ML18052B417
| ML18052B417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1987 |
| From: | Gardner R, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18052B416 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-87-31, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8712210272 | |
| Download: ML18052B417 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000255/1987028
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-255/87031(DRS)
Docket No. 50-255
License No. DPR-20
Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
212 West Michigan Avenue
Jackson, MI
49201
Facility Name:
Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant
Inspection At:
Covert, Michigan
Inspection Conducted:
November 16-25, 1987
Inspector: R .t\\. ~-~.JW,v ~
J. H. Neisler
R.t\\-~V\\1---
Approved By:
R. Gardner, Chief
Plant Systems Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on November 16-25, 1987 (Report No. 50-255/8703l(DRS))
12-/t~/~7
Date
Areas Inspected:
Routine announced inspection of the licensee
1 s implementation
of Generic Letter 83-28 in the areas of equipment classification, vendor
interface, post maintenance testing and reactor trip system reliability.
Closed TI 2515/64RI and TI 2515/91.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified .
8712210272 871216
~DR ADOCK 05000255
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principle Licensee Employees
- D. P. Hoffman, Plant Manager
- R. E. McCaleb, Quality Assurance Director
- C. S. Kozup, Technical Engineer
- J. G. Lewis, Technical Director
- R. D. Oroz, Engineering and Maintenance Manager
H. C. Tawney, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor
T. C. Saarela, System Engineer, Mechanical
C. R. Ritt, Administration Supervisor
R. B.
K~sper, *Electrical Mainteriance Supervisor
R. S. Westerhof, System Engineer, I&C
P. A. Gist, Document Control Clerk
W. L. Roberts, Project Engineering
- Denotes those persons attending the exit interview.
2.
TI 2515/64Rl (Closed) TI 2515/91 (Closed)
a.
Equipment Classification
The inspector selected five components in the reactor protection
system (RPS) and ten components in the containment spray system for
examination during this inspection.
The components selected were:
Trip contactors
Manual trip breaker
Rod drive clutch power supply
Rod drive motor
Rod drive clutch
Containment Spray System
Containment spray pump P~54A
Containment spray pump motor
2400 volt circuit breaker 152-210
Fl ow transmitter FT-0301
Valve CK-3181
Valve CV-3001
Level transmitter LT 0437A
Valve CV-3029
Valve CV-3031
Valve CK-3239
(1) The inspector reviewed the licensee's equipment classification
(Q-List) procedure and the Palisades Q-List.
The licensee ha~
established a comprehensive classification system that
encompasses all plant structures, systems, components, and
activities. The inspector selected components and activities
for comparison with the Q-List to verify whether these
components and activities were being correctly classified as
safety related.
Each of the items selected was correctly
classified on the Q-List.
2
(2)
To determine the level of plant management oversight, the
inspector reviewed plant procedures controlling maintenance,
modifications, procurement, inspection, and testing of
safety-related components.
For activities impacting
safety-related structures, systems, and components, the
inspector reviewed quality assurance procedures, audits,
surveillance activities, and corporate level procedures~
(3)
Equipment classification is controlled_by Administrative
Procedure 9.30,
11
The procedure establishes
responsibilities and method's for -assuring the proper
classification of plant structures, systems, components, and
activities.
The addition or deletion of items on the Q-List
is reviewed and approved by the quality assurance organization
prior to the initiation of any action that affects the item's
classification.
(4)
The inspector reviewed approved procedures issued by corporate
and plant management for procurement, maintenance, modifications,
inspection, testing, and surveillance activities affecting
safety-related structures, systems, and components.
(5)
The inspector reviewed procedures established to control the
training and indoctrination of personnel performing activities
affecting safety-related structures, systems, and components.
Included in the review were procedures for training maintenance
and I&C personnel, staff and management personnel and quality
assurance personnel.
The inspector reviewed personnel
training and indoctrination records to verify that the required
training was being accomplished.
In addition to the usual
practice of training personnel for activities affecting
safety-related components, Palisades has included the requirement,
as a first step on their work orders, that the supervisor/foreman
verify the qualifications of the personnel assigned to
perform the activity.
