IR 05000293/1986027

Insp Rept 50-293/86-27 on 860804-08.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Maint Program & Associated Activities

ML20209B386
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/21/1986
From:	Bissett P, Jerrica Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20209B327	List: IR 05000293/1986027 ML20209B320
References
50-293-86-27, NUDOCS 8609080224
Download: ML20209B386 (8)

Text

_

i

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report N /86-27 Docket N License N DPR-35 Licensee: Boston Edison Company M/C Nuclear 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 '

Facility Name: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

,

Inspection At: Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: August 4-8, 1986 Inspector: h _ Mabfa Bissett, Reactdr Engineer 3/2tf8_4 da'te 4 Approved By: [/! M ; th6 J. Johnson, Chr e f, Operational Programs date Section, Operations Branch, DRS I

Inspection Summary: Routine Unannounced Inspection on August 4-8, 1986  !

(Report No. 50-293/86-27) .

Area Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection of the maintenance program and j associated activities.

, Results: No violations were identifie .

8609080224 860829 PDR

,

O ADOCK 05000293

] PDR i

N I

, , , _ _ , . . _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ .

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

_

. . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ . . , _ . . .

%

.

.

2 DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Boston Edison Company

• F. Famulari, Operations Quality Control Group Leader

• P. Hamilton, Senior Compliance Engineer

• S. Hudson, Nuclear Operations Manager (Acting)

• L. MacDonald, Planning, Scheduling and Cost Control Group Leader

• P. Moraites, Assistant Chief Maintenance Engineer

• J. Quinn, Compliance Engineer

• R. Sherry, Chief Maintenance Engineer United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• M. McBride, Senior Resident Inspector J. Lyash, Resident Inspector The inspector also held discussions with other licensee employees during the course of the inspectio * Denotes those present at the exit meeting on August 11, 1986.

2. Maintenance Organization Maintenance activities are controlled and conducted by the onsite mainten- '

ance section. The maintenance section is made up of four groups: mainten-ance, construction management, procurement, and statio, services. The maintenance group is. comprised of four subgroups: electrical, mechanical, instrument and control, and planning and scheduling. The four above men-tioned groups report to the Maintenance Section Manager who in turn reports to the Nuclear Operations Manage . Maintenance Activities 3.1 Administrative Controls Administrative controls were reviewed to evaluate the licensee's pro-gram for implementing requirements associated with preventive and corrective safety related maintenance activities. The objectives were to assure that the licensee programs were consistent with the Technical Specifications, Regulatory Guide 1.33, and ANSI N18.7-1972,

" Administrative and Quality Assurance Requirements for the Oper-ational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants. Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment !

s

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

)

~

.

, 3 3.2 Program Review / Implementation

'

The inspector held discussions with various maintenance supervisory personnel to evaluate those controls in place used to identify, schedula, track, perform and document maintenance activities. All mainten:.nce activitics are controlled via the Maintenance Request (MR) which provides the administrative control for identifying, ini-tiating, planning, tracking and reporting all maintenanc In the past a large backlog of open MRs (some initiated as far back as 1980) indicated a lack of adequate control of MRs. The status of many of these MRs was not even known. Much of this problem was attributed to the fact that each mainteaance engineer (electrical, mechanical, I&C) handled and tracked MRs in his own way since there were no written procedural controls in plac The Planning and Schedule Section (P&SS) was established to provide this needed control. Their overall function is threefold:

Maintain control of work request *

Provide the necessary planning and scheduling of work activi-ties, thus enabling the supervisors to become more directly involved with ongoing maintenanc *

Coordinate work activities between the various discipline The P&SS, comprised of an engineer, three supervisors and two plan-ners, commenced initiation of work in April,1986. Much of their work to date has been to investigate and disposition outstanding MR For those MRs generated during 1980 through 1982, all but four have been dispositioned. Approximately 55% of those MRs for 1983 through July, 1986 have been dispositioned. Status reports are generated weekly summarizing P&SSs progress in this area, along with work that was completed the previous week, all of which is reviewed by the Maintenance Manager.

!

l During the week of August 4, the P&SS started to control the handling of newly initiated MRs. The system is set up such that the P&SS will review for correctness and maintain all MRs up to the time Operations author'izes commencement of work. They also maintain copies of MRs for

! ongoin,g work activities, to track the current status of all MRs that l

have been generated.

l l

' The P&SS eventually hopes tc reach a point where all the preparatory work for any oae particular job would be completed by them. Once authorization to commence work has been received, they would then be able to deliver the work package, including parts, to the appropriate job supervisor and work could commence immediatel Progress towards this goal has been slower than expected and can be attributed to the following:

I l

L

.

.

