ML20029D823
| ML20029D823 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1994 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Stratman R CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029D824 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405100157 | |
| Download: ML20029D823 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000440/1994004
Text
__
..
.
..
.
...
. . . .
.
. . . . .
,
h
)IIl
APR 2 51994
Docket No. 50-440
Centerior Service Company
ATTN: Mr. R. A. Stratman
Vice President
Nuclear - Perry
P.O. Box 97, S 270
Perry, OH 44081
Dear Mr. Stratman:
This refers to the special team inspection conducted by Mr. D. Kosloff and
others of this office, on January 30 through March 9,1994. The inspection
included a review of activities authorized for your Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit 1, facility. The inspection included witnessing the performance of the
local leak rate testing of the main steam lines, and reviewing the results of
the tests and planned corrective actions. At the conclusion of the
inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff
identified in the enclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures
and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of
activities in progress.
Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice oi
Violation (Notice). The first violation involves four examples of failure to
establish and/or follow procedures. These four examples represent a lack of
adequate work control, ownership, and communicaticas by your staff.
They also
illustrate that management expectations are either'not getting to the working
level or are not being accepted. Additional examples of the above problems,
not resulting in regulatory violations, are contained in the report. One of
the violation examples involves problems with testing of the main steam
isolation valves (MSIVs). The performance of the MSIVs has been an ongoing
concern for a number of years and we have communicated, both verbally and in
writing, our concerns to you on numerous occasions.
Yet even though your
engineers were aware of the consequences of instrument air not being available
to the main steam isolation valve (MSIV) actuators, they took no action to
ensure the air was valved-in prior to the initial testing.
In addition, we
are concerned by the lack of complete ownership of the MSIVs shown by your
engireering staff after all the years of poor valve performance.
For example,
your staff could neither address our questions regarding the design basis of
the MSIVs nor the status, as of the end of mid-cycle outage (1993), of the
valve internals with respect to the critical parameters to ensure proper valve
operation.
D} I
9405100157 940425
IN
ADOCK 05000440
G
'PDR
I
i
-
-
--
. .--
.
.
..___
_____j
i
,
AFR 2 51994
Centerior Service Company
2
The second violation involves a lack of material accountability during
maintenance on the Division 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG). This
violation is of concern because the resident inspectors had expressed concern
to members of your staff over observed weaknesses in cleanliness and material
accountability during earlier maintenance. The response of your staff to
those weaknesses, and the failure to ensure that proper control of forei m
material was effectively implemented, indicates a weakness in the ownership of
this important piece of safety equipment.
If the rag identified in the lube
oil system by an NRC inspector had gone undetected, the potential existed for
it to adversely affect the ability of the EDG to perform its intended safety
function.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspection.5, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
l
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
l
You are also requested to address in your response to the Notice any specific
actions you have taken or plan to take to address the weaknesses discussed
'
above.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your responses to this letter will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Gaizi%1 eigm.d bT 3. G. Crn - v
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-440/94004(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
SEE THE ATTACHED CONCURRENCES
RIII
RIII
RIII
RIII
RI
RIII
RIII
RIII
000
9C
j
l
Lanksbury
Burgess Shafer Grobe Jaobhn
itagef Olteanu
Greggk
(Para.2&9)/
4 /#1%
7)
)
l
I
L___________-_
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
_
_
._
_ . . _ .
,
- _______
,
Centerior Service Company
2
The second violation involves a lack of material accountability during
maintenance on the Division 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG). This
violation is of concern because the resident inspectors had expressed concern
to members of your staff over observed weaknesses in cleanliness and material
accountability during earlier maintenance.
The response of your staff to
those weaknesses, and the failure to ensure that proper control of foreign
material was effectively implemented, indicates a lack of ownership for this
important piece of safety equipment.
If the rag observed in the lube oil
system had gone undetected the potential existed for it to adversely affect
>
the ability of the EDG to perform its intended safety function.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcen. ant action is
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
You are also requested to address in your response to the Notice any specific
actions you have taken or plan to take to address the weaknesses discussed
above.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your responses to this letter will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspectio. Report
No. 50-440/94004(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
,
SEE THE ATTACHED CONCURRENCES
RIII
RIII
RIII
R I
RIII
RIII
RIII
'
<n/
,,
Lanksbury
Burgess Shafer
robe Ja obs n
er Olteanu
Greenman
(Pra.p9)
fM
..
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
. . _ .
t
Centerior Service Company
2
i
The second violation involves a lack of material accountability during
maintenance on the Division 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG).
This
violation is of concern because the resident inspectors had expressed concern
to members of your staff over observed weaknesses in cleanlines, and material
accountability during earlier maintenance.
The response of your staff to
those weaknesses, and the failure to ensure that proper control of foreign
material was effectively implemented, indicates a lack of ownership for this
important piece of safety equipment.
If the rag observed in the lube oil
system hnd gone undetected the potential existed for it to adversly affect the
ability of the EDG to perform its intended safety function.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follcw the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is
necessary to ensure comaliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
You are also requested to address in your response to the Notice any specific
actions you have taken or plan to take to address the weaknesses discussed
above.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter, the enclosures, and your responses to this letter will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Greenman, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
i
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
[
No. 50-440/94004(DRP)
j
i
See Attached Distribution
.
RIII
RIII
RUI
RIII
R I
RIII
RIII
RIII
1/
PD S,
$
Lanksbury
B rgess
S afeq(Para.2&9
Grobe Jc son
Greger Olteanu
Greenman
4l2dN
Q\\WW
qb2$
.
-
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
f'
.
3
.
Centerior Service Company
3
Distribution
cc w/ enclosures:
R. W. Schrauder, Director, Perry
Nuclear Services Department
H. L. Hegrat, Acting Manager,
Licensing and Compliance Section
K. R. Pech, Director, Nuclear
Assurance Department
N. L. Bonner, Director, Perry
Nuclear Engineering Department
H. Ray Caldwell, General
Superintendent Nuclear Operations
D. P. Igyarto, flant Manager,
Terry J. Lodge, Esc;.
State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio
Robert E. Owen, Ohio
Department of Health
A. Grandjean, State of Ohio
Public Utilities Commission
OC/LTDCB
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
4
Resident Inspector, RIII
H. J. Miller, RIII
bec:
PUBLIC (IE01)
1
l
t
--