IR 05000387/1985020
| ML17139D067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1985 |
| From: | Jerrica Johnson, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17139D066 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-85-20, NUDOCS 8508050396 | |
| Download: ML17139D067 (11) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-387/85-20 Docket No.
50-387 License No.
NPF-14 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Facility Name:
Susquehanna Unit
Inspection At:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
June 4-7, 1985 Inspectors:
C. Petrone, Lead Reactor Engineer.
7Zg5'ate Approved by: W~~+
+~ J. T~~
J.
Johnson, Chief Operations Program Section, OB, DRS 7/~ /i>I date Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on June 4 7 1985 Re ort No. 50-387/85-20 finding and a Maintenance Program Review.
The inspection involved 32 houlrs onsite by one region based inspector.
Results:
No violations were identified.
(
8508050896 85078P'DR ADOCK OSOOO3Q7
. 'DR
(
~ f
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1. 1 Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an
"H.
W. Keiser, Vice President-Nuclear Operations
- D. J. Thompson, Assistant Station Superintendent
~R.
Prego, Quality Assurance Supervisor-Operations
- L. O'eil, Supervisor of Maintenance J.
T. Todd, Compliance Engineer J.
D. Peters, Construction Supervisor, Production Services
~L. Plisco, NRC Resident Inspector
~Persons, present at Exit Meeting on June 7,
1985.
2.0 Previousl Identified Ins ection Findin s
(Closed) Violation 83-21-02:
Work performed on safety related equipment without proper evaluation and approval.
Unit 1 Technical Specifications and administrative procedure AD-QA-306, System Equipment Release, require the processing of an Equipment Release Form,(ERF) to assure that release of safety-related or Technical Specifi-cation covered equipment for work is evaluated as to its safety signif-icance.
Contrary to that requirement, work on the common portion of, the Emergency Service Water and Residual Heat Removal Service Water
"A" Loop resulted in both systems becoming inoperable for less than one hour.'.,The inspector reviewed the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions which included briefing the work group supervisors on the importance of providing complete instructions for investigative type'ork authorizations and the need to write an ERF when this type investigation might render a valve or the system inoperable.
The inspector discussed these requirements with the assistant maintenance foreman who prepares the ERF's, and the shift operations supervisors who review the ERF's for impact on safety related equipment.
These personnel were fami liar with the administrative requirements for preparation of the ERF and tagout of safety related equipment.
The inspector also reviewed a sample of in progress and completed ERF's,(discussed elsewhere in this report)
and verified that appropriate equipment tagouts had been authorized.
Based on this review, the licensee's corrective action appears to be'dequate to resolve the concerns identified in this violation (83-21-'2).
3.0 Maintenance Pro ram Review This inspection examined the licensee's maintenance program to ascertain whether it is in conformance with Technical Specifications, regulatory requirements, and industry guides or standard. 1 Corrective Maintenance The licensee's corrective maintenance program administrative controls are contained in AD-QA-500, Conduct of Maintenance; and, AD-QA-502 Work Authorization System.
The inspector reviewed these procedures and verified that:
~
Written procedures had been established for initiating requests for routine and emergency maintenance;
~
Criteria and responsibilities for review and approval of maintenance requests including emergency maintenance requests, had been'stablished;
~
Criteria and responsibilities that form the basis for designating the activity as safety-non-safety related had been established;
~
Provisions and responsibilities had been designated for performance of work inspection of maintenance activities;
~
Methods and responsibilities had been designated for performing functional testing of structures, systems or components following maintenance work and/or prior to their being returned to service;
~
Administrative controls for maintenance activities required, that the records would be prepared, assembled and reviewed for transfer to records storage;
~
Responsibility to assemble and review the records identified above for transfer to record storage had been established;
~
A program had been established for reviewing completed corrective maintenance records to assess the adequacy of the preventive main-tenance program, to identify repetitive failures of parts and components, and to identify design deficiencies;
~
Responsibilities had been assigned to assure implementation of records review identified in above; and
~
Work Control procedures required special authorization for activities involving welding, open flame, or other ignition sources and'.that they take cognizance of nearby flammable material, cable trays, or critical process equipment.
No discrepancies were identifie.2 Preventive Maintenance Administrative controls for the licensee's preventive maintenance program are contained in Procedure AD-00-540, Preventive Maintenance System.
The inspector reviewed this document and verified that the preventive maintenance program for safety-related structures,l,systems and components had been established including:
~
Responsibility for the program;
~
A Master Schedule for preventive maintenance;
~
Documentation and review of completion of preventive maintenance activities;
~
Responsibility for establishing PM frequencies; and,
~
Responsibility for periodic upgrading based on system or component failures.
No discrepancies were identified.
3.3 E ui ment Control The inspector reviewed procedure AD-gA-502, Work Authorization'ystem, and verified that the licensee had clearly defined methods and responsibilities for equipment control which included:
~
Permission to release equipment or systems for maintenance shall be granted by the operating staff;
~
The operating staff must verify that the equipment can be released without violating Technical Specifications;
~
Testing of redundant systems or components, required by Technical Specifications, shall be documented;
~
The status of equipment and systems shall be clearly identified; and,
~
Procedures and responsibility for returning equipment to service have been established.
