IR 05000373/1987007
| ML20207T794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1987 |
| From: | Jablanski F, Maclean P, Tella T, Vandel T, Walker H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207T765 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-87-07, 50-373-87-7, 50-374-87-07, 50-374-87-7, NUDOCS 8703240349 | |
| Download: ML20207T794 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-373/87007(DRS); 50-374/87007(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Facility Name:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Cond te -
February 17-26, 1987
h 3-/7-87 Inspectors:
.' and
.
Date 3'/7-87 a
.
Date b /7-E l a
.
.
Date
)hh T. Tella 3 -/7-87 Date f
Orb *
Approved By:
F. J.
ablonski, Chief
$ / 7-8 '7 QAPSection Date Inspection Summary Inspection on February 17-26, 1987 (Reports No. 50-373/87007(DRS);
No. 50-3/4/8/00/(URS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of quality verification functions in accordance with Temporary Instruction 2515/78 for audit program, document control, onsite review committee, and follow-up on corrective action of maintenance concerns.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified; however, one unresolved item was identified in the area of audits.
Ng32 g g 73@j
G
.
.
..
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Personnel
- J. A. Ahlman, Licensing Group Leader
- R. D. Bishop, Services Superintendent
- J. J. Diederich, Station Manager
- J. R. Kodrick, Maintenance Staff
- P. F. Manning, Master ElectricianAssistant Superintendent-Technical Services
- J. L. Payton,
- J. C. Renwick, Production Superintendent
- W. E. Sheldon, Assistant Superintendent-Maintenance
- R. W. Stobert, Station QA Superintendent
- H. P. Studtmann, Corporate QA Director-Maintenance
- J. D.' Williams, Master Mechanic
- D. A. Winchester, Senior QA Inspector
- Indicates those attending the exit meeting February 26, 1987.
Other site and corporate engineering personnel were contacted during the course of this inspection.
2.
Quality Verification Functions The purpose of this portion of the inspection was to assess the effectiveness of the licensee's quality verification functions, that is, the ability to identify significant problems, report the problems to management, and effect corrective action.
Specific attributes assessed were scheduling, comprehensiveness, and follow up activities.
The inspection concentrated on two primary aspects of the verification function including routine / planned activities, and response to previously identified NRC concerns with maintenance.
The assessment was accomplished by:
engineering, personnel associated with the plant, corporate
interviewing and maintenance; reviewing audits, surveillances, and summary documents;
attending sessions for planning and scheduling;
reviewing computerized systems for tracking and trending.
--
-
.c
.g,
,
1\\
-.
.
3 (yf
'
a.
Routiile/ Planned Program Effectiveness (1)!- Ite:as'
viewed
' annual audit' schedule for 1986/87
twelve audits and four surveillance reports performed by on-site QA staff in 1985/86 including audits 01-86-02,-04, 05, 08, 10, 12, 27,'50, 58, 61, 62, 63; and surveillances 1-86-90, 151, 168, and 177.
.'
.s
,
-*
four audits performed by off-site corporate QA staff in 1985/86 including 01-85-1 and II, and 01-86-1 and II.
auditsummaryreportbfromthe1985independentmanagement
audit.
')
w
"
p, s.
,
,
(2) Inspection-Result $
-
'
'
'
.)
g (a) Schedule
'
~"
The audit schedule was adequately devsloped to ensure coverage of the entire quality program /as required by ~
the QA Manual.
The inspectors noted that the schedule ~
allowed " floating" audits to be performed as dictated by plant activities such as outages.
In addition, unplanned surveillances were performed for followup
,
and/or additional program detail.
a e
3'
The inspectors noted that audits of dintenance s
'
activities were not specifically included in the audit schedule.
The inspectors were informed by the licensee
'
a 4,)
that audits'were generally performed to the specific requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, rather than by functional area incluaing audits of procurement'and the technical specifications.
o I
i Based on the inspectorc' review of audit schedules and audit logs, it was determined that maintenance program activities could not be readily verified because the licensee's audit method was fragmented'for audits of '.\\
,c calibration, environmental qualification, technical
'
,
.' specification, and procurement.
This matter is unresolved pending a review of the fragmented audited practice to ensure that all functional aspects of an area will be properly audited (373/87007-01; 374/87007-01).
\\
5 ;.
.
.t
'
'
1-
~
't, v
l -
.
%
,
,
, - - -....
-
v
}
t-
'
..
.
