ML16342D295
| ML16342D295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1996 |
| From: | Powers D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342D296 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-96-10, 50-323-96-10, NUDOCS 9605210490 | |
| Download: ML16342D295 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1996010
Text
ENCLOSURE
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
II'nspection
Report:
50-275/96-10
50-323/96-10
Licenses:
DPR-82
Licensee:
Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street.
Room 1451
P.O.
Box 770000
San Francisco.
Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant.
Units
1 and
2
Inspection At:
San Louis Obispo, California
Inspection
Conducted:
April 15-25.
1996
Inspector:
Claude
E. Johnson.
Reactor
Inspectors
Maintenance
Branch
Division of Reactor
Safety
Approved:
r.
.
owers,
ie
.
ann enance
rane
Division of Reactor Safety
a e
Ins ection
Summar
Areas
Ins ected
Unit 2
Routines
'announced
inspection of the implementation
of maintenance activities.
Areas
Ins ected
Unit 1:
No inspection of Unit
1 was performed.
Results
Unit 2
~0erations
~
The operations
functional area
was not inspected.
Maintenance
~
There was
good supervisory oversight of the work activities observed
(Section 2.1.1).
~
Work orders
and instructions
were clear
and detailed
enough for workers
to accomplish the tasks
(Section
2. 1. 1).
96052i0490 9605i7
ADOCK 05000275
8
-2-
~
Planners
were observed
in the field scoping job activities before
developing work instructions
(Section 2. 1. 1).
~
There was good foreign material exclusion control during work activities
(Sections
2.1.1
and 2.1.1.1).
~
A licensee
maintenance
foreman maintained close control over contractor
personnel
work activities (Section
2. 1. 1).
~
Maintenance
personnel
were fully aware of management
expectations
and
procedural
compliance
requirements.
In particular,
maintenance
personnel
planning. coordination.
and execution
performance
was
excellent during the removal of a reactor
coolant
pump seal
package.
One example of poor work practice
was identified when
a maintenance
technician did not have the work package at the work location
(Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.1.1.
2.1.1.2.
and 2.1.1.3).
~
In general,
the material condition of the equipment
inspected
was good
(Section 2.3).
En ineerin
~
The engineering
functional area
was not inspected.
~P1
tS
t
There was continuous quality control
and radiation protection oversight
of the work activities observed
(Section 2.1.1).
~
Site personnel
were identifying an increased
amount of problems'hich
was attributed to their heightened
awareness
of the action request
process
(Section 2.2).
~
In general.
housekeeping
was good (Section 2.3).
R~1U i
1:
N t
ppli
b1
Summar
of Ins ection Findin s:
~
None
Attachments:
~
Attachment
1
- Persons
Contacted
and Exit Meeting
~
Attachment
2
- Documents
Reviewed
-3-
1
PLANT STATUS
DETAILS
During this inspection period. Unit
1 was at power,
and Unit 2 was in
Refueling Outage
7.
2
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (62700)
The inspector
used
NRC Inspection
Procedure
62700 for guidance to:
~
Observe
maintenance activities in progress.
!
Determine if maintenance activities were implemented in accordance
with
work instructions
and procedures.
d
~
Observe craft performance of selected
work packages
and evaluate craft
experiences
with recent work packages.
2. 1
Maintenance Activities Ins ected
The inspector
observed all, or portions of, licensee activities related to
implementing approximately
20 maintenance
work orders.
Specific work orders
witnessed
are listed in Attachment
2.
2. 1. 1
Observations
and Findings
The inspector
found that work activities performed in accordance
with the work
orders
were done in a professional
and thorough manner.
All work activities
observed
were performed with the work package
present
except for one instance
discussed
in Section
2. 1. 1.2.
The inspector noted excellent supervisory.
quality controls
and radiation protection oversight of the work activities
observed.
The inspector considered
the observations
below as positive
elements of the licensee"s
maintenance
program or its implementation.
Work orders
and instructions
were clear
and detailed
enough for workers
to accomplish tasks.
Several
planners
were observed
in the field scoping the job activities
before developing the work instructions.
