ML16341E793
| ML16341E793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1988 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341E794 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809190227 | |
| Download: ML16341E793 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1988015
Text
'j'A. '.ELERATED
DISTRIBUTION
DEMONSTRATION
SYSTEM
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
22
R
D
NOTES:
ESSION NBR:8809190227
DOC.DATE: 88/09/06
NOTARIZED: NO
~
DOCKET
g
ACIL:50-275 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Pacific
Ga
05000275
50-323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Pacific
Ga
05000323
AUTH.NAME
AUTHOR AFFILIATION
MARTIN,J.B.
Region 5, Ofc of the Director
RECIP.NAME
RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
SHIFFER,J.D'.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Co.
SUBJECT:
Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/88-15
& 50-323/88-14
on 880711-
DISTRIBUTION CODE
IE01D
COPIES
RECEIVED:LTR
ENCL
SIZE:
TITLE: General
(50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Vio ation Response
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
PD5
INTERNAL: ACRS
DEDRO
NRR/DLPQ/PEB 11
NRR/DOEA DIR 11
NRR/DREP/RPB
10
NRR/PMAS/ILRB12
g J
REG
02
RGN5
FILE
01
EXTERNAL: LPDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
RECIPIENT
ID CODE/NAME
ROOD,H
NRR MORISSEAU,D
NRR/DLPQ/QAB 10
NRR/DREP/EPB
10
NRR/DRIS DIR 9A
NUDOCS-ABSTRACT
OGC/HDS2
RES/DSIR
DEPY
NRC PDR
COPIES
LTTR ENCL
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
=
1
1
1
A
D
S
A
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES
REQUIRED:
LTTR
26
ENCL
26
C
lf
'"
4EgI)
~o
~) 0
)
I
0
C
'I
0
- +
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVIISSION
REGION V
1450 MARIALANE,SUITE 2'IO
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596
SEP -6
$988
Docket Nos. 50-275
and 50-323
Pacifi'c
Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street,
Room 1451
San Francisco,
California 94106
Attention:
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President
Nuclear Power Generation
Subject:
NRC Inspection at Diablo Canyon
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special
team inspection,
conducted
by Mr. F.
R.
Huey and
other members of our staff on July ll through 22, 1988.
This inspection
examined your activities
as authorized
by
NRC License
Nos.
DPR 80 and 81.
Discussion of our findings was held with members of your staff at the
conclusion of the inspection.
Areas
examined during this inspection
are described
in the enclosed
inspection
report.
Within these
areas,
the inspection consisted of selective
examinations of procedures
and representative
records,
interviews with
personnel
and observations
by the inspectors.
Ins ection Overview
The purpose of this inspection
was to perform
a comprehensive
assessment
of
the licensee
maintenance
program.
Specific inspection
emphasis
was focused
on
the following objectives:
1.
Assess
the effectiveness
of licensee
maintenance
program actions to avoid
challenges
to safety
systems
arising from transients initiated or made
more severe
by failures in balance of plant
(BOP) equipment
due to
maintenance
weaknesses.
In this regard,
the inspection concentrated
on
the instrument air system, air operated
valves
and the feedwater
system.
2.
Assess
licensee
awareness
and actions
regarding industry initiatives in
equipment
performance monitoring and preventive maintenance.
3.
Assess
the effectiveness
of quality verification organizations
in
contributing to the identification, solution and prevention of technical
problems
and deficiencies in plant systems
and operations.
4.
Assess
the adequacy of licensee
implementation of appropriate
procedures.
Overall Conclusions
As noted above, this inspection
maintaining
BOP equipment which
focused
on how well the licensee
is
has significant potential
impact on the proper
8809190227
880906
ADOCK 0500027
0
'1
0
performance of important plant safety systems.
Early in the inspection, it
became
apparent
to the team that the licensee
had not provided adequate
emphasis
on the proper
maintenance
of plant air systems.
In particular, it
was clear that cognizant plant personnel
did not adequately
understand
the
design basis for this system nor did they recognize
the safety significance
of problems
being experienced
with the system.
Consequently,
site personnel
had not implemented
proper measures
for ensuring
thorough
and timely
resolution of encountered
problems.
