ML20037C799
| ML20037C799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1981 |
| From: | METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037C798 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8102230479 | |
| Download: ML20037C799 (53) | |
Text
_
\\
/4
/6
'OCxtra h
(
s.~ :..
8, l* {ye see,.m k/I991yl-)i r
O **...
C
~.f,I kb W?
LIC 2/17/81
\\
N.-
l'-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULAT,ORY CCMMISSICN BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BCARD In the Matter of
)
)
l METRCPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO THE BOARD CUESTION CCNCERNING MAINTENANCE PRACTICES IN THE SAMPLE YEAR, 1978 l
l
(
l 8102280fff
INDEX Introduction.................................................
1 Background...................................................
1 Maintenance System 1978......................................
6
- Work Request System..........................................
7 QA'sRole...................................................18 Conclusions.................................................
21
o Introduction Curing presentation by TMIA of its affirmative case on its l
l Contention 5, the Licensing Board requested that evidence be presented on Licensee's system for identifying maintenance I
items which were important from a nuclear safety standpoint _and on Licensee's system for de:umenting that these items were performed.
Specifically, the Board stated:
...[W]e believe that Mr. Shov11n's testimony and the summary, [TMIA proposed] Exhibit No.
1, are sufficient to motivate the Board to inquire further into whether prior to November 1979 the Licensee had in place a reliable method of identifying nuclear safety work requests which required maintenance, and whether the Licensee had in place a reliable system of records which would identify and assure that the work was either done or made unnecessary for scme other reason.
Tr. 3352.
And we wish to have evidence produced in this record which would address the issue of whether or not there was in place a reliable method for identifying safety related work requirements, and was there in place a reliable method of maintaining records which demonstrated that the werk was identified and performed?
That is what we want.
Tr. 3355-56.
[W]e are not talking about individual work requests, i
It may very well be that individual work requests we will i
test.
We are talking basically about QA/GC, operational CA/CC, was there a method in place to identify nuclear safety related work which needed to be done, and was there a method of recordkeeping in place which assured that that work would be duly reported and completed?
Tr. 3358.
It was agreed by the parties and the Board that the system in place during 1978 would be an appropriate sample period.
Tr. 3835-36.
l Backcround Understanding the maintenance management systems and practices in 1978 requires some background on the Company efforts in these areas over a several year period.
The objectives of maintenance of TMI-1 are numerous and - _ _ -
extensively interrelated.
They include, along with nuclear safety, employee safety, reliability of operation and l
protection of the company's investment.
All of these are very I
compelling considerations and the management of the company prior to and in the 1973 time frame reflected the importance of these considerations in the interest and attention directed by I
management toward the material condition of the plant.
Illustrious of tnis attitude are the following:
(1)
Unit 1 management focused specifically on being sure the plant staf f was ready to perform routine maintenance on systems and equipment prior to the time the sytems or equipment were turned over to the plant staff upon completion of construction and initial testing.
(2)
Shortly after TM1-1 was placed in commercial service, a board consisting of senior technical management personnel from i
l the GPU system was convened by the I
President of GPU to review the readiness of the plant staff and the status of the plant to ensure steps were being taken to complete any outstanding items necessary to I
l achieve a high degree of confidence in the l
l safety and reliability of the facility j
during its operational phase.
There was i
I ;
4 extensive discussion during that review of the inaintenance staf fing, orcanization, status of procedures and backlog of maintenance work.
(3)
In 1975 the plant staff developed a computer sorting program for tabulating the j_
r backlog of work requests.
This program enabled the work requests to be listed in a variety of ways including numerically, by i
priority, by cognizant department and by I
plant conditions (outage or operating) 4 needed to conduct the work.
This printout I
was useful to senior plant management and corporate management for maintaining an awareness of the backlog of maintenance work and the number and nature of high priority jobs.
This was an entirely manual j
system.
The maintenance clerks keypunched data cards using information from the Maintenance Log.
The cards were fed into j
the printer / sorter when management desired a printout.
The printout was not used by Maintenance, since more detailed informa-tion was available from the Maintenance Log.
The system was discontinued in 1977 when it was decided by the management personnel who were using the printouts that 0
-nre---
the statistics of backlog information were sufficient without the necessity for the details of each work request and because of the manpower necessary to duplicate the Maintenance Log onto a printout.
(4)
In 1975, the Company initiated a systemwide effort to develop common formalized preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance and maintenance scheduling systems based upon work with a management consulting firm during 1973 and 1974.
The i
Generation Maintenance System (GMS) which l
resulted from that effort was fully l
l
'mplemented at TMI as an automated system l
l in December 1978.
This system is more fully described in Licensee's Testimony on Maintenance at TMI-1.
(5)
In 1975, GPU initiated a Nuclear Management Review Committee composed of the presidents of GPUSC, Met Ed and JCP&L and the generation vice presidents of all four GPU subsidiaries.
This Committee met once per year at each operating unit and reviewed plant status and staff concerns using a standard agenda.
The status of maintenance l
was one of the agenda items. 1
.r e
r-w-
i i
The systems in place in 1978 for control of maintenance and identification of the status of maintenance work need to be understood not only in the context of the efforts to improve those systems as previously described, but also in the context of the plant's Technical Specifications.
The Technical Specifications set forth the minimum operability requirements for systems and equipment for operation of the unit.
As such, they provide a reference for the equipment status which represents the minimum acceptable level of the state of maintenance of plant equipment from a safety viewpoint.
To ensure the status of the plant was known relative to those minimum requirements, the Operations Department maintained documented status of plant equipment that was necessary for safe operations which was out of service or otherwise not operable as defined by the Technical Specifications.
This provided an important and rigorous review of plant status which contributed greatly to the assurance that important maintenance work was being identified and completed in a timely manner.
1 In additien, the plant staff regularly pre-planned work to be considered for accomplishment during an unscheduled shutdown.
This work plan was referred to as the "No Name Outage" schedule which would subsequently become known by the particular problem which caused an unscheduled shutdown.
Upon recovery of the plant from a particular outage, planning would immediately begin for the next "No Name Outage."
A major advantage of this management tool was that it provided for l
routine review by plant management of work that was being l
l l
~
postponed until the plant was shut down and the appropriateness of such deferral was thus also subject to routine review.
Other circumstances that also relate to the Beard's questions in this area are the extent to which other automated systems that are important to an effective maintenance program were under development.
In 1974 the Nuclear Plant Reliability Cata System (NPRC) was established under the sponsorship of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), to provide long range reliability data on safety related equipment.
This was established as requested by the NRC.
GPU became a participant in the NPRD system in 1975.
The Generation Divisions of the GPU companies developed in 1973 and 1974 an automated spare parts inventory control system for the power plants.
In other testimony, the GPU-wide effort to design and implement an automated Construction, Cperations and Maintenance Expenditure Control (CCMEC) System was described.
All of these systems contained numerous interfaces with the GMS and consequently their designs had to be compatible.
All of the activities also reflect the extensive efforts being undertaken to provide the generation personnel with modern information processing and management control systems for use in the control of all generation activities, including maintenance, and especially as the systems are applicable to activities at TMI.
Maintenance System 1978 In the year 1978, the TMI Maintenance Department was governed by procedures not altogether different than the ones currently in effect.
The key procedures were :
Plant Modifications AP 1021, Rev. 1 GP 1003, Rev. 4 Control of Design Change /Mcdificati'ons AP 1027, Rev. 4 Preventative Maintenance
~
Corrective Maintenance & Machinery AP 1026, Rev. 5 History Cperational Cuality Assurance Plan CCA Plan, Rev. 7 Quality Assurance Systems List GP 1008, Rev. 1 f
At the end of 1978, the work request portion of AP 1026-was replaced by MP 1407-1.
This was necessitated by the changeover to the Generation Maintenance System (GMS) and the computer form job tickets.
The Maintenance Department organization in place during I
19'78 was as shown by Attachment 1.
There was a Supervisor of Maintenance for each unit but a common work force to support-a both units.
cedicated planners were not assigned at that time.
Planning was principally accomplished by the Maintenance Supervisor.
In addition, there was a Maintenance Engineer,'the forerunner of the current Supervisor of Management Controls [
His duties were primarily outage planning and processing of work requests.
The Cuality Control organization in 1978 was as shown by The Supervisor of Quality Control reported to the Manager of Operations Quality Assurance who was located t
Met Ed Generation Offices in Reading.
