IR 05000275/1986017
| ML17083B766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1986 |
| From: | Burdoin J, Mendonca M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083B765 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-86-17, 50-323-86-17, IEIN-85-066, IEIN-85-66, NUDOCS 8607110231 | |
| Download: ML17083B766 (12) | |
Text
U. S.'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t REGION U Report,Nos.
Docket Nos.
50-275/86-17, 50-323/86-17 50-275, 50"323 License Nos.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and
Diablo Canyon Site, San Luis Obispo County, CA Xnspection Conducted:
June 2-6, 1986 Xnspectors:
Approved by:
J. F. Burdoin, Reactor Inspector M.
MD Mendonca, Chief, Reactor Project Section I y /z.r r'gp Date Signed Date Signed
~Summa Xns ection durin eriod of June 2-6 1986 (Re ort Nos. 50-275/86-17 and 50-323/86"17 Areas Xns ected:
'Unannounced inspection by one regional inspector, of XE Bulletin(s)/Notice(s), of follow-up on Notice of Violations, and independent inspection of the plant.
Inspection procedure numbers 30703, 71707, 92702 and 92703 were used as guidance for the inspection.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
ab0711023 0500027>
8bpb27 R
P,OQCK, P gR m
<<a a,,
Wt a
'I
b '
t Ji
'll C">>
E p1"
~
1 t!
,r,
/
f C.
Il r
rs
(,'I
?
II k
II I
I n
i{
I V
/
I W
l
DETAIIS l.
Individuals Contacted Pacific Gas and Electric Com an (PGSE)
J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President
>"R. C. Thornberry, Plant Manager J.
A. Sexton, Assistant Plant Manager, Plant Superintendent R. D. Etzler, Construction Superintendent D. R. Bell, QC Supervisor
~D. A. Taggart, Acting Director, Quality Support QA J.
R. Bratton, Rate Case Coordinator T. A. Roselli, QC Engineer M. J. Kelly, Licensing Representative
="T. L. Grebel, Regulatory Compliance Supervisor R. L. watson,'uperviso'r, Quality Support 0. K. Pranks, XSI/NDE Supervisor R.
Q. Cook, Rate Case Group Coordinator Various other engineering and QC personnel
>Denotes attendees, at exit manag'ement meeting on June 6, 1986.
I In addition, NRC, Resident Inspectors attended the exit management meeting.
'
An independent inspection wasp'conducted~in Units 1 and 2 Turbine Building and Auxiliary Buildings.
The equipment spaces inspected for both units included:
4'.
'Five Emergency Diesel "Generator Rooms; 1%
L b.
Six 4160 Volt Switchgear Rooms;
V c.
Six Battery Rooms;
,I d.
Four RHR Pump Rooms; e.
Two Cable Spreading Rooms; f.
Two Hot Shutdown Panel Areas; and g.
Turbine Building, Elevations &5', 104'nd 140'Unit 1).
Housekeeping and equipment status appeared to be acceptable.
No violations of NRC requirement were identified.
(y 3.
Notice of Violation Follow-u
lr
'i t
PI i
/
i f
ii
~ '
if
~If e'.i
.
c
- Itfi l
U ii
e
>o An inspector reviewed the licensee's response letter to the Notice of Violation (citing five severity Level IV violations) in NRC Inspection Report 50-275/86-02 and 50-323/86-02.
PGSE letter DCL-86-148 dated May 28, 1986 describes the corrective actions taken, and/or planned to be taken, concerning these violations.
The specific corrective actions for the violations are described below:
a
Unauthorized Preventive Maintenance Chan e
This violation dealt, with improper processing of Action Request No.
A4687 (dated August 6, 1985) for preventive maintenance on Unit 1 Component Cooling Water (CCW) pump.
Administrative procedure C-750, Revision 4, requires changes to a priority 5 or 6 preventive maintenance action requests be explained in comments section of the worksheet, changes be reviewed/evaluated, properly processed and signed for on worksheet by authorized reviewer/evaluator.
Approximately eight changes made to the Action Request including a change in the type lubricant were not properly processed in accordance with the above procedure, C-750.