. 4

Large backlog of MRs that need to be reviewed and dispositione * Delay in staffing key position *

Having correct MRs for correct data basa entry, i.e. equipment identification no. , location, P&I *

Delay in providing specific instructions / guidelines for the maintenance group It was noted during the inspector's review and during discussions with the resident inspector that applicable procedures / guidelines detailing the conduct of operations for the P&SS were not in plac Subsequent discussions with the Maintenance Manager indicated that it was his intention to have a newly written maintenance manual in use by mid-September, 1986. Because of the unexpected outage that the licensee is now in, the inspector stressed the importance of implementing the maintenance manual as soon as possible, especially in ligh~t' af the number of maintenance activities being planned during this extended outage. The inspector also stated that the P&SS espec-ially needed procedures in place, not only for their benefit, but also for other groups so as to provide the necessary guidance for interfacing with P&SS. The Maintenance Manager indicated that he might issue the P&SS section by itself rather than wait for the en-tire' maintenance manual to be completed. The inspector stated that action of this sort would be appropriate and beneficial. The inspec ,

tor had no further questions in this are Periodically throughout the inspection, the inspector observed on-going maintenance activities performed on the 'B' and 'D' Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps. This disassembly, inspect and repair, if necessary, activity was being performed in order to ascertain whether or not the pump's impeller hub or eye wear rings had been subject to Intergrangular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC). Work on pumps P-203 B&D, initiated under MR 86-10-52 and 86-10-53, was being per-formed by General Electric (GE). Also involved with the project was the Bingham-Willamette pump representative. Discussions were held with both the GE and the Boston Edison Company (BECO) Project Mana-gers, and the pump representative throughout the inspectio '

The inspector reviewed the records of those activities that dealt with the inspection of the RHR pumps to verify the following:

• Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initi-ation of work;

• Appropriate approved procedures, instructions, and/or drawings were used;

• Procedures were adequately detailed;

.

Hold points were appropriately identified and completed;

• Calibrated test equipment and tools used were identified and controlled;

Properly specified parts and materials war.e identified;

Acceptance criteria were specified and met, and if not, appro-priate action was ta. ken;

Appropriate radiological precautions were taken; and '

• Records were assembled, stored and retrievabl Initial results have not shown any indication of IGSCC failure. Of the four wear rings that were removed from the 2 pump impellers, the impeller eye wear ring from the B RHR pump was removed in two pieces for further metallurgical examination (initial dye penetrant testing revealed no indication of IGSCC failure). The remaining three wear rings were machined off. When work commences in the A & C RHR pumps, one impeller wear ring will be removed in such a manner to allow for further metallurgical testin All four wear rings are to be replaced with new wear rings since acceptance criteria specified a Rockwell C hardness of less than 32, and the original design specifications called for a Rockwell C hard-ness of 36 to 40. Recent studies have shown less potential 'for IGSCC failure with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 32. All four wear rings were found to have a Rockwell C hardness that fell within the range of the original design specification Following disassembly of the 'D' RHR pump, it was discovered that the impeller exhibited signs of discoloration which is indicative of pump overheating, possibly as a result of running at a shutoff head with-out sufficient bypass flow. GE representatives have made several recommendations as to possible corrective action to prevent any future overheating situations. The licensee currently is reviewing and evaluating the recommendations and any other possible causes that may have caused the overheating of 'D' RHR pum .3 Findings No violations were identified, however, the inspector stressed the importance of continuing efforts in the following areas:

• Complete and subsequently implement the Maintenance Manual as quickly as possible, especially the Planning and Scheduling Section segmen * Continue investigation and evaluation of root cause for over-heating of 'D' RHR pump, and initiate appropriate corrective actio _ - .

.

.

. 6

.

Evaluate Bingham - Willamette pump manufacturers preventive maintenance recommendations for RHR pumps and institute accord-ingly.

't Quality Control (QC)

The inspector held several discussions with BECO and GE QC Supervisors and personnel. GE QC is providing coverage of ongoing activities dealing with the RHR pump project (ie., hold points) whereas BEC0 QC is performing periodic surveillances of the overall conduct of maintenance performed by G The inspector reviewed both the Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) gener-ated by GE QC and the Surveillance Reports generated by BEC0 QC. All activities appeared to be thoroughly covered by both QC departments and interaction between GE project supervision and GE QC was excellen . Exit Meeting

,

The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in para-graph-1) on August 8, 1986 to summarize the scope and findings of the inspectio At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto .

t

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

.

.

Attachment 1 Procedures u ,

1. Selected N0D Position Responsibilities 1.3.20 -

Control & Utilization of Contractor Personnel and Contractor Supplied Material 1.3.38 -

Plant Performance Monitoring Program 1. Maintenance Requests 1. Unplanned Maintenance Master Surveillance Tracking Program 1. PM Tracking Program 3.M,1-1 -

Preventive Maintenance '

.

BECO QC Inspection Reports

.

!

IRS86-100 "

IRS86-101 IRS86-104 .

IRS86-105 IRS86-106 IRS86-107 -

IRS86-108 IRS86-109 IRS86-113

__ _ , __ , _ _ _ . . '.____ ..__ - . - _ - , _ - .

.-------.

.

.

.- 2

,

\

GE Nonconformance Reports P GE-RHR-001 thru 011

,

.

InserviceTesting(I'ST)

, ,

Quarterly IST performance data for RHR pumps 1983-1986

e P

=