Ma'or Concerns
Hi hli hted
b
this Ins ection
As sumnarized
below and discussed
in detail in the attached report, the
inspection identified several
findings associated
with the systems
inspected.
However, underlying each of the findings, is one or more of the following
basic concerns:
1.
Station personnel
involved in the maintenance
process
lack an understanding
of the plant design
and the sensitivities of the design to identified
deficiencies.
2.
A poor bridge between
the corporate
Engineering
and the site.
3.
A lack of qualified system engineers
who understand
and properly
follow equipment
problems.
4.
Repeated failure to properly implement management
and quality program
systems
that have
been
proven to identify, evaluate
and correct problems
affecting plant safety, e.g.,
NCR and gE.
Princi le Findin
s
The following major findings were identified during this inspection
and are
described
in detail in the attached
report and were discussed
during the exit
meeting.
The specific concerns
noted above,
were frequently emphasized,
as
applicable, to each of the findings.
1.
An important issue
reenforced
by this inspection
was the need for senior
management
to be more sensitive to and to think through the full safety
significance of identified plant problems.
Of particular concern,
are
problems
which are being dismissed
by plant personnel
as having little
safety significance,
however, after more probing by NRC turn out to have
a definite impact on plant safety.
It appears
to the inspection
team
that plant management
is missing opportunities to ensure
thorough
and
timely correction of problems in this area.
Specific examples of this concern
included
team findings in the areas
of
inadequate
evaluation
and pursuit of water problems in the plant air
systems, failure to test important check valves,
inadequate air system
procedures
and degraded reliability of main control
room annunciators.
In many instances,
senior plant management
were aware of and involved
with the problems,
however., the resulting actions
were neither thorough
nor timely.
In several
instances,
primary emphasis
appears
to have
been
focused
on the immediate
symptom rather than the total problem.
6
$98)
There appeared
to be
some weakness
in the communication of Corporate
Engineering
design
knowledge to the site staff, and consequent
lack of
involvement of Corporate
Engineering in some plant problems.
This is
exemplified by training lesson
plans
and System Design Descriptions that
demonstrate:
a.
Site staff unfamiliarity with Corporate
Engineering
views regarding
reliance
on manual operation of lOX steam
dump valves, in lieu of
backup air cyclinders described
in the
FSAR;
b.
Site staff unfamiliarity with Corporate Engineering
views regarding
intent to reopen
MSIV's following loss of control air/nitrogen
actuation supplies;
c.
Validity of the computer data
base
(PINS) for determining design
and
quality classifications of plant components.
The team observed
instances
of weakness
in licensee
establishment
of well
defined performance
standards
for personnel
involved in maintenance
activities.
Examples
included slow progress
in implementation of a
comprehensive
system engineer
program and failure to establish
documented
training standards
for key personnel
involved in maintenance activities.
The team noted that each of the concerns
addressed
above are also
examples of missed opportunities
by the licensee quality program
organization to identify and inform upper management
of existing
problems.
In several
instances,
the team noted that the threshold
for initiation of quality program controls'or problems involving
significant safety considerations
seemed
to be established
too high. It
would appear that
a more vigorous application of existing quality program
controls would have provided proper definition and
a more thorough
and
timely correction of the above problems.
For example,
no gE or
NCR was
written for failure of the air supply check valves for the MSIV to pass
the leak test.
Several
examples of weakness
in licensee
programs for measuring
and
'improving maintenance
performance
were identified.
Specific examples
included the lack of a program to track or minimize rework, minimal use
of a program for evaluating
maintenance
errors
and failure to trend,
causes for important safety system unavailability.
An additional
example
was the concern relating to senior
management
involvement in plant walk
downs.
Records
made available to our inspectors
revealed that of the five
corporate level managers
and supervisors
designed to conduct monthly
plant walkdown inspections
in select
areas of the plant, only one
individual (a supervisor)
had actually conducted
the mon'thly plant
walkdowns
on more than two occasions
during the period September
1987
through April 1988.
Further, the Plant Manager
had only conducted
two
such walkdowns.
It was 'also observed that no senior corporate
level management
was
present during the
NRC inspection
team's exit meeting with licensee
management
on July 22, when the principal findings of the inspection
were presented
by members of the
NRC inspection
team.