This licensee responded to this by stating that,
"The craftsman responsible for performing this maintenance noticed the error and changed the Task Description Supplement to be correct in accordance with Administrative Procedure D-753.
Revision 9, 'Control of Plant Lubricants,'hich identified the correct lubricants.
The craftsman failed to follow Administrative Procedure C-750, Revision 4,
'Preventive Maintenance Program,'hich requires that an explanation of preventive maintenance changes be provided in the comments section of the preventive maintenance worksheet and an evaluation be
,performed by the appropriate engineer, planner, or foreman upon completion of the worksheet."
A The licensee's corrective steps, taken and results achieved included:
i
Adherence to the procedural,requirements of C-750 was reemphasized
',to all electrical and mechani'cal maintenance foremen and Work Planning Center p3,ynners and schedulers.
In addition, the PMTS data base used for issuing preventive maintenance Task Description Supplements for oil changes on safety-related equipment was reviewed and re@ised to correct errors'.
ill
'The inspector 'reviewed the licens'ee's response and corrective actions taken to remedy this violation.
Based upon the licensee's timely response and corrective actions, the inspector considers this violation (50-275/86-02-06) is closed.
b.
Im ro er Re lacement of Gasket This violation concerns the use of a modified gasket in the place of the specified gasket when performing maintenance on valve RHR 8726A.
The specified gasket of approximately 11 inches inner diameter by 12 inches outer diameter by 1/8-inch thick be used for the body-to-bonnet seal.
Contrary to the above, maintenance Shop Work Follower SUP MM-1-82-021, completed March 3, 1982, for Unit 1 valve
ll'
tl
I L
Cl t 1
),
tII,,r II t
8 "4 l
Il
",
1>
<<
Ci
'wg
\\
J
RHR 8726A records the use of a gasket with dimensions 10-5/16-inch diameter by 12 inches outer diameter by 1/4-inch.
The licensee responded to this by stating, that the specified gasket was not available when maintenance was being performed on valve RHR 8726A.
The Maintenance Department considered it acceptable industry maint'enance practice to modify a gasket to the originally specified dimensions for'use as a replacement.
The thickness of the replacement gasket was confirmed by the installation record and visual inspection of the valve body to be 1/8-inch thick, which was the specified thickness.
Two leak tests have been performed since the gasket, was'installed,,and no leakage was observed.
The valve has also been stroke tested a number of times with no gasket
"interference.'herefore, the gasket installation is considered acceptable to use as is.
The inspector reviewed the licensee response and discussed the details of the corrective action (use of flexitallic gasket as
- replacement g'asket) with the'licensee.
Based on the licensee's timely>>.'response and corrective actions, this violation (50-275/86-02-07)
iq'closed.
fi Incons'istent Valve Maintenance Procedures This violation dealt with i'nconsistencies between maintenance procedures in setting of limit and torque switches on rotork motor operated valves.
Electrical maintenance procedure E-563.4, Rev. 6,
"Maintenance of Rotork Motor Operated Valves" was in conflict with mechanical maintenance procedure M-51.9, Rev.
1, "Rotork Valve Operator Maintenance."
The licensee's corrective steps taken to remedy this conflict was to cancel Procedures E-53.4 and M-51.9 and to prepare new Procedure MP E-53.11B,
"Rotork Operator Limit/Torque Switch Setting and Adjustments" for adjusting and setting of limit and torque switches for rotork operators.
The rotork valves will be inspected and adjusted by the first refueling outage for each unit to meet the revised procedure requirements.
This schedule will allow two of the valves which are containment. valves to be leak rate tested as required.
It, is not practical to perform this test except during a refueling outage.
The inspector
.reviewed the licensee's response and corrective actions to remedy this violation, and also examined the new procedure to determine that it addressed adjusting and setting of limit and torque switches for rotork operators.
Based upon the licensee's timely response and corrective actions,'his violation (50-323/86-02-12)
is closed.
Missin Valve Position Indicators This violation involves missing valve position indicators from valves RHR-2-641 A and B and RHR-2-8703.
Velan Engineering Company
h ~
I
)I
~
Ik P
I P
I Il C
IP P
I
a io Drawings 663219-106-6 and 663219-376-2 for valves RHR-2-641 A and B
and RHR-2-8703, respectively, show the installation of mechanical position indicators'ontrary to the above, at the time of inspection, the position indicators had not been installed on the valves.
e.