Work Request System A representative work request form then in effect (per AP 1026) was TMI-93 2-78 (Attachment 3).
Kork requests could be 4
i r
,e
written by any. plant personnel.
The person requesting the. work l
filled out Items 1 though 4 and his judgment of the priority.
He then ' forwarded the work request to his supervisor for concurrence and approval.
After the supervisor signed the work request it was sent to the Supervisor of Maintenance.
The Supervisor of Maintenance or the Mair*.enance. Engineer then answered / filled in items 6 through 13 on the work request.
These items were:
6.
Cces the work represent a change or modification to an existing system or component?
If yes, an approved change modification is required per AF 1021.
(Yes)
(No)
- If Yes a Change / Modification Request was filled out and submitted by the Supervisor of Maintenance to Generation Engineering Reading through the plant engineering staff.
7a.
Does the work require an RWP? (Yes) (No)
- This was determined based on the location of the component.
All work in the Auxiliary, Fuel Handling and Containment Buildings were in RWP areas.
( Additional areas were as defined by Rad Con).
7b.
Is cn approved procedure required to minimize personnel exposure?
(Yes) (No)
- This was determined based en the work to be performed on the system / component, e.g.,
does the i
system need to be opened, etc.
I l
A s
8a.
Is the wetx on a OC component as defin'e'd in CP 10087 f
(Yes) (No)
- This was determined by checking GP 1008 to see if the component listed on the job ticket was listed as i
a QC component.
8b.
If 8a is yes does the work have an effect on Nuclear
~
l 4
Safety?
If 8b is yes, PCRC reviewed Superintendent f, approved procedure must be used.
(Yes) (No).
- This question was answered only if Sa was-Yss.
l Coes the WORK have an effect on Nuclear Safety?
'i s -
~
the question.
This was a judgment decision based on the malfunction described and the work to be 7
,.~
performed.
It was made by tne Supervisor of
[;
Maintenance or the Maintenance Engineer.
If there
~
were any conflicts or questions,' the Superintendeht l
of Maintenance resolved them.
If the answer was'Yes, then a PORC approved Superintendent procedure was l
required to be used.
If the answer was NG"-then step 9 was followed.
9.
Agreement that a PCRC reviewed, Superintendent ap-proved procedure is not required for this work be-cause it has no effect on nuclear safety.
(Applies only if Sa was Yes and 8b was No).
- If 8a was Yes (CC Component) and 8b was No (does not affect nuclear safety), the Unit Superintendent was required to agree by affixing his signature.
l l
- l 4
n!
.e 3/'
e' D"
v c
v, o
e l'
,,,a
.,f..
3,e
~
10a, Is the syst,em o,n the Environmental Impact list in AP 3
~,
lj
.;, 10:F6..---
~r
~.
(.Yes) 'No)
- ihis'was determincB by looking at AP 1026 which H
i s,
l >
+,
j r-list ~ad those systems which could have environmental f,'.
s l'
?,,
p 4
l ampa c c.' <
,~
^;
m
~
r is,Yes, il anh, approved procedure required to
' [ ', _.
10b.rIf,103
. J ' limit en6ironmental.i6 pact.
(Yes) (No)
- s L. '-
/
- This question was an'swered in conjunction with l*
c
~~
f.'
~,
l
., questian 10c by the Supervisor of Operations.
t ldc. Agihimont tha t '10b. is No. (Beguired only if 10a is e
ss
. -,Yes).
^
[ ;- The Supervisor of(Cperations answered both 10b and r'
10c based'on his knowledge of the plant and the r
L details of any. attached' procedure.
If he answered
- ~
- 210b - Kes', an approved procedure was required.
If he
~,
=
answered 10b - No, then his signature was required.
~
1].
Plant status or prerequisite conditions required for work.
,7 s
- ihe status was based upon the priority code letter ass?;ned where "A"
any plant condition, "B"
meant reduced power,
'*C " m'e a n t ' shVt d o wn, and "D" meant cold shutdown, and the-determination by the Maintenance E$gineeror the Super. visor of Maintenance as to
,=
l requisite lplaht conditicns, e.g.,
could the system be isola ted while the -pl' ant'was. opera ting.
Under'the work =r6 quest priority system shown below, the L,
p finitionc and hence the appYhation of the priorities were
~
c w
muchimore general than'tider'tne current system.
l ci
./
,s""
d, d
(
_n
- / "
I
. i
^
_?-
7,-
gyA.3 7;<
j
]
1
^
\\
f I/
- yy
, p,.
-~
- 3 d
+
,_u en
... v Priority 1 -
Urgent; 'it may be necessary to call in s
pe rso'nnel > or' wor k. over time.
e 3
f Priority 2 -
Foutine;. accomplish during normal
." C working' day.
a -
Priority 3 -
Low Priority; accomplish as time and g
personnel are available.
Jui can be seen from the definitions, no working time
,,g
<.c U-interval:was established.
Also, the priority was not reflecti~ve of whether a' job-might'te of any safety concern
~ (nuclear or industrial).
Per AP 1026 *the.persen initiating the werk request shall assign his estimate of the priority, n
which1may be changed at'the discretion of the Supervisor of Maintenance."
So-the janitor could write a priority 1 work fixaleakyfauhet v
because to him it was urgent.
request to
/
The procedure di'd not require the priority to be physically changed on the-work request (some were, some were not) if the Supervisor ofsMaintenance~ decided the priority was different thdn recommended; After the Maintenance Engineer and/or the Supervisor of a
Maintenance completed the review of the work request, it was handed to the clerical staff.
Th'e clerical staff numbered the work' request and logged it in the Maintenance Log.
The Maintenance Log contained the following information:
date job
_ ticket processed, number' assigned, description, account number,
' department assigned to, priority, change modification (Yes) l
,(No), EWP Procedure (Yes) (No), QC (Yes) (No), approved p r oc ed'ur e required (Yes) (No), status, closed date, NPRD (Yes)
(No), C/M number.
In September 1978 an additional column for t
g g.'
v
the Environmental Impact question was added.
This log was a document that was maintained solely as an aid for the Supervisor of. Maintenance by the Maintenance Clerk.
After logging, the work request was then forwarded to the responsible discipline within the Maintenance Department for action.
The responsible discipline group'would do all the staff work on the work request, i.e.,
obtain the required procedure, l
get the parts, obtain QC approval.
The lead foreman would approve the work request for work.
The discipline cer se did not keep a summary of the status of maintenance work.
Important maintenance was discussed at the Plan of the Day (P.C.D.) meetings.
All daily and forthcoming plant evolutions and major and important maintenance items were discussed.
Since the Operations Department submitted probably ninety percent of all work requests and also was responsible for being aware of the operability of systems and equipment, the precedure of utilizing the P.O.D.
to distinguish priority work was effective in identifying items important to plant operations.
In addition to the maintenance items that were identified at the P.O.C.,
each lead foreman would go through his file of active (not completed) work requests and select additional work requests to be completed by his discipline.
His selection was tempered by plant condition, knowledge of any system, systems or parts of systems that were shut down or could be shut down l
and those items that were a continuing source of problems. J
On the average, somewhere between 30 and 80 work requests were generated in a week.
Because no automated system was available prior to 1978, a centralized work status summary on all work requests was not maintained.
This means that a work status report.that. covered all work requests was not available and, from'a practical standpoint, could not readily be j
developed.
However, in general, the status (e.g.,
whether the chysical work was ccmpleted but the paper work not yet closed out, whether engineering was still required, whether work was i
awaiting parts) of any particular werk request could be i
determined frcm the individual maintenance discipline records.
j P.O.D.
Meetings Work requests were scheduled and completed in a timely manner consistent with safety, plant conditions and other considerations by the Supervisor of Operations and the Superin-tendent of Maintenance as discussed at the P.O. D. meetings.
The P.O.D. meetings were held on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week at 9:00 a.m.
The attendees generally consisted of the Unit Superintendent, Supervisor of Cperations, Shift Supervisor, Superintendent of Technical Support, Supervisor of Maintenance or Superintendent of Maintenance, and a representa-tive from CC.
The agenda for the P.O.D. meetings was the P.O.D.
form.
l l
The P.O.D.
form was a computerized form which was updated prior I
to each meeting.