Each maintenance supervisor is provided
a matrix showing the training and qualifications of each
individual assigned to his section.
(6)
The inspector reviewed five audit reports of safety-related
activities that had been performed by the off-site corporate
quality assurance organization and twenty surveillance reports
of safety-related activities that had been performed by the
on-site quality assurance department.
Both quality assurance
groups maintain schedules of planned audits and surveillances
for safety-related activities at the facility.
(7) The corrective action program for safety related activities
is controlled by Administrative Procedure 3.03, "Corrective
Action,
11 and other quality assurance, engineering, and corporate
procedures.
The inspector's review of corrective action for
audit and surveillance findings revealed that the corrective
actions for those findings were adequate, timely, and complete.
3
(8) Review and evaluation of information concerning malfunctioning
equipment is controlled by the licensee's corrective action and
deviation procedures.
The Corrective Action Review Board (CARB)
and the Plant Review Committee (PRC) review malfunctioning or
nonconforming equipment to determine whether an identical
replacement could be expected to perform reliably.
(9) The inspector reviewed the licensee's modification control
program and selected modifications to -safety related systems.
The modification documentation including drawings, work
orders, and inspection documentation were clearly identified
as safety-related.
No violations or deviation were identified.
b.
Vendor Interface
The inspector reviewed the licensee's Administrative Procedure 10.45,
"Vendor Manual Control." This procedure establishes responsibilities
and methods to assure that vendor technical information is reviewed
and evaluated, controlled, and maintained current by the document
control section.
Vendor information for five RPS components and
ten core spray components were reviewed for completeness and to
determine whether the information on file accurately reflected the
installed equipment.
Guidance provided in the vendor manuals has
been included in the maintenance, test, and inspection procedures
used in the facility.
No components were identified as being
manufactured by vendors who have since gone out of business.
The licensee's procedures controlling maintenance anJ modifications
- and administrative procedures pertaining to vendor technical
information were reviewed.
The procedures were determined to be
adequate to control replacement of equipment in situations where a
vendor goes out of business or will not supply adequate information
to the plant.
The licensee is participating in the Nuclear Utility Task Action
Committee (NUTAC) and the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System
(NPRDS).
The inspector determined that procedures were in place to
require periodic surveillances of vendors of safety-related
components and services.
Procedures have been established for the
reporting and evaluation of NPRDS and SEE-IN information.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Post Maintenance Testing
The inspector selected a containment spray pump, three motor-operated
valves, one 2400 volt circuit breaker, and a spray pump motor.
For the selected components, the inspector determined the following:
4
(1)
Post maintenance testing and surveillances are controlled by
written procedures.
Th~ inspector reviewed completed work
orders involving both preventive and corrective maintenance.
Each work order indicated that the required post maintenance
testing had been performed.
(2) Criteria and responsibilities for maintenance and for designating
maintenance activities as safety-related and non-safety-related
have been established in the work request/work order initiation
procedures.
Inspection of post maintenance tests is controlled
by the quality assurance/quality control inspection program.
(3) Methods for performing functional testing following maintenance
of safety-related components have been developed and are
delineated in published plant procedures, operator surveillance
procedures, and in maintenance and I&C procedures.
(4) *The inspector reviewed completed work orders and supporting
documentation retrieved from document control records storage.
The documentation contained approvals of work requests/work
orders, the identity of persons who performed the activity, and
the individuals who performed post maintenance reviews and tests.
c.
Reactor Trip System Reliability
The Palisades design does not include reactor trip breakers. The
licensee has established a maintenance and surveillance program for.
the control rod drive contactors, the control rod drive clutches,
and the manual trip breaker.
The inspector verified that maintenance
and inspection of these items is beirig performed according to their
manufacturer 1 s instruction.
The inspector verified that monthly on-line functional testing is
being performed on the bistable/auxiliary trip units, the 2-out~of-4
matrix logic, and clutch power trip circuits.
The manual trip
breaker 1 s preventive maintenance and functional testing is performed
- at each refueling outage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings
of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector 1 s comments.
The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the
inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the
inspector during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify any such
documents or processes as proprietary.
5