The licensee responded to this violation by concurring that the position indicators were not, installed on the subject valves in accordance with vendor drawings.
Position indicators for residual heat removal (RHR) valves RHR-2-641 A and B and RHR-2-8703 will be installed in accordance with vendor drawings.
RHR valves RHR-2-641 A and B position indicators are on order and will be promptly installed upon receipt'.
The RHR valve RHR-2-8703 position indicator will be, installed by the conclusion of the Unit 2 first refueling outage's thi.'s valve is located inside containment.
I The inspector r'eviewed.the,<licensee's response and measures taken to
,correct. this viola'tion.
The inspector also examined Materials Requisition No. 2742913 'for the position indicators for valves RHR-2-641-'A=and B which are presently on order (P.O.
722962).
I Based'n the licensee's timely response and corrective actions, this violation'(50-;323/86-02-02) is closed.
Mirin Discre ancies
.-
This violation dealt*with three different connection wiring diagram discrepancies.
The licensee responded to this violation by stating that in all cases, these wiring discrepancies did not affect operability of any plant components or systems, as evidenced by comprehensive testing and verification of operability. on several occasions.
In two cases, the circuits were schematically correct; in the third case, although the valve was operable, and additional contact in the circuit made it schematically incorrect.
Schematic diagrams are higher-tier documents than connection diagrams, and as such become the primary standard for plant maintenance and troubleshooting.
Discrepancies of this nature are resolved appropriately upon discovery either by changing the connection diagram or by correcting the wiring while.
maintaining a schematically correct configuration. If an operability or potentially generic concern is identified, an in-depth investigation is initiated for similar configurations to ensure that the operability of the plant is not compromised.
With respect to the discrepancies identified above, all wiring has been reterminated to be in conformance with both the connection and schematic drawings.
The plant's procedure (C-4S1, Rev. 9, dated April 21, 1986) governing termination activities has 'been revised and strengthened.
Also, construction procedures concerning termination activities will be revised and strengthened by June 30, 198 ~
~
a'h',*
,h K
'4 I
k k
k k
k'P h
h k,
.kh h
K kk k
n il I li I
II l. I ll
'
i(
'I
'
The inspecto'r reviewed the licensee's response and corrective action to remedy this'violation; and also examined the revised operations
'rocedure to 'determine that it properly addressed the issues involved.
Based on the licensee's timely response and corrective actions, this violation (50-323/86-02-11) is closed.
4.
Licensee Action on IE Notice (Closed) 50-275/323/86-01/IN-85-66 Discre anc Between As-Built Construction Drawin s and E ui ment Installation This Notice informed licensees of a potentially significant generic problem regarding as-built construction drawings not correctly or completely reflecting equipment installations.
The licensee's quality support group in response to IE Notice 85-66 conducted an investigation regarding "as-built" drawings.
The support group examined fifty-nine field change transmittals (as-built drawings)
from a number of design change notices to determine if field installations matched as-built drawings.
Sixteen minor discrepancies were identified.
Thirteen of the discrepancies were dispositioned through Action Requests (ARs) 10864 and 18970 while three were dispositioned by minor variation reports.
The quality support groups'nvestigation resulted in revising the general construction departments procedure PI-61, "As-Built Drawing Tolerances and Requirements";
and contributed to the preparation of Diablo Canyon Procedure, DCP-509,
"Fabrication and Installation of Pipe Supports."
The licensee concluded that no generic issue exists at Diablo Canyon with regard to actual field installations matching as-built drawings.
The inspector reviewed the quality support groups'nvestigation, and examined the records and reports; and he concludes they appear to be in proper order.
This IE Notice 85-66 is closed.
The inspector conducted an exit. meeting on June 6, 1986, with the Plant Manager, Plant Superintendent, and other members of the plant staff.
During this meeting, the inspector summarized the scope of the inspection activities and reviewed the inspection findings as described in this report.
The licensee acknowledged the concerns identified in the repor p
<
~ ~
lk
~
~
'C~.
I ix i
1,W 0