I
A/'
~~P - 6
1988
5.
In addition to the concerns
sumnarized
above,
the inspectors
identified
some areas
of strength
and areas
where
PGRE has
been proactive in
establishing
improvements
in the
DCPP maintenance
program.
a.
Recent reorganization
to establish
a dedicated
assistant
plant
manager,
specifically responsible for all maintenance activities and
planning is expected
to be
a improvement over the previous diffuse
organization.
b.
Key maintenance
positions
appear to be staffed with capable
and well
motivated people.
Key people are in the plant frequently and the
licensee
appears
to be implementing
a strong
program for monitoring
performance
and self assessment.
However,
we are concerned with
evidence of a lack of support
and participation
by corporate level
senior managers
and supervisors
in conducting plant walkdown
inspections
as part of an initiative which commenced in September
1987,
as previously discussed.
c.
Licensee
management
has placed
emphasis
on active involvement in
industry sponsored
maintenance
program initiatives.
d.
Senior
management
has provided significant resources
to improve
maintenance
performance
(e.g. training facilities and automated
maintenance
information management
systems).
At the conclusion of the exit meeting,
Mr. Kirsch, again
summarized
the basic
concerns
highlighed above.
In addition,
he noted that several of the problems
observed
during this inspection involve weaknesses
in areas
that have. been
a
recurrent
cause for concern
by Regional
management.
In particular
he noted the
following as specific areas of concern:
. The licensee
has demonstrated
too high
a threshold for initiating
root cause
assessment
of plant problems.
The licensee
has experienced
problems effectively learning from
their own or other utilities experiences.
The licensee
has not provided cognizant plant personnel
with a
useable
design basis
document.
I noted during the exit meeting that, although
PGSE
has dedicated
extensive
'esources
to maintenance facilities and programs (better than most Region
V
licensees),
you have not done
as
good
a job as others in effectively applying
those
resources
to ensure
proper plant maintenance
across
the board.
We
should consider holding further discussion
on the above concerns
in conjunction
with the upcoming
SALP evaluation.
Based
on the results of this inspection, it appears
that certain of your
activities were not conducted
in full compliance with NRC requirements,
as set
forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed
herewith
as Appendix A.
Your
response
to this notice is to be submitted in accordance
with the provisions
as stated in the Notice of Violation.
0
In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosures
will be placed in the
NRC Public Document
Room.
,The responses
directed
by this letter and the attached
Notice are not subject
to the clearance
procedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as required
by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980,
PL 96-511.
Should you have
any questions
concerning this inspection,
we will be glad to
discuss
them with you.
i cerely,
John
B. Martin
Administrator, Region
V
Enclosures:
l.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Inspection
Report Nos. 50-275/88-15
and 50-323/88-14
3.
Maintenance
Inspection Tree
cc w/enclosures:
S.
D. Skidmore,
PGSE
R.
F. Locke,
PGSE
J.
D. Townsend,
PGSE
T. L. Grebel,
PGKE
State of Ca'iifornia
SEP - 6
1QBB
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2.
Inspection
Report Nos. 50-275/88-15
and
3.
Maintenance
Inspection Tree
cc w/enclosures:
S.
D. Skidmore,
PGSE
R.
F. Locke,
J.
D. Townsend,
PGEE
T. L. Grebel,
PGSE
State of California
bcc w/enclosures:
Resident
Inspector
Project Inspector
docket file
G.
Cook
B. Faulkenberry
J. Martin
T. Foley,
50-323/88-14
bcc w/enclosure
1:
M. Smith
J. Zollicoffer
REGION V/A/)
FRHuey/dot
~ + MMendonca
/~ /88
f/z /88
RP&
RZimmerman
Q/g /88
AChaffee
f/2/88
RJPate
g /2- /88
UEST
COPY
ES /
NO
i
/6 /88
COPY
YES
NO
RE
EST
COPY
E
/
NO
EST
COPY
YES ] /
NO
DES
C
PY
YES' /
NO
REQUEST~Y
REQUEST
COPY
YES / ( NO )
YES /
NO
TO
YES /
NO
l
4