It contained:
plant conditions; opera-tions/ tests planned (which includes items of major concern for 4 n
= - -,
Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, CC, Stores); and primary and secondary chemistry results and technical specifications items (surveillances for past, current, and future weeks).
The P.O.D. meeting generally lasted approximately 45 minutes, during which the P.O.C.
form was run through item for item.
The cognizant department reported on progress, difficulties, etc., and entertained questions from other groups.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Supervisor of Operations listed additional maintenance items that were of immediate concern to him.
These were job tickets that may have been priorities 1, 2 or 3.
Outage items, both planned (i.e.,
scheduled) and unplanned (i.e.,
forced), were handled within each discipline.
The work requests were identified with a "D" after the priority to indicate it was an outage item.
These work requests were segregated from the other work requests.
They were again separated into planned and unplanned outage categories.
Within i
each discipline an outage coordinator was assigned.
He did the ordering of parts and planning of the outage jobs.
The Maintenance Engineer was the overall outage scheduler for Unit 1.
Preventive Maintenance was performed in accordance with AP 1027.
There was not a separate PM group as there is now so PM's were handled within each discipline.
Examples of work requests written during 1978 that were c
handled in a timely and proper manner per maintenance proce-dures are: -t
i (1)
Work Requsst 23610 (EG-Y-1B), Attachment 4, is an example of a priority 1, nuclear safety related work request.
This work request was written by an electrical foreman on April 27, 1978, who also signed in lieu of his Supervisor.
The job was classed as " Urgent."
The second emergency diesel was fully l
operable so.a redundant component was available.
The reactor l
was shut ~ down for refueling; and one of the Limits and
~
l Precautions was that the reactor should not be brought critical until both diesels were operable.
The work request was received, approved, commenced, and completed on April 28, 1978.
j QC subsequently reviewed the work request with final closecut j
by the Supervisor of Maintenance on May 3, 1978.
(2)
Work Request 23647 (WDL-F-3A), Attachment 5, is an example of a priority 1, non-nuclear safety related, possible environmental impact work request.
This work request was written by a shift foreman on March 30, 1978 who also signed in lieu of his Supervisor.
The work requested was reviewed and approved by Maintenance on April 30, 1978.
Work was commenced on May 1, 1976 and completed and tested on May 2, 1978.
CC reviewed the completed work request on May 5, 1978 with final closecut by the Supervisor of Maintenance on May 8, 1978.
(3)
Work Request 25771, Attachment 6, (Distillate Lines) is an example of a priority 2, nuclear safety related, possible l
environmental impact work request.
The work request was written by a shift supervisor and approved by him on October 1
25, 1978.
The work request was reviewed and approved for work.
,_s
on Cctcber 27, 1978.
Approval to commence work was granted on i
Cctober 28, 1978.
The work was completed and tested on November 2, 1978.
This was a routine (non-urgent) work request l
that was of interest to the Supervisor of Cperations.
(4)
Nork Request 24958, Attachment 7, (FS-PI-153) is an example of a priority 3, non-nuclear safety related work request.
The work request was written and approved by a shift supervisor on August 17, 1978.
The work request was reviewed i
and approved for work on August 21, 1978.
The instrument shop began working the job on August 27, 1978.
The work was completed and tested on September 4, 1978, reviewed by CC'on September 20, 1978 and cloced out on September 22, 1978.
I l
(5)
Work Request 24576, Attachment 8, (RR-V-12A) is an example of a priority 2, nuclear safety related work request.
This was a routine work request written and approved by mechanical engineering on July 14, 1978.
The work request was sent to the mechanical discipline for work and was approved by the shift foreman to commence work on Septerber 5, 1978.
Work was completed and aligned for testing on September 5, 1978.
CC had noted prior to testing that the proper CC review prior to i
work and the Supervisor of Maintenance approval to commence i
work was not filled in.
This was a violation of procedure.
CC l
l wrote NCR #78-173 on September 8, 1978.
The NCR prevented further testing until resolved.
Maintenance acknowledged the NCR on September 12, 1978, and generated a satisfactory reply to NCR #78-173.
The NCR was closed out on September 21, 1978..
Subsequently the component was satisfactorily tested and returned to use on September 25, 1978.
It was reviewed by CC on September 27, 1978, and closed out on October 10, 1978.
The above 1978 work requests are a representative sample of properly handled work requests.
They also reveal how CC checks and balances worked to insure that maintenance work was properly performed and documented.
Statistics that support the fact that the maintenance system in place in fact worked are as follows:
In 1978, 3,939 work requests were written, of which 3,805 have been completed to date.
Cf the 3,939 written, 515 were nuclear safety related.
Of'the 515, 417 were completed in 1978, 51 were i
completed in 1979, 29 were completed in 1980, and 1 has been completed so far this year.
Seventeen nuclear safety related t
work requests have not been completed.
The reason for non-completion of the nuclear safety related work requests are:
8-Engineering Change Modification Hold Planning
- 4 3-On Hold for Parts 2-Scheduled to be Performed The jobs in planning are one priority 2 work request, and three priority 3 work requests.
The Maintenance Cepartment monitored the status of important nuclear safety related work requests prior to their completion l
(and continues to do so for those that remain outstanding) in l
l order to assure itself that they were completed in a timely l
1 l t
=
fashion.
Finally, the total number of work requests outstanding as of December 31, 1976 was 1,313.
CA's Role To insure that Maintenance properly performed its work, followed approved procedures and documented results, the Quality Assurance group, headquartered in Reading but with c full-time staff on site, performed inspections, audits, surveillances1and reviews of Maintenance department procedures, work requests and field work.
The on-site portion of that group was Quality Control.
The governing document was the I
Cperational Quality Assurance (0/CA) plan, revision 7.
The two i
groups most relevant to the. issues being discussed functioned 1
J as follows:
Quality Assurance Auditing Group - this corporate level
)
group performed a program review of corrective and preventive
{
maintenance at least once per year to insure that maintenance i
was conforming to the guidelines in the O/QA plan and Maintenance Department procedures.
Audit reports were
]
submitted to the Unit Superintendent, the Station Manager and the Manager Generation Cperations.
Copies were also dis-tributed to corporate managers including the Vice President Generation.
Items indicated as deficient were to be corrected within a specified time frame.
The audit group also audited
,f the Quality Control group to insure that they were performing their intended functions.
Cuality Control Group - This group was responsible for the continuing and ongoing review of all documents governing CC 4._.
l component corrective and preventive maintenance.
This group reviewed each work request that involved a CC ccmponent both prior to and at the completion of work.
In addition, this group was required to surveil (or monitor) in the field the performance of each generic maintenance procedure within a two year time frame.
The work requests and procedures to be surveilled were identified by a stamp stating, "CC Witness Points Indicated, Notify CC at least four hours prior to I
j commencing work".
If for some reason CC was unable to witness
(
the job, the witness points could be waived by CC.
Additionally, CC might stamp a job ticket and a procedure with "CC Hold Points Indicated."
This stamp was used to identify jobs that CC felt they must monitor to insure conformance.
l These witness / hold points could be waived; however, the reason for the waiver of the hold / witness points was required to be documented and approved by the CC Supervisor.
After the corrective maintenance had been completed in the field, the maintenance foreman signed and dated the work request.
The Operations Department then aligned the component for testing and signed the work request.
The testing was then performed and the component was realigned and released for normal use and approved by the shift foreman on the work request form.
(In instances when testing could not be performed due to plant conditions, after the maintenance l
foreman completed his work, the job ticket was held by the Operations Department for test scheduling.)
After the shift foreman returned the component to normal, the job ticket was _
returned to. the maintenance of fice, reviewed by the Supervisor of Maintenance or Maintenance sngineer and sent to QC for review.
There were no procedures or guidelines governing the time frame in which'the CC review should take place after this work was performed.
The guidelines stated that an adequate review shall be performed.- CC reviewed the paperwork to insure, for example, that documents were properly filled out, acceptance criteria were met, GC tags attached (if required),
and test data attached (if required).
Some job tickets were not reviewed by CC for months af ter a job was completed in the field simply because the testing had not been completed on the job, or the job had been held open f9r observation.
During 1978, an audit was conducted of Maintenance by the CA Auditing Group.
The results:of that audit were documented in GCM letter 3546 of August 14, 1978.
(A*.tachment 9).
The auditors concluded that with the exception of the ten discrep-ancies noted, station maintenance and modifications were being performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable procedures.