Good foreign material exclusion controls were noted during work
activities'nd
Continuous controls
by licensee
foreman were visible over contractor
personnel
work activities.
0
2.1.1.1
Pump Seal
Removal.
Inspection,
and Replacement
The inspector
observed
a'thorough prejob briefing before the removal of
Pump 2-1 seal
package.
The task
was performed in'an excellent
and controlled manner.
The removal of Seals l. 2.
and
3 were conducted in a
smooth flowing and efficient manner.
The inspector concluded that the
maintenance
technicians
were well trained
and experienced.
The foreign
material exclusion coordinator performed
an excellent job in controlling
foreign material exclusion in the job area.
The coordinator
controlled every
item that went into and out of the reactor coolant
pump.
There was excell~~t
communication
and visual cont""t between
the coordinator
and the mechanical
maintenance
technician inside the pump.
Radiation protection personnel
rovided excellent support in monitoring the radiation
and contamination
evels
and obtaining
smear
samples
during the removal of all three seals.
The
vendor representative
provided continuous oversight of the work
activity.
Overall. the removal of Reactor Coolant
Pump 2-1 seal
package
was well
planned. coordinated'nd
executed.
2. 1. 1.2
Replacement
of Main Feedwater
Pump Motor
The inspector
observed
a maintenance
technician
remove
an existing coupling
from Main Feedwater
Pump Motor
PP 2-1.
and replace it with a new coupling.
The inspector
asked the maintenance
technician to provide the work package
for
review.
The maintenance
technician
informed the inspector that he had left
the work package in the maintenance
shop.
proceeded
to the shop to acquire the
work package.
and returned.
The maintenance
technician
informed the inspector
that. normally. the work package
would be at the work location;
however.
in
this instance
the shop
was not far away and the work was within the skill of
the craft.
The inspector
informed licensee
management of the incident described
above.
The licensee's
management
informed the inspector that the maintenance
technician
had not met management
expectations
that maintenance
technicians
should have work packages
at the work locations.
The inspector
noted that the replacement of the coupling appeared
to be witl; n
the skill of the craft.
There were no sign off steps
in the instructions that
the maintenance
technicihn
had over looked.
However,
the inspector considered
that working without
a work package
was
an example of poor work practice that
appeared
to be isolated.
Z. l. 1,3
Nondestructive
Examinations
The inspector also witnessed
nondestructive
examinations
performed
by
nondestructive
technicians
on several
maintenance activities observed.
The
inspector
determined that these
examinations
were performed in accordance
with
procedures.
l
J '
la
0
-5-
The inspector
reviewed nondestructive
examination
records listed in
Attachment
2 of this report.
2. 1.2
Personnel
Interviews
The inspector
interviewed maintenance
personnel
during work activities in
progress
about the following subjects:
~
Procedural
compliance,
~
Quality of work packages
and instructions.
~
Action request
process,
Procedural
step signoffs,
~
Management
expectations.
and
~
The recent organizational
combining of instrumentation
and control with
electrical.
The inspector determined that the majority of maintenance
personnel
were fully
aware of management
expectations
and procedural
compliance requi rements.
In
general,
most maintenance
personnel
were pleased with the content
and detail
of procedures
and work packages.
The maintenance
technicians
also indicated that they were familiar with the
action request
process
and the requirement to signoff on completed work steps
in the work packages.
The inspector
also questioned
instrumentation
and controls
and electrical
technicians
about the combining of the two groups into the technical
maintenance
group.
Several
technicians
indicated that most technicians
(instrumentation
and control
and electrical) did not like the merger,
but had
began to accept it.
The inspector
asked
the technicians if there
was any
decline in safety
as
a result of this merger.
The technicians
did not believe
there was
a declining trend in safety
as
a result of the merger.
The
technicians
informed the 'nspector that most technicians
took pride in thei r
work and would not compromise safety of the plant over
a merger.
2.2
Review of Action Re uests
The inspector
selected
action requests
generated
by technical
and mechanical
maintenance
from February to April 1996 (approximately
2 months) for review.
