'under Shell Side uration. Main purge layup configuratio path through heater A Unable to verify flow (B,C) 2, A (B, C) 3 and relative humidit A (B,C) 4, A Drain valves. tested (B,C) 5 and heater 10/07/8 drain coolers to condenser in layu Feedwater 100-1 In Layup' configuratio "

Condensate Condenser 100-1 To be flooded up for Dehumidifier and blowers Hotwell tube repai disconnecte Off Gas 100-1 Procedure complete Need to revise procedure Glycol to setup glycol cooler operation as PM ite Torus To stay we All cleaning complete, coating repair-in progres Equipment 100-1 In plac No commen Rotation Motor Heater 100-13 .'3 In plac No commen Verification i

'

Main Turbine 100-1 In progres Heaters on high pressure turbine. Open on low pressure turbine valve I inspection complet Main 100-1 Workin Dehumidifier setup

,

Generator complete, unit keeps trippin Need to revise procedure to j indicate layup with dehumidifie Feedwater 100-13.12C Complet Mc comme l Turbines

- - _ -- - ,. . . - . - _ ,

, ,

- - -

a

-

<

'

,

.

-

.

Condenser 100-1 Complet No comment Tube Clean-ing_

Off Gas 100-13.7.A In Layu Need to revise procedure Charcoal to incorporate ITC's and Beds setup periodic checks as PM item IIX Cleaning 100-13.10 Starte Cleaning being performed in accordance with plant PM progra CRD Layup/ 100-13.11A Complet No comment RWCU-

,

HPCI Water 100-13.8.A In layup configuration Purge in progres Side

' "

RCIC Water 100-13. Side

.

" "

HPCI Steam 100-13. Side

"

RCIC Steam 100-13. "

Side SLC 100-13.15 In layu No comment .C. Motors 100-13.14 In plac No comment Electrical An electrical section meggering position paper has not been written for all three units. This i position paper endorses existing EMI Unit 3 l System G01 Number Status Comment CRD Layup 100.13.11A In layu No comment i

'

RWCU feedwater 100-1 Main Purge path System being purge Shell Side through heater Unable to verify A(B,C)2,A(8,C)3 flow and relative A(B,C)4,A(B,C)5 humidit Drain i

!

, , . . _ _ _ _, _ . . - . .

....,...-,J

. . . - . . _ . .

-7;

-

---

,

. .

'

.

. b

. \

I i

and heater drain valves tested-9/18/87'

-coolers to con- ,

denser in laytp-configuratio Feedwater 100-1 On hold for procedure All work complete. 'Only Condensate revisio lack dehumidifier operatio Procedure revision to SPS. Will-alter valve lineups to allow humidity verification Hotwell 100-1 On hold for procedure Tube repair complete, revision of 100-1 covers back on, abov Off Gas 100-1 Need procedure revised. Need to incorporate Glycol shift advisor comment #

Equipment 100-1 In plac No comment Rotation Motor Heater 100-13.13 Need procedure Pulled from PORC Verification 10/13/87. Procedure being changed to EMI ,

12 Main 100-13. Not scheduled to be No comments.

Turbine complete until 198 F. .1 Field work complete Oil in storage Turbines tanks being cleane Condenser Not scheduled until To follow CCW tunnel Tube Cleaning after ist of yea wor Main 100-13. On hol To follow Unit Generator Off Gas 100-13. PORC approval 10/20/97. Implementation to follow Charcoal Unit l Beds IIX 100-13.10 In plac Being performed in  ;

Cleaning accordance with picnt l PM progra I l

HPCI Water 100-13. In layup configuration. Purge in progres <

Side l

RCIC Water 100-13. "

Unable to detect flo Side

'

,

_ .. .- -_

" u

.. .

, v

'

.

.

.

.

'

,

IIPCI 100-13.8 G Scoping in progres PORC approval 11/25/8 Steam Side

" "

RCIC Steam' 100-13. Side SLC 100-13.15 In Layup No comments D.C. Motors 100-13.14 Scoping in progres PORC approval.10/13/8 Electrical -

meggering See Unit 1 comment ,

Torus In wet layu Cleaning to follow Unit , Unit 2 ,

System G0I Number Status Comment Main 100-13. In layu No commen Turbine Off Gas 100-1 On hol Need to incorporate Glycol shift advisor comment Off Gas 100-13. On hold for DNE stack PORC approval 10/20/8 Charcoal Inspectio Beds Feedwater 100-1 Need procedure revised Shiftadvisors/technkcal Shell Side services revising

<

procedur SLC To be left filled with demin water to support restart testin !

IIPCI 100-13. On hold for RT PORC approved 1l'/10/8 Water Side

"

.RCIC 100-13. PORC approved 11/13/8 Water Sid IIPCI 100-13. "

PORC walk-on 11/25/8 Steam Side

/

RCIC 100-13. "

Need procedure' revisio Steam Side

, .

,

.

,

Equipment 100-1 In plac No comment Rotation Motor 100-13.13 Need procedur Pulled from PORC Heater 10/13/87. Procedure Verification being changed to EMI 12 Main 100-13.6.A On hol To follow Unit Generator IIX 100-13.10 In plac Being performed in Cleaning accordance with plant procedure Feedwater In long cycle layu No comment Condensate FW Turbine 100-13.12-H Field work complet Oil in storage tanks being cleane O. .14 Scoping in progres PORC approval 10/13/8 Motors Cond. Tube Complet No comment Cleaning Electrical See comments for Unit Meggering Torus To stay in wet layup. To be cleaned after Unit ,

l l

!

l l

l