These discrepancies subsequently were satis-factorily closed out by Maintenance and CA.
The Quality Control group conducted 101 surveillances of work requests / procedures in 19%8.
These surveillances were direct observations of the actual work at the job site.
Cnly 7 Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) resulted from these surveillan-ces.
Additionally, by their administrative review of work requests and procedures and the receipt inspection of QC material, 66 other NCRs were written against Maintenance.
All
-2b-
J ab A
ee ac m
4 4,
of the NCR's' applicable to TMI Unit 1 Maintenance have been-f
resolved.
Conclusions l:
In conclusion, in 1978, Licensee had in place a reliable method of' identifying. and maintaining equipment important to i
i plant ~ operations.
Audit, surveillance and NCR results i
indicated few problems with the conduct of maintenance.
The 1
j end of the year brought the transition to the new GMS system, a J
better method'of tracking work requests and their status.
1 4
e 1
I 1
i I
i 1
1 l
a 1
3 j
4 i
i f
h i
f i
1 l
e AttachZent 1
=
3
'"J e4 -
- J rw
.J rs O U a
f A
=
.C Z.>l N
31
. u
~~ l a -
J
=
cs O y
e Z
.a
'A g
y L# 6 C >
CO A
A 1OO O 1
- O ::2 C
C
'A u
'A 2C G
V N2 e
4
.~. ~ A 5
5 1
0 :t2 O
L l
- J 'n e
% C
% O Cl l C,
- 5 <C O O
M C -
j xl
=
'l A
4
,3i rw Q
"J l
@ Cl 5'
s t Q l6lm
- y -
D U
U U
D O
U C
U C
E m
O c :
= 0':
=
u
- g 6
= Q.:
OgO
=
6,@
r%jA!g q
U e
'A Gf:
G CN
<t 3;O
.,e 3
- Q u
f Z i U !'.C l
-
e C) e
=
"J
.e
- 6 Z C -t:
Q U
C L. : s *A
=
0 0 O
U
=
0
@ l "J f :
~
j ! " Z O
e "O
C 5.:4 :l*4 O
Z L l
- C CO Z
- Z "O
C L
L i *J !
g
=
f.n 6
~+
c g
6 ggur-;
O!*
O 3
w
.C
'J O
Nl'3l :l U 0
Z O
Ul O U
N U -iG
.c
>0 0
0 c-6
.=
- >4.m Z
=
- 0. u
=
I 1
L C
J: L
.a Z
.c p
"J O
!w y Z O
w =
.a w
g O.
a.*
L:
Ul 0 C
C 6.
=
0 u %
C U
D13 G
4
.a e
'A y
m ~~
O
'A
~J Z-A 4
+
.s O
W L
O.:
- Z
'4
_O
- n Z y
uZ cc z
'A 0 *
=
0 > Z L
A in C 2
am b
e.
b d
C==
"J
.=*
- J Z
>=
"J u%
O U 6 M
. - X
- a. M 9.
B L
w e
u b
a
.m.
aus o.c w Z m
w
=
0 3
C
'"O L
C u3
- 13
- 3 y
a C.:
.Y.
.d p a
= U C.
%=
L
- J AM u
u O
- A C O
.J
~% 3
'A 4C
t; i
A G
u t t w Oi(fDDt M l
(i f
m a
l e r
op e
cirkcea i
nnt m c
f rit u f
oroh a
FPPS t
S C.V.J.E.
JJJW i.
t na t
s t.
i s
s 3
A e
e gt v
nt m
i i e t e s
k n t
a ae e
si rG r
llou lo m
t t
.. t o
Q f
0 r
a..
T n
m s.
f iK S
t n
l CT o
u L
t.
r ER C
i0 n
DJ SA
=,
h 1
(
l y
A l
e.-
LC t
r O
L i
w Rl l l t l0 at i
I uo-f0T QC CA w
a.
Z c
YI l
Ti r l.
l A
o W._
I LG s
AR i
UO v
Q r
c e
I p
M u
s l
l '
~
T S
esl 2
iee nmw t
aao
~
DJP i
n 2
U W L.C.
t
'c.
EZJ c
re dae L
/.
er p
rr u
eo o
gi n r
iP n G
1 d
oe
.Cw d
i t
et' o
e l
SOR t
i f
n a
U n
ELA.D g
i RRTC s
t e
D
.J.
c>
i.
, b~sD 2
l WORK l REQUEST APPROVAL -
TMt Nulcear Station Unit tjo.
Vlork Request No.
V!.0./Ac: cent NPRD Form Reg'd Priority 1
I:en:s 1 throu;h 5 comoie:cd by ori, ins:ct j
1.
Sys*!m:
2.
Comcorwnt f name & number) 3.
Describe mal! unction and causa of ma lunc:icn (if known) or mcdification desired.
f I
i 1
-[
4.
O ri,inator:
Date/ Time:
-l S.
Oricinr. tor's Suoarviscr's Sinn:tura
- 6.
Does work represent a change or modification to an existinD sys:cm er component?
If yes,an approved changt modification is required per AP 1021.
C/t.1 No.
Yes fjo 2
1 7a. Ocss werk require an RWP Yes No 7b. 13 an 2;;r:ad procedura required to minimize personnel exposure.
Yes No 8 3.'
is w:S :n 2 C0 ccmponent as defined in GP 1008.
Yes No l
- 55. If 83 is yas dcas work have an effect on flutteer Safety? If 85 is yes, PORC reviewed Superintendent approved precedure must be u:ed.
Yes No 4
9.
Agreement that a PORC reviewed, Superintendent approved procedure is not required for thiswork becausa it has no elfact en nuc!eer safety.
(Applies only if 83 is Yes and 8b is flo).
i i
Unit Superintendent Date t
10a. Is the system on the Environmental Impactlist in AP 1026 Yes No 105. If 10a is Yes. is an approved procedure required to limit environment:1
-Yes No impact.
10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Required only if 10a is Yes).
Unit Superintendent / Supervisor of Opera: ions Date i
11.
Plant status or prerequisite ccnditians required for werk.
TMt 93 2 73
5-L y
1.,
Lirms and Frcaetians.
A ree: r.c :
H Ecui;*rnrit c) Eni, aament c) I'rkar 13 Post 1.'amtenance Testing required and A::estanca Crit:ria.
E Est n:ted nisahours to pesform ich: E IC
?.1 U
14.
h
- 15. Maint nan::e Foreman Arignad:
- 15. GC De;;; t'
.v. ;f re<;eired in i;?m No.'8 QC Suprvisor Date
- 17. Superviiar of f.iaintenance approval to commence work:
Date a
13 Shif r Furtm.m's approval to ccmmen:e work Date i
Initialif Shil!
Ecremaa Tagyng Appicat.c9 r40.
Radiat.un Woru 88stin.g rio.
signature is n:I required
- 13. Commen:: :n work perf ormed:
i Rettst met acceptance criteria Yes l
No Work Fer!crmed by date/t.me Werk Revired. f.taintenance Foreman's Sicnature 4
case
- 20. Work cc:npler:. and compenent aligned !cr te: ting.
I I
initial if S.F. signature is not required.
1 Shsf t Foreman's S.gnatu.s Cate
- 21. Testing completed and component re!ea:ad f or normal tese.
i t
Initial il S F. signature es not req Jired.
Shoti Foreman's S gna*act Cate 27 Quahty Con:">I Dasart:nent review cf wer'* and testing completed (CC work cn!y).
1 L... 1%.r. g fim.., t.n OC Cepwement Date 23 Supervnor ci f'aintenance Work re ;.;est and procedure are complete and signed ofI as required. Chan;e/modificatica I
f orm has bee,.igner' off as required Machinery history entry has been made.l! required.
Ma.aie aace s.9,aio,e care
- e. c e u......,....., o,, e,,, m,or,
%pe..nr o:
a
ATTACHMENT NO.1 102S Attachment Revision i 1
07/22/77 1 /j'L -
WORK REQUEST APPROVAL TMI Nuc! ear Station 1
n Work Request No. ~ ^ ~ ( /'.m Unit No.
i W.O./ Account No.7eo s s /s3I,5 NPRO Parm Re: d
^30 eriority M
Items 1 tnrcu;h 5 ccmcietec by criwarrr 1.
e Gm r.rt.pe_v C_il-m ea vu.
1.
System:
2.
Comconent (name & number)
CG -Y -l O 3.