The inspector reviewed a sample of eight (8) recently completed'ork Authorizations (WA') and verified that Operations Department approval had been obtained, prior to removal of equipment from
~,
service.
The inspector also discussed the Work Authorization system with,Ithe Unit 1 operations supervisor who explained how WA's are reviewed and
Equipment Release Forms (ERF's) are issued.
The Equipment Status File is maintained by the operations supervisor and is used to track all work affecting a specific component or system.
The inspector examined this file for ongoing work and selected WA S 54468 which involved the removal, repair, and reinstallation of PSV 12644 on the Instrument Gas Bottles Outlet Header Relief Valve.
The inspector verified that Equipment Release Form A 35563 and Permit No. 1-85-1747 had been is-sued to block the appropriate valves to permit repair of the leaking valve.
The inspector toured the plant and verified that the required thirteen valves (1-26-017, 1-26-078, and 1-26-080 through 1-26-90)
had been blocked and tagged.
The inspector also witnessed the rein-stallation of PSV-12643 and verified the work was being performed in accordance with the work authorization package.
The bolts were tor-qued to 25 ft-lbs as required.
The inspector noted that the licensee's maintenance department assem-bles a complete package of all the procedures, drawings, sign-off sheets, needed for each job and gives this to the mechanics assigned to each job.
This appears to be an effective way to ensure that the mechanics have all the information they need to complete each job.
No discrepancies were identified S ecial Processes The licensee's administrative controls for special processes ape con-tained in procedures:
AD-QA-520, Station Welding Program; AD-QA-521, Welding and Brazing Filler Metal Control; and AD-QA-522, Repairs, Re-placement and Modification of ASME Components.
The inspector reviewed these documents and verified they contained requirements that only qualified procedures be used, that only qualified personnel be'used, that a current file of special processes be maintained which would include qualification records of procedures and personnel, and that a criteria be established to determine when the use of mockupsior other special training would be required.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's current file of special process-es and the qualification records of procedures and personnel.
'The inspector also discussed the updating of these records with the'e-sponsible construction supervisor who explained that a computer based welder certification system had been established to track all certi-fied processed and all welders currently certified for a specified process.
The data base is updated monthly by submitting a process use record form which documents the welding process used for each job.
If a welder does not use a specific process for three months, he is automatically decertified until he can be reteste C
The licensee uses the information in the data base to notify welders when their qualification is about to expire, to obtain the names of all welders qualified on a specific weld process, or to obtain a list of all processes each welder is currently qualified to perform.
This system appears to be an, effective method of tracking welder qualifi-cation status.
The inspector also examined the weld rod storage area and verjfied that the weld rods were being maintained in accordance with procedure AD-gA-521.
The rods were segregated by heat number, lot, and'ize.
Low H2 rods were kept in ovens as required.
The ovens were maintained at the correct temperature and were routinely calibrated by the IEC department.
The inspector also noted that the Construction Super-visor for Production Services had been making monthly audits of the weld storage area to ensure adequate storage.
No discrepancies were identified.
3.5 Housekee in and Cleanliness Controls 3.6 The licensee's housekeeping and cleanliness controls are described in procedure AD-gA-503, Housekeeping/Cleanliness Control.
The in'spector reviewed this procedure and verified that procedures had been developed for cleaning saf'ety-related components and systems;,for maintaining the cleanliness of previously cleaned systems, and',
cleanliness classifications for plant systems had been establi'shed.
Responsibility for implementing these requirements had been clearly defined.
The inspector toured areas of the plant including the reactor
~,
building, turbine building, and emergency diesel generator rooms and noted that the housekeeping was generally good.
No discrepancies were identified.
E ui ment Histor and Trendin The licensee issues a quarterly "Equipment Performance and Trending Analysis Report" in accordance with instructions contained in proce-dure AD-gA-541, Equipment Performance and Trending Analysis Program.
The report summarizes plant performance and equipment failure inform-ation from Mechanical, Electrical and I&C Work Authorizations (WA's)
completed during the quarter.
The inspector reviewed the quarterly reports for the periods January 1,
1984, to Parch 31, 1984, and April 1,
1984, to June 30, 1984, and noted it contained a section which
identified WA's by system (e.g.
Emergency Diesel Generators, PHR, ESW, etc.) another section which identified suspected trends (ex. Auxiliary Boiler Feed Pump failures)
and confirmed trends (ex. SecurityI Intru-sion and Alarms).
The maintenance department has issued and main-tains an approved list of problem codes which are used to categorize the WA's.
The report is issued to all department managers and the plant manager who review the report and make recommendations to cor-rect equipment failure trends.
No discrepancies were identified.
4.0
~ni M
The inspector discussed the scope and findings of the inspection at an
'exit meeting on June 7,
1985.
Attendees at the exit meeting are denoted in paragraph 1.
No written material was provided to the licensee by the inspector at any time during this inspectio k