The inspector
reviewed those action requests
listed in Attachment
2 of this
report.
The purpose of this review was to determine the types of maintenance-
related
problems that had been identified and if appropriate corrective
0
-6-
actions
were taken.
Most'esolutions of the action requests
were considered
by the licensee
as incomplete at the time of the inspection.
Howevers
in
reviewing these action requests'he
inspector identified several
potential
programmatic
problem areas'uch
as:
~
Components
incorrectly installed/poor configuration control.
~
Lack of procedural
adherence,
and
~
Vendor drawings/procedures
not revised or included in work packages.
The inspector
informed licensee
management
that attention
was
needed
in these
areas that had potential
programmatic
problems,
especially safety-related
systems
and structures,
to ensure
themselves
that these
components,
structures.
and systems
were built in accordance
with design drawings.
Licensee
management
informed the inspector that action requests
were being
initiated more than in the past
because of heightened
awareness.
The
inspector considered
the licensee's
actions to heighten site personnel
awareness
of the action requests
program
as
a positive performance indicator.
The inspector discussed
the above potential
programmatic
problem areas with
NRC management,
which concluded that this concern would be reviewed during
a
near-term inspection that was previously planned.
2.3
Material Condition
The inspector toured the Unit 2 auxiliary building and diesel generator
building. observing
housekeeping
and material conditions of the following
components
and their
rooms:
Containment
Spray
Pumps
PP-2-2
and PP-2-1;
. Charging
Pump (Positive Displacement
Pump) 2-3;
Diesel Generators
2-1. 2-2,
and 2-3;
Unit 2 Battery
Room 332-2 (Battery 22):
and
~
Component Cooling Water
Pumps
PP-2-2,
2-3.
and 2-1.
The inspector
noted that there were no excessive oil or water leaks visible
on, or near'he
equipment.
and housekeeping
was good in the rooms.
3
REVIEW OF UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
(UFSAR)
COMMITMENTS
A recent discovery of a licensee
operating their facility in a manner contrary
to the
UFSAR description highlighted the need for a special
focused, review
that compares
plant practices.
procedures
and/or
parameters
to the
descriptions.
While performing the inspections
discussed
in this report, the
inspector
reviewed the applicable portions of the
UFSAR that related to the
containment
fan cooler units.
The inspector verified that the
UFSAR wording
was consistent with the obs..rved plant practices,
technical specifications,
procedures,
and/or parameters.
The licensee
had
made proposed
changes
on
marked
up pages of the
However.
these
marked
up page
changes
had not
been incorporated into the latest revision as of this inspection.
F
~
R%,1
V
~
EI
ATTACHMENT 1
PERSONS
CONTACTED AND EXIT MEETING
1
PERSONS
CONTACTED
1. 1
Licensee
Personnel
"J. Alviso. Engineering Assistant.
Regulatory Services
- M. Brewer. Supervisor,
Procurement
Services
- D. Brosnan.
Director. Regulatory Services
- C. Harbor.
NRC Interface.
Regulatory Services
R. Harris. Director, Materials.
Haintenance
Services
"J. Minds. Director, Quality Control
- T. McKnight, Supervisor.
Quality Assurance
- D. Hiklush. Manager.
Engineering Services
~J.
Holden,
Hanager.
Maintenance
Services
- 0. Oatley, Director, Mechanical
Maintenance
- H. Phillips. Director, Technical
Maintenance
- R. Powers.
Acting Plant Manager
~J.
Sopp. Supervisor.
Quality Control
- B. Waltos. Director. Balance of Plant,
Engineering Services
1.2
NRC Personnel
- S. Boynton. Resident
Inspector
In addition to the personnel
listed above,
the inspector contacted other
personnel
during this inspection period.
- Denotes
personnel
that attended
the exit meeting
on April 25,
1996.
2
EXIT HEETING
An exit meeting
was conducted
on April 25.
1996.
During this meeting,
the
inspector
reviewed the scope
and findings of the report.
The licensee did not
express
a position on the inspection findings documented
in this report.
The
licensee did not identify as proprietary any information p"ovided to,
or
reviewed by, the inspector.