Describe malfunction and cause of malfunction (if known) or mo6fication desire 1 C-o o.
t>a ist tl W uNCT 07 A T<.
/~sL.s e MccM p
$%m Oc M net 4mt M
M c^)
%7&dd.y "[ L z c x e r.,c.,sc m.kA
[,
gt i,a ML hacI b y (C S I' 4.
Oricinator:
e a--
Date/ Time:
4 1 /78 0800 v
V e
v' -
,1
/
5.
Originator's Suceruscr's Signature D'# "
M h-M,1LN 6.
Does work represent a change er modification to an existing system or component?
If yes, an accroved change mccification is required per AP 1021.
/
C/M No.
Yes No 7a. Does work require an RWP Yes No 7b. Is an approved procedure required to minimae personnel exposure.
Yes No 8a.
Is work en a QC component as deficed in GP 1008.
Yes No P
hN 8b. If 8a is yes does work have an ef fact en Nut! ear Safety? If Sb is yes, f
PORC reviewed Superintencent approved must be used.
Yes No e,
"~ >
9.
Agreement that a PO RC reviewed, Superintancent approved procedure is nct recuired f cr this work because it
]
has no etfeet on nuclear safety. (Applies only if 8a isYes and 80 is No).
d
}
Unit Superintendent Oate
,}
10a. Is the system on the Environmentalim::act list in AP 1026 Yts No i
r-.
10b. If 10a is Yes, is an approved procedure required to hmit environmental impact Yes No 10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Required only if 10a is Yes).
Unit Superintencent/ supervisor of Coe ations Date 11.
Plant status or prerequisite conditions required f or work.
A 31
@^,
- ,,( h.0
- t rwssa, s.77 e
.h 1026
~
Revision 0 07/22/77
- 12. Umits and Precautions:
ggpP 4
4 h4 [.Cl bah
@M.
, kg 'h.'#
- 5) Equipment c) Environment d) Nuclear Ub' S ~
]'C.?tadb.'
hq;k g4. cdfy't 5 C 10
- 13. Pest Maintenance Testing required and Acceptance Criteria. Geo Cpm-rn f
O b. N hu w Cu
,, b.
L:kt. M g :. sp 14 Estimated manhours to perf orm icb: E 4 IC M
U
[u g,.
- 15. Maintenance Foreman A: signed:
Nb7%
16.
QC Dept. rev:ew,.f re:uired in item No. 8 QC Supervisor n
Date et i
- 17. Su;ervisor of Maintenance approval to commence werk:
hC de Date v /~2 7/78 18.
Shif t Foreman's apareval to ecmmente work /48 8 %
Cate - 4 7/7f l
Initialif Shif t
/)
/)
Fcreman Tanns Aceacation No-Aacption wor = Fv n t No signature is not required 19.
Comments on werk perf ormec:
5.
W T.
u> htldt.
bu"' *g iO
'" d b*U 600 U b
C-co, pm5 T d.se 9eo Rem L'm T. e m/ W3 s
T O L%:T b E C-NE-9 Y'l i
M*N' d. %b ;-- % e a a. e u M b i.. g (t (.t T itq1 A R.,f.ss me r:y TM mA>.t.r
.a o Retest met acceptance criteria Yes h No l l bt'*7 A Tk b0dd M*
WO A bi 0C.
Work Performed by date/ time Werk Reviewed - Maintenance Foreman's Sicnature r) 00
/,
- 20. Werk compfered and c:mponent aligned f or tsting.
P I
I f-
/$
Y 29 7 initial if S.F. signature is not recuired.
i I
Sn.tt f oreman
.gna tu re Cate
- 21. Testing completed znd component released f or normal use.
h b
W
],.
Initial if S.F. signature is not recuired.
/
J Srut t f oeeman s (gnatur e Cate 22.
Quality Control Department review of work and testing comptered (QC work ontf
.1 1,
Su.e's'ance Reoort No QC Geoartment Date r
- 23. Supervisar of Maintenance Work recuest and precedure are complete and signed o'f as required. Change / modification f orm has been s:gned off as required. Machinery history &~/(m Zw r-3-7f entrfbeen madeJ required.
M AClwas '.tannOwf 5 to per tOrm 100
/
Supervisor on *.ta.ntenance 5.gnature Cate
)
.U 0
v3 1
N WOR.< REQUEST PROCEDURE T*.11 Nuc! ear Station Mainterance ?rececure Format and Ac::roval
")
?
. u:\\. t,o.s n j
- b., D L..
Unit No.
)
This form cutlines the format anc acts as a cover sneet for a maintenance crocedure. Due to the limited size of the form, additional pages may be attachec as receired. Work Request precedure AP 1016 Section 6 snculd be used as a guide in prepar;ng tne maintenance procedure.
1.
Procecure 7:t'e & No.:
"TtswG L7, bikecT 16 1 bsJ 6:co.
C,e.u t-7.
2.
Purpose:
i ft D 4
7(s g N t-P'P64 L sm,:s ~ ia 7 m e.u. A M ai: 9 C s WT 3.
Descnstien of system Or c:mp:nent I: :e worked on.
E(, 1 - 16 4
References:
41 E P 16CL wA
- Cow, D 14 ! 9 5 MAW 5.
Special Tools, Materials and Quanfications required.
g.g 5: mph.
6.
Detailed Precedure (attaen accitional pa;es as required)
S SE.
1 wh *.d q T1-ie ji
'A u erd r of Mai tenance Recommencs Approval Date
'EI
- d. l.,
4/g s/2 y i
t
' Unit 1 PORC Recommends Approval /W5d K.v_.d>/MUnit 2 PORC Recommends Approval n[
-f Chairman Date Chairman Date
. Unit 2 Supt. Approval
' Unit 1 Supt. Aporoval /I e
Date 0 ate Supervisor Quality Controi Date
' NOTE: These approvals require only on Nuclear Saf ety Related/ Radiation Work Permit Jobs.
TMs 37. Aev an7
---w e
I c.,
m ts >_. a m
ma
<~ u_~m w:4 d A'Pscol I
$ 0,m.fy Oh m w w(/ i f p5<.
T/ h.T CCA
(,.2.
7 E n n t.?_
s' u c 7 C: o e,
o cea;7 us :~,
cc -
1 cx w,. (,
feonu--
m,w Of a :W
'EIA~c) CN
[yec.c.it s.- 'kA. M I
fea ~,
f cov G ol.
ca LesA duce s.m.u 4t.we.
s > s~a s a n.
s y
n C 0 4 T 9.cf Kcca; )i roEC,
l 0)*a (
An 1,,w t e r0 Q;M S E.t6 b macl~ =7, M Mk Esba is Espwd 2.spLa<td Le e c.
j C,ea w 's ch~
fq pL ec sLc18 G3e.au
$'~.%
f y
ia 54ud%
Suu.,1=.
\\nf
[gg.cist.
{4l-ScN.
Mhe~2 L.hk is
', a a~
1 6 h k t.)
C=sa Sle<.thcf
$ 2. m Ske Id fb t.
- i..
(
Goo epum ifb -
{
o gs
'Cw v bk<AJ f%- i s ksl< s G a c,s t o_,rA
,uw
,e v
% h,!)[;
A; f., h h
6Z
%,f
- N l
hem h
%o16 a.
.,. m et ie b; ori**
-s l
.s...
/.
Attach:nent i
. y; a ~y
[
WORK REQUEST APPROVAL TMl Nuclear Station Unit No.
/
Work Request No. 2 I W.0JAccount No.{,--s 3 / f 34. O NPRO Form P,eg'd
,b C Pricrity kd
/
-/
Items 1 throuch 5 cometered by orienant 1.
System:
L,e
, e-W u-0 hD3: tu e
2.
Comoonent iname & number)
WDi.-T-dO f
3.
Descrice malfunction and cause of malfunction (if known) or modification desired f gs'sN) Ty-nd---
L%
^l ? A ** #
C-U-' /-C 4
Orninator:
/
Date/ Time:
2 - JJ - Y / 2-f7..
5.
Orimnator's Suoervisor's Sicnature d
/r78
/
S.
Does work represent a change or modification to an existing system or component?
If yes, an approved change modification is required per AP 1021.
C/M No.
Yes No 7a.
Does work recuire an RWP Yes 2 No 7 b.
Is an approved procedure recuired to minimize personnel exposure.
Yes V
No Ba.