1(b)fComprehensiveness During review of on-site audit records, in many cases, the inspectors noted that checklist questions were very general and did not-detail the methods used for verification of particular areas, such as inclusion of sample sizes.
As a result, completed responses to checklist items did not elaborate about how verification had been performed.
It was further noted in all cases observed that the lead
'
'
auditors failed to detect this ap-)arent deficiency and provide any correction to the lack of appropriate. detail.
In discussion with the licensee, the inspectors were informed that this general subject had been recognized by the licensee and training of auditors had addressed this subject. An Audit Deficiency Checklist (guideline) had
'
been developed to aid auditors in ensuring sufficient detail of audit deficiencies.
The inspectors discussed with the licensee the desirability of using the guideline even when deficiencies were not identified.
O S
During review of audits performed by off-site QA personnel, the inspectors noted that an item of apparent significance
.
seemed to be inappropriately classified as a " comment,"
'
' ;~
that is, not recuiring an evaluation and -) roper resolution as would a "fincing" or " observation." T1e comment was about use of '! general" instruments instead of " calibrated" instruments described in LaSalle Administrative Procedure 300-10.
Prior to completion of this inspection, the licensee revised the above procedure to provide adequate m
"~
controls for ) roper use of instruments. Other apparent examples of t1is concern were discussed with the licensee and the inspectors were satisfied that the decision to classify the items as comments was appropriate.
The
,
nl licensee was made aware of the potential confusion that could result from poorly worded descriptions in audit reports.
(c) Follow-up Activities A computerized system was used to track all audit activities.
A report was routinely prepared to appraise
,
corporate manageme'nt of any items o)en 60 days or more.
The report included the reason (s) tie item was open and the need for management action if required.
All items identified during the review, which were still open after more than 60 days, were included in the report, and where required, management actions were identified.
-!
,
.
b.
Response to Previously Identified Concerns With Maintenance In 1985, a special, in-depth assessment of maintenance activities was made by the NRC at the LaSalle plant.
During that inspection, nine NRC recommendations to improve maintenance were made to the licensee.
In July 1986, the NRC followed up on the recommendations; however, none of the recommendations was closed.
During this inspection, the inspectors attempted to assess the current status and effectiveness of actions to correct significant problems brought to licensee management's attention in the area of maintenance.
The inspectors interviewed corporate and site personnel associated with engineering, maintenance, radiation protection, operations, and trainin activities;g; observed planning sessions and procedural development and reviewed the maintenance tracking / trending program.
Substantial improvements were noted by the inspectors in the areas of communication esaecially in the area of planning and scheduling of work requests, w1ich has resulted in improved efficiency and morale among plant personnel.
In the area of training, the inspectors were informed by the licensee that INP0 accreditation of the training department was expected in the immediate future.
The inspectors noted that the procedural development program was in place and included input from appropriate personnel; however, the scope of the program was substantially expanded which will extend the completion date of this activity.
The inspectors also noted that the maintenance tracking / trending program was improved to include input from maintenance personnel, which appeared to allow better availability of tracking / trending information; however, trending ability was limited to equipment identification only.
The inspectors were informed by the licensee that generic trending was discussed at the corporate management level where it was concluded generic trending would require modification of current computer software.
c.
Conclusion Based on'the above inspection activities, the inspectors concluded the following:
Schedules for audits and surveillances were adeguate
l_
except that maintenance and other related activities were audited in a fragmented manner.
Comprehensiveness of audits was not good because
checklists lacked definition, and audit results were not always properly characterized and therefore l
not forwarded to line management for action; the
'
apparent cause of these weaknesses was poor auditor training.
l
5 L
__
___
_
. _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
L
..
..
Maintenanceandmodificationworkprojectshadmarkedly improved since the 1985 NRC inspection; aggressive licensee management involvement in this area was effective in bringing about improvements to activities
,
applicable to both personnel and hardware.
- Nongenerictrendingofmaintenanceproblems-lessens licensee management s ability to be aware of potentially significant common hardware deficiencies.
These matters were discussed with the licensee during the exit meeting.
Except as noted above, the licensee's quality verification function was effective.
No violations or deviations were identified; however, one unresolved item was identified.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters that reguire more information to determine whether they are acceptable items, violation, or deviations.
An unresolved item identified during the inspection is included in Paragraph 2a.(2)(a).
4.
Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
on February 26, 1987, and summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection.
The inspectors discussed the likely content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.
._
_ _ - __ - -_________