0
~
~
ATTACHMENT 2
ACTIVITIES WITNESSED AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Work Order Activities Witnessed
WO R0144840
- "Removal/Internal
Inspection.
Governor Valve MS-2-FCV-15"
WO R0079596
- "Disassembly
and Inspection of Main Feedwater
Pump Turbine 2-2,"
Tasks
2. 3. '4. 5.
and
6
WO R0118350
WO R0119246
- "Internal Inspection
Valve FW-2-494." Task
1
- "Disassemble
and Inspect
RCP 2-1 Seals."
Tasks
1 and 2
WO R0119394
- "MS-Z-FCV-134, Internal Inspection,"
Task
1
WO R0095420
- "Breaker Testing,
480V Vital Bus
H ~ " Task
1
WO R0093939
- "Surveillance Testing of 480V Vital Bus H." Task
1
WO R0093699
- "Station Battery Performance
Test. Battery 22," Task 1.2
WO C0141477
- "Install New Relays
and Terminate
Relay Wiring to 4.16kV
Cubicle 14.
Bus
H"
WO C0141475
WO C0141612
WO C0140125
WO R0138543
WO C0142533
WO C0139986
WO C0141244
WO C0142529
WO C0143868
WO R0106386
WO C0142543
"Install
New Relay Boxes, Cubicle 12. 4. 16kV Bus H." Task
3
"Install Relays
(White Light). Cubicle 8.
Bus 8." Task
3
"Weld Reducer to Feed Ring.
SG 2-4."
Task
3
"Charging
Pump P-2
~ Coupling/Strainer /Inspection."
Task
1
"Main Feedwater
Pump 2-2,
Speed
Probe Installation." Task
1
"Main Feedwater
Pump 2-1.
Replacement
of Motor," Task
2
1
"Replace Cylinder Heads.
Diesel Generator
2-2"
"Replace
Main Feedwater
Pump (2-1) Thrust Bearing Probes"
"Preheat
and Weld Repair of FWP2 Steam
Chest
~ " Task 1.2
"AssemblyKTorquing of Bolts,
AVW FW PP 2-1."
Task
1
"DG 2-3 EGA/EGB Governor Adjustments."
Task
1.
~ ~
0
I'
-2-
Procedures
AD7. ID1
"Use Of Plant Information Management
System
(PIMS) Work Order
Module." Revision
1
AD7
"Work Planning
and Management,"
Revision
OB
TP TD-9610
"Installation Testing Of Yaskawa/PDS
SF6 4. 16kV Gas Rotary Arc
Circuit Breakers
on Energized
Bus or Line." Revision
0
AD2. IDl
"Procedure
Use and A"herence." Revision
4
MA1
"Maintenance,"
Revision
1A
AD7. ID2
"Standard
Plant Priority Assignment
Scheme."
Revision
1B
MA1. IDB
"Control Of Temporary Rigging From Plant Equipment,
Piping and
Structural
Members'
" Revision
OA
MT-4
"General
Magnetic Particle Examination Procedure."
Revision
2
NonDestructive
Examination
Records
Pump (Z-l) rotor - Fluorescent
magnetic particle
Feedpump Turbine (2-2). lower feedpump
case
nozzle block - Fluorescent
magnetic particle
~
Feedpump Turbine (2-2), blade rings
- Fluorescent
magnetic particle
ACT~6~ REtCUf'STS
A0399129
A0399339
A0399498
A0399501
A0397567
A0398350
A0395193
A0396149
A0399152
A0398986
A0348328
A0396617
A0394183
A0348328
A0397247
A0398039
A0398535
A0394540
A0394540
A0395434
A0396181
A0397028
A0393497
A0396658
A0398638
A0398642
A0394185
A0395585
A0398508
A0399444
A0396983
A0397178
A0397403
A0398508
A0399386
A0393945
A0395284
A0395081
A0395084
A0394191
A0395085
A0395087
A0399384
A0398772
A0397917
A0397920
A0396821
A0396822
A0398221
A0398548
A0398552
A0394181
A0325009