Is work on a QC component as defined in GP 1008.
Yes No 8b.
If 8a is yes does work have an ef fect on Nuclear Safety? If 8b is yes.
[
PORC reviewed Superintendent approved must be used.
Yes No 9.
Agreement that a PO RC reviewed. Superintendent aporoved procedure is not required f or this work because it has no etlect on nuclear safety. (Applies only if Sa isYe:and 8b is No).
Unit Superintencent Date 10a. Is the system on the Environmental impact hst in AP 1026 Yes No 10b. If f Oa is Yes,is an approved orocedure recuired to limit environmentalimpact Yes
/ No 10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Recuired only if 10a ;s Yes).
un.: swoenntenavnusommsor or omnons Date 11.
Plant status or prerequisite conditions required Ior woir
... A x_L, _
-r--
et. *., -
- 12. Umits and Precautions:
a) Personnel COFJ III# SE ?'07IEI0NS y w;e,u in JJ1002, 1003 b) Equipment g-ggg 2 sD - -
c) Environment s,,. re e - + --
.3, i. ;
-i' d) Nuclear t
- 13. Post MaintenanceTesting required and Acceptance Criteria. Mm C 4 v,,7 e dB,e s
,!, f g n,
14 Estimated mannours to perterm icb: E IC M l 'e - U
-~
- 15. Maintenance Foreman As.igned:
>.' t : x
- 16. QC Dept. rev ew,if required in item No. 8 0 C Super.iscr7 ) 'b 3 n s p- /,e b b d Date 4'- 3 c - 7[
[a Y\\he
- 17. Supervisor of Maintenance approval to commence workb. sY d
U to4
' ate W e h 6
- 18. Shitt Foreman's approval to commence work
//.T_
D
- f 9h &
NfY
/
I
/
I 6 Initialif Shilt J/
Foreman rars Acci cat oa No Aaciai.on Wor = Permit No.
signature is not recuired
- 19. Comments on work perf ormed: /" 4' c wc,,.,-
a <,,e
'? c.;
< c,e J4 -
c; i' at: r c..
/
.O s % so a
' D' A +'
w' l-kg,,,,...g:e >
Retest met acceptance criteria Yes l <l No l l
Work Perf ormed bv dateltime Work Reviewed Maintenance Foreman's Sicnature i.' /$
P h -) t' C.'"4 %
%\\. 6 % 4%
' l l' "'
D*
Q Q%,
F-2 ~ ) 2'
' ~
- 20. Work completed and component aligned f or testing.
s l
l
/
Initial if S.F. signature is not recuired.
~~ -
J
- 2. - 7 f Sv.tt Foreman s $.gnature Cate
- 21. Testing completed and component released f or normal use.
Okg' /.,
fL-7?
initial if S.F. signature is not required.
-/
Sn si f oreman : Segnature Care
- 22. Quality Control Deaartment review of work and testinacompleted (GC work only).
kb-Y
$2..
< l< 11C, Sw. uan o acuo.: v.
oc o.oae ry care 23 Supervisor of Maintenance Work recuest and procedure are complete and signed of f as required. Change / modification iorm has been signeo of f as recuired. Machinery histor l}try has been m.u:cJl required.
5 f
N
'~~'/
(W sm
-=
Mannou s to oce'orm iou supe visor oi hneenance 5 gnature Date Actua4 r
e
i 5-2 I
i 1410-Fi I
Revision 0 12/12/77 i
WORK REQUEST PROCEOURE N,
TMl Nuclear Station
_g Maintenance Precedure Format and Ap::roval Con TR O U D CO P't i
! t format and acts as a cover sheet for a maintenance procedure. Due to the limited size l
- ges may be attached as required. Wern Request ::recedure AP 1016 Section 6 should
(
rn:aring tha maintenance procedure t
a.:
TS REPLACE"ErlT 1410-F1 f this precedure is to char.;e filter elements en nuclear safety cents and Q.C. ccm;;:nents.
c.: cr ccm::cnent to be war' ed on.
a ting replaceable fil ters.
l l
, dor manual l
l l
ials and Cualibcatidcs re:uired.
ilter element required
.' c c c 6 7
,s /c <,,,,,
,- c. e c&j. *
)
(attar.h additicnal pages as required)
- trviser of Maintenance recommends a;:groval /)M. "I WU Date U-E- N I:I /2-7-7 l
3RC Recommends ap::reval-Chairman !$ ".Y.
,b 3 TI/4d Data /?/c Tit / Station Superintend.nt parevaL9_ ifA [- -(i
/M,de/ Daten1.. Y 20 o
/
ys~
y
/
- ipprovsts required only on Nuclear Safety llelsted/ Radiation work permit jobs.
d!.d!
Date /A 77 TAtlDIllG PROCECURE SUPERVISOR - Q.C.
1.0 P
- d..
...., /
1410-F1
's Revision 0 12/12/77
, 6.0 LIMITS AND PRECAUTIO*15 1.
Insure filter is properly drained and vented befor2 casing is opened.
2.
Insure filter drainaga is collected if working on a radioa.tive
~
system.
.'[
3.
Comply with the requirements cf AP 1CO2 Rules for the Protection
~
of Empicyees Working on Electrical and Mechanical Apparatus.
4.
Comply with AP 1C03 Radia:icn Protection Manual if applicable.
5.
This procedure is not to be used for Unit I Seal Injection Filters (use 1410-F4) or Unit I Makeup filters (use 1410-F3, 1402-1,1).
6.1 Isolate filter to be changed.
~. 6.2 Vant and drain filter.
.=.
6.3 Remove housing cover.
If threadic cap, inspect threads for galling and repair as needed.
Raplace filter cover gasket as required.
5.4 Remo/a used element (s).
5.5 Clean housing as required.
6.6 Insert new filter ~ elements per vendor's rec:m..endations.
6.7 Replace housing cover.
7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
, 7.1 Filter differential pressure is satisfactory.
7.2 Filter casin'g does not leak.
S 2.0 e:
5 Attachment WORK REQUEST APPROVAL TMI Nulcear Station Unit No.
/
Work Request No.
W.01 Account 7i
,s/
/
NPRD Form Reg'd Priority
// A
>i., v f.t items 1 inrough 5 comoleted bv oriainator 1.
System: L1 oui )
WASTO_
Di sk 1A L 2.
Comoonent (name & number) D ; 5 T+ L L # 7
.a.
4 / u ( _s.
3.
Describe malf unction ano causa of malfunction (if known) or mod.fication cesired.
P L. V 2 l.
O{$T4pg& T.=
L-ik ' $
? r~ *n Y
r.
rk m.-:-s hc-k T e rk W5 M A* f " */ -
L., /. /,.A - (
Date/ Time: / c - A I" 77/ / s e.
1 4
Originator:
5.
Originator's Sucervisor's Sicnature d.V#[A, h
/
S.
Does work represent a change or modification to an existing system or component?
If yes, an approved change modification is required per AP 1021.
C/M No.
Yes No 7 a.
Does work require an RWP Yes No 7b. Is an approved procedure required to minimize personnel exposure.
Yes No 8a. Is work on a QC component as defined in GP 1008.
Yes No 8b. If Sa is yes does work have an effect on Nuc! ear Safety? If 8b is yes, PORC reviewed Superintendent approved procedure must be used.
Yes No 9.
Agreement that a PORC reviewed, Superintendent approved procedure is not required for this work because it has no effect on nuclear safety.
(Apphes only if 8a is Yes and 8b is No).
Unit Super:ntencent Date 10a. Is the system on the Environmental Impact list in AP 1026 Yes No 10b. If 10a is Yes,is an approved procedure required to limit environmental impact.
Yes No 10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Required only if 10a is Yes).
Unit Superintencent/ Supervisor of Operations Date 11.
Plant status or prerequisite conditions required for work.
e
,s a.
u
~. - '.!
.s TVI 93 2 78
i gc., GLY ilIT!! THE ?? E E N U 6 -/
St.: FORTH IN A.?1002,1005 AND MET 2:D SAFOTY MANUAI' 1."
Limits ann FrecJutions al Personnel n) Equipment c) Environment d) Nuclear
- 13. Post Maintenance Testing requirec and Acceptance Criteria.
//4 u t <*
- c ' d " ' ' "
/' ' r - 'r.
14.
