IR 05000441/1990001
| ML20055G388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1990 |
| From: | Gardner R, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055G384 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-441-90-01, 50-441-90-1, NUDOCS 9007230120 | |
| Download: ML20055G388 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
.,f
'
4-c.,
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 l
' Report No.
50-441/90001(DRS)
Docket No. 50-441 Construction Permit No.
CPPR-149 i
Licensee: The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company
'
10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081-Facil_ity Name:
Perry Site Inspection At:
Perry, Ohio inspection Conducted: June 25-28, 1990
!
,
,
inspector -
M A
7 /7,I[
!
.E_N sler Date 7!/7[O
~ Approved By:
.
,
IC H. Gar ~dner, Chief Date
Plent Systems Section
Inspection Summary
. Inspection on June 25-28, 1990 (Report No. 50-441/90001(DRS))
l
, Areas' Inspected: Routine announced inspection of Unit 2 preservation
{
. activities affecting structures, components and' material during extended-
<
construction delay.
"i Results: No violations'or deviations were. identified. Weaknesses were-identified in' quality verification of repetitive task maintenance and the protection of outside storage conditions of electrical cable.
_
'
o s
%
_ _..........
.
m
-
-
[J
..
,.
,
y
-
,
y m
~ '
'
DETAIM v
- 1.
Persons' Contacted
- The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI)
a
- E. G. Sterle, Manager, CSS.
_
.
'.
- D. W. Conran, Compliance Engineering, LCS
- R. A DiCola, Operations Engineer, LCS K. :Kutolows_ki, Planner, Repetitive Task, Unit _2 J. Lausberg, Supervisor, QAS
- M, Manley, Contract Administrator
- L. Hinter, Supervisor, Quality Verification K. Monroe,-Coordinator, Repetitive Tasks, Unit 2 W. Morris, Quality Engineer R. Solt, Supe _rvisor, Quality Engineering
- D. Takacs, Manager, Quality Control-J. Zarea, Electricil Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulato y-Commission-(NRC)
G; 0'Dwyer, Residenttinspector
-
.
- Denotes ~those-persons attending the exit interview conducted on June 28,'41990.
,,
. 2.
Inspection of Unit.2 Preservation' Activities
.The' inspector reviewed the licensee's current procedures for maintaining stored-in-place plant structures, systems, and material in the outside storage (laydown) areas and components'and materials stored within the warehouse complex.
These procedures delineate the. requirements,.
- responsibilities and activities necessary to preserve the plant structures,-
systems,~ components and-materials until the resumption of Unit 2 construction activities..The procedures appeared adequate to assure the preservatio_n of plant components,
,
t The licensee'has included the Unit 2 systems and components in the facility wide repetitive-task program, a computerized preventive l
maintenance system.
Placing the; Unit 2 activities in the repetitive task i
system has resulted in improved scheduling of maintenance and preservation l
activities involving Unit 2 components and materials, j
,
i-a.
External Storage Areas The inspector. observed the condition of materials and components
i stored in the outside storage' areas, pipe laydown at Parmly Road,
-!
the cable-yard near the training center, and tanks and miscellaneous
!
material stored in the outdoor areas in the warehouse complex.
In
,
i n
l
$
is -
.
g
.
{$
'
&
=c o
1, i
general, the material and components were'in good condition.
Some corrosion.was observed on a few pipe spool pieces and on some safety-related HVAC ducts at the parmly Road laydown area. The licensee' initiated work orders to remove the corrosion and touch
,
up the~ coating on the pipe and duct.
Several reels of Class 1E cable in the cable yard near the training center were not protected from the environment. The inspector
observed deterioration of cable jackets on the outer layers of j
exposed cable on the unprotected cable reels.
The. licensee's
maintenance personnel had identified the unprotected cables on the cable reel maintenance log on May 9, 1990, and is reviewing their options for providing improved protection for the cable reels.
In addition to the exposed cable, some of the wooden' reels have-
deteriorated and require replacement. The licensee has spare empty reels for re-reeling the cable and initiated work orders to replace
the rotted wood reels with sound wood reels.
The level of quality verification of maintenance and preservation a
activities ~in the outside storage areas was minimal. Discussions with quality control and quality assurance personnel indicate that
.during 1990, there had been no quality control inspections in the external storage areas and one surveillance that only included areas i
in the warehouse complex. At the exit interview,-licensee representatives agreed to review the adequacy of quality control'
involvement in-the Unit 2 activities.
l l
b.
Warehouse Storage Areas R
The inspector toured the licensee's warehouses used for the storage.
and preservation of Unit 2 partsLand components. The parts and components stored.in the warehouses appeared to be adequately
'
nmaintained and protected to assure their preservation.
Heaters were.
energized in the large electrical components, desiccants were being replaced at manufacturer's recommended = intervals and nitrogen purges E
were being maintained at the required pressures on tanks stored in-f
the warehouse area, c.
In-plant Storage I:
'
The licensee has uoved the majority of the safety-related structural l
steel from the laydown areas to sheltered storage in the Unit 2
'
heater bays.
In the power block, the inspector-examined installed or stored-in-place. components in the drywells, pump rooms, refueling floor, auxiliary building, control building and switch gear rooms.
'
Each component inspected had been included in.the Unit 2 maintenance repetitive task program with maintenance performed on schedule.
Equipment was protected from damage by adjacent activity except.in
'
'
the Unit 2 control room where some openings in panels _were not covered and personnel working in the area had tossed paper and trash
'
inside the panels.
Other plant areas were adequately clean with all l
construction materials and parts properly stored.
L No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
p
,.
v7'
-
- j.
,;
,
,
g
'
Oj
}<
t
,
.f4 m
m y,
<
,
i s o_..t-
- '
-
,
- -
,
s
.,.
' Qj
- :
,
,..
t.
4,
....
n t
<
..
p4
"[' 3i:. EEit' Interview'
,:{
-
-
,,
_
- 7
-
.
';
>r
,
.
'
%
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in' Paragraph 1):
,
V"
.~at the conclusion. of the inspection and summarizeJ-the scope.and: findings.
.
F
- of.:!the inspection. The. inspector discussed thel hkelyLinformational
~
u.
content'of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes j
'
~
'
- reviewed by-the' inspectors during the inspection.
- The'. licensee did not.
<'
,
'
identify any such documents or processes. as, proprietary.
q
,
..
v,,
i n
a
]s
.
~ _.
,
,
.t
-
-
,
.
>
L
,
'
E~
-
W
!\\
'
- i r.
.
a
I
',
4
-
p;
'
-'
>
.t, t
,t
..h (.
r
!
,
>
\\
- .!'-
k.
.: ;:b-
-
.
,
, q,y
?
I
!
F i
.
,
Y
,
'
)
s t
'
g
4
-
'
'
y.,
)
l;_
'
'
!