Estimated mashours to perf arm 100: E IC M / /, U
- 15. Maintenance Foreman A=agneo-5 L.' 4 T
- 16. CC Deat. review,if reovired in item No. 8 G C Superv:sor
/'_Alne J 7
'J-17 Sucervdor of Maintenance accroval to commence work:-
Date ' ' l'
- 18. Shitt Foreman's accroval to ccmmence work
/l h3a Date /c.- 1 T 7i' d
I l
Initialif ShalI
/!
b [ 0 Foreman
~7aimai Acci cat on No aa o a t oa a o< = *e m.t No signature is not required 19.
Comments on work perf ormed:
C Sq.w !
pL &L ~.LW)" ilu.a.,eJ;, e, ww,
- ~
,cu]v 4
%~..- m.
e c. m Retest met acceptance criteria Yes l,.-f N o l l
Work Performed by date' time Work Reviewed. Maintenance Foreman's Sionature Il 1-W kj \\ *LNw Kk
// v ) ;-
c
- 20. Work completed and component aligned f or testing.
l l
n
.- m Initiat if S.F signature is not recuired.
'i
/
' NI -
e ! ',,',,~ 2 Shedt Foreman s Sagn.ature~
Oate l
- 21. Testing completed and component re! eased Ior normal use.
/ /
l,'
\\
i Initial if S F signature is not recuiret
'2
.,,A '
sn.# r e o,, man 6 s.gnature care 22.
Quality Contini Decartment review of work and testiny$c-dered IQ
/t fc \\ '1'E work eniv).
('//t
(?$2 so..
.w. s.ca.t so cc ocoar'-ear be:e 23 Suoervisor of Maintenance Work reouest and procecure are complete and s:qned off as recuired. Change / modification
!crm has teen sinned 1H as required Machinery history entsyeas oeeft mace,il required.
r{. ? Yi
$1 0 l '12 l
~
Ac ruae Vaamoun 'o oeovm ion
%oa veso' o' Ya.areaaace segnatwee Caie
r -
.J' ~,, ~ '
P.OVisIGr. I
~
10/25/77
\\..G.e. k, r e.(,.,w.=.c s P t%n.s.=.,A, =.-
e 3
I
... c.. c.., :.
G<
~..*.*.,+.u..,,.e STATION t,isinten,cc Prc:ccu.e :orm: and,' a,7tou!
ko* M un m. ' 5 2-CONTRA_ LED COPY I
This form cuttiines the for: mat tnd ac:s as a cover : e: fcr a m:in en n:c prc:cdure. Dua to the lirr.ited size of :he form, addi:icnal cages n cy be a :2cned as ree;i.c::. Werk Re:;ues: proccdure A. 10 6 Sac:ior G should be used as a guide in pre;:aring :ne main:enance ;:roced re.
1.
Prc:: dure Tit:a & ::a.:
CLEA;ING OF CLOGCED LI:;ES
~
1410-Y-17 2.
Par;c:e:
2.1 To clean lines..nich have beccre plug;:ed.
3.
Oes:ri;::icn cf sy:::= :r :: ::,2 ;:: e. cried :n 3.1 See s;ecifi:
- r. F.equest.
n c,.. r::.::::
?+.1 IsP.---
ia 4.2 A?
1003 5.
5:::iaiTaca,f.:2::::a!: 3 : culiE.:sti:n:::: aired.
5.1 Nitrogen bottle a.nd regula:ce, i f n.'r o-e ary 5.2 Plumber'; pc.:er, i.; cucessary 5.3 Snake, if necessary S.
Detailed ?rcer: cts (st:2ch 2::.:i:ns:;s;5s as re::.:::)
=
6.1 See Attached 1 '
C:t:
Superviser of ?.'aint; nance P.s::mmends A:preval 1
' Unit 1 PORC Re::rnmends *::::rc.ai NM A72' -sy'J -77 Unit 2 POT:C T!s:arntnends Ar.:: an!'
.Z h;E
,/'},'c..f.<'..D:nimM.
Cns.r:n:n D:ta lhtJ
. < s>
' Unit 1 Supt. A;;;: rani i:
Data
-^_
. '. ' //, '..-'
.* Unit 2 Se;:t. Ap,7r 12!
- f_
Superviser Quality C:ntrol i,. /.', L < i., -
.L' Co'c ' ~ -' ' ". f. ',
, u a;n a
a 1
- NOTE: Then ep;:revais re:;uire on:y on Nu:! ear Saf ety Pc::ted/Radiat.::n'/l tr. Farmit JW.
1.0
- v. : u. ne, vn
,,,y-,.
,,.,,, -. - - i
.a
.,.*ts.~.
s e
.f'
-w-Q,_'
. Revision 1
~
6'. 0 LIMITS'AND PRECAUTION 5 0/25/77 7.
+*
+
4
= Insure goggles and protective clothing are worn if dealing -
a.
with caustic chemicals.
~ '
- l t
n.
b.
Do not exceed systea align pressure.
a Initiate R'.s?' pricr to starting work en systems contaiiiing '
c.
s radioactive caterial or in a centrolled area.
-e i
y 2
d.
Shift' Foreman shall review the. proposed flushing path.
'?
4, 6.1 Tag Out System 6.2.Open plug or fitting ~to establ ah fle.i path.
Valve: e.d/or.
openings cay te temperarily blanked or valve internals may be i
removed.
6.3 Attach a fitting to the.nic.egen bottle.
Set regulator"to insure
~
that system design pressura v'll not be exceeded.
In(tall a gauge.
in line bet.veen regulator and the system to b5 unplugged.
4 6.4 Apply. the nite:;en prct,sure and L1 0
1in out.
4 I'
CAUTIO!!:
i -
Oc nct exceed system design pressure.
I i
6.5 If nitregen is not availcble, water reay :c sed to att(mpt flushing.
1 ay.
i i
6.5. At times it may be necessary to use either a plumbers power or hand f
I I
t snake to dislodge any obstruction.
A wat.er or nitrogen flur.h m::y 1-I be nheded f:ll wing this's tep.
1 l
At times it may be desirable to use steam 'o unclog a line.
_ {-
l~
- 6. 7 i.e.:
l 1-Bori: Acid lines, etc.
l-l I
l 6.8 Replace any plugs, fittings, etc., removed in step 6.1.
Remove all i
I j
1 blanks installed.
Reassemble any valves which were disassembled.
6.9. Remcve all tools and materials upon the completion of work.
7.0 ACCEPTAMCE CRITERIA 7.1 Line is unplugged, no 1:aks at any joints and component is aperating -
i satisfactorily.
2.0 1.
4
-.--.r
,w--o v1---
r r,.
..p
,,-.--r p
a s
e s
,n-
.n-
../ [.
+
-.+#v..
r
- fv
.i',., j.4
'e.
.e
- -'+*
1,' L,g,g% %..
.. o 1
fi C, A/
~
V -.,
n
,S e
i i
/
p
/f'/
C,w
- 7l,'
't'gof,
- j
' 4..
i.t
- v.
s.I
-y v
./n
-v-
/
-C J
.i1' r*
i g
4 s
.v.
l_
r~ y
. i
- . {..*.
fG r+d
.t
..l - *.,/
?>,,
,,.e
+
- em T
~p
, gyp ve,..
s 4._
g.,~-
- ' b '.
, n.
s.
e
"" f jfppn l,
y t-y s
~,
d J
- 1.,
t
.5.*
,j r
r t
'+
T2 4*.
4 gg;*
si, a
/
-.1
.L'
((j
- j, s
.a
- e e.,
i 3
..g 2'
- I 6*
.*n
. no e set a
4 s
a *,
e 9
I.
8 N *
,i
,a#-
- i r-e i'
- c' a
< =,
.g r.
e 1
og 4
-'I l.
j e
- e se
..a>.
.. a e
}
, I 4
es
.?
- -o. e
!~
C.' -*
- u*e
't i.
/
c~.:.
,~
-,u,e
?'
1 I
. J.. p J'
l es
+
e t
f g **
f*
s*
t 4
d I 4 i
- f j
8,,
a g -
.l 1
f
+
t i
j i
7 4
1 yI i
s:
-t
,e s,g I
a
.1
-e -.
t s
Q L-.
s
.i
- e
^
- tl t.
g I
e 1
e
- g.
u 1
3r..
f*
't *r^
I t
j 1
L j
-.l r
4 i
- 4
-l
- j 1.
V i
a t,.
I 3
i s
{
l.,
F
=
l.
g l
t 1
L-4 i
t b-j.
i
?
I a
?" y.
I 4
e I e j>
i b
a g:
i e
%g
(%.
i
-~
. i
(.
- s. -
s.
g,,
_..f
! 1
-6*!
.~. -
l i.
^
\\
e.
t
( v?. m s.
" - * -- :k r*.
,*r
. 4
.4*
w a
3 1
, j
.g
. i 9 f. l { j,.. I
!4?
'-t 1
8
.f..
i.
e
,,, i.
b-,
t
. ;.! (
.1
-I
I I '*
.a a.
) it
- I.i.g A
- I g t.
s I
- e.,
I
.e 3
g 3
4
- 4
.,.g, c 8.;;,
i 3
1 t
- 31.. !. v. t. D..
i l
~.,
I s. t
' *;'", ; c,,
2.
.l j 3;3'*.'. ]
- !.!r '
,.e
-t 4
~ ;. I ;E {
- , '. p~e* l m. I:,s M:
5
.w i.
..h
..#C. '** *
/f v,
4 J
k*
-"--"em t.w'm.-
e e.
?
me n-m,
,4.,
p_.,,
4
e
> -..y %x
- t. _
t
.n...
.4 go.
,t,$g,=.s*.
l 1
6
" L
.I t'
- r.
~
o l
4 I
4 l
- .e-.,*
.'s..~.
- f.
l I
j
.~ e s.'-
,..a
- . i s
~
i t
- i'ea.
F I
\\
8 *-
i l,'
~
..]*..'
a.- u e a t
4 l
. s g
-..].
. s
.e e,..
- s. e 4
- -=-
. e.
. s 6
{
,a
,-1
..,.. 3 f
.j 1
,e 8
v i
l
. ' '. l I
4 p'..
'i 1
~.
I s
.y..ll j
i.
...e; t
a-
.g i
e t.
I
- * *. = =.
,2
.f f ',.
I l
( ) '. ? '. ' l. q
' o,...
- l w I s--,-
..L.,*.
- 4
'y e,
!*s
.I mm
. i e.
. 644 4..
PL f
g i *
.* 7
.1, g
s t,
1 w
i 1
s\\
s I.
- }
- g. J.
I i
t
,[
.e
.. ~..
s 4
2 s
4
. e.
I t-.3 f
.,I.' '
i U
..g..
. 1 6
...s
~....~!
y.
..i 1....
gf,"
- l8 8,*
l 8'
I2'
- ')
l
==o, 1,3.. e 4 i,.
- =
l I
e i.l1, s'
- i i
I e
4
- I I
il s'-
0g!;i.ir.,t. 7
- I i *
..~
9 l i
4; pg g
)
e t
I.
e 5.t e
g w3,
g i
1 1
. t,
- l.
1 s..
o 6
i 5
y'..,
J..
ll 1
4 4
- 6 a.
,--...]
l I '.J.
I '..L '.
3 e
i l
g i
9 I..
.e e.w-1 i
a 8,
1:
l 8
14
., p
..**==*-a
... - = =.-.
)
_,q g
l 4.
1, y
g
- j C.
,.2.
,-j
,g.
e i
^
l i,
I y -.
g.'.
.Il*
r i,
7 g-
? t i
p
[
t I
.,i
-t l
r,!
si I li
,.3 e
1 j
l
~.3
.,a -,. p
..q 1...,
. ~.
}
fl l
s's p
a g
i l
l l
[
i g
e
. I "
)..
s.
- e. ie h.'i. # y.
1-
!.f..'
,,8 *.
-l e.
.t g
1,
}
v.
, 8
. ;,i,..y-g 3.
l.,, 4
! 7.
1I
(.. g!
8.
- i lt
.%., u
- - _ _.. ( al
....g.
l J.*
il
'+i*
l t.i
(
l g
3- '; !
Ji t.
7 F
I l
Le
'4 g
q l
s, i
l.
~.
i,
'i{I${' $
!, l i
'V t*
f 7
i g,1 t~ '
=
i M a *~ 1
,,,1 1.-
+-
d,
.1 3,, a..,,.4..i,
. l t,..
e
~'
.1 e
1 -
i
.,i i
t
. :..~..t t.!.
p
. u I..-M [-.
3
.._..i.
i
[
l I
-q
>,[-
e i.s.
i.t3 I
i_,
'4. g*
[~'."t s
j.
f g3 (~..,.
d~
'l I
.I i
l
=
6 i
.1
. t:
i
,1
'. [
.I
,g
.g j.g l..
8 '
6 8
..t'
..a 1
1.,
1
,.,,-l 4,,
'ya
,r.
t..
9-s.
...c t
pq 8,
i i..,.
-..i; I
1 I
i -
r-A _:
l J
N-
,.?
.h,
..1 i
q 6!
s n; 3
{
i e s.
- ' ~....
- g. ! */ :."
' - 1,.
)
...l l
.or.-
g s
<-wi 1
.-e..
.. =
f
- h' s i
l o a. J c
- 1 f
. -j 3{
i
.I i
r.
s
\\
t 1,-
- t.,
a j-Ig.
m
}
g i
1 A
- j-l w
ni ',t i
l
...s
._. a i,.,
+
- } - --
i t
3 t
l
.-,.. I
.l--
.t,..
i i
?.
=
.. i M,:
.I.s, e
3 s.
-q.
. I r
}
1
- t a..
..g i
1 j
i s.,.
_6 l
i i
i.
1
- ,i -. -.
e
.}
1 m
.., 3,
.. - 1
. _ _...s l
6 we a.,
,.i.
L.-
.... t. 4 t
-:--I
..ri r-i;
.m....
~ 1.
l a,
---;i.3.;.
l-4 i
1
.: g g
.t, g...t)...f.t..
,f,
. - 1 t.
... ' ! t,: ; ;, '. '
! I i
t, i
a' 3 e t !. ' t.
3, :
s*
',I.3)g I,i
. 4
,,.t..
1 -
I' I.
t g
j.
- t 1 l 3
- :::.:-
i i
s s..
- . 8 i
t
't4
- ! *t : s. -
t t,
I -
68 4
t I
u.1
+.
I t
ha-s t
d
'96
- g.
- 1 a
. A ti 4
l i
, ' 10. t
,9 i
(
f*. *
.. b J..,*.1
.s,
_ _.s
. ". - ~
DES" COPY AVEA~I WORK REOUEST APPROVAL J
TMI Nulcear Station h/ j r*P Unit No.
t Work Request No.
I W.0] Account 7 ped D/eo, (E. NPRD Form Rea'd
/) O Priority
/ / / /r-
/
f items 1 throuch 5 comoleted by originator M
1.
System:
F,
- r 4 5v3 T.-
2.
Comeonent Iname & number) 8 A- / fI ~)
3.
Describe malfunction and cause of malf unction (if known) or modification desired.
l cy i s s ra dr e r 2p t /p.-
cA-~p
,s y
=-L 4
Originator:
-M/
D ate / Time:
F- / ~7 - 7 F / ~;: 3 To I
5.
O riginator's Sucervisor's Signature /W//M.
6.
Oces work represent a change or modification to an existing system or component'i If yes, an approved change modification is required per AP 1021.
C/M No.
Yes No 7 a.
Does work teouire an RWP Yes No /
7b. Is an approved procedure required to minimize personnel exposure.
Yes No #
8a. Is work on a QC component as defined in GP 1008.
Yes # No 8b.
If 8a is yes does work have an effect on Nuclear Saf ety? If 8b is yes, PO RC reviewed Superintendent approved procedure must be u:ed.
Yes No lf e
9.
Agreement that a PORC reviewed, Superintendent approved procedure
'q '
is not required for this work because it has no ef f ect on nuclear safety.
(Applies only if Sa is Yes and ab is No).
E,
~, YI f
~
l' I
I
\\,
Unit Superintencent Date 10a. Is the system on the EnvironmentalImpact list in AP 1026 Yes No "
10b. If 10a is Yes,is an approved procedure recuired to limit environmental impact.
Yes No 10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Required only il 10a is Yes).
Unit Superintencent< Supervisor of Operation.
Date 11.
Plant status or prerequisite conditions required f or work.
N W
7 g
mi,,,,.
, o 12.
Limirs an6 Frecautiam a) Pers:3nret t
l F. C' M.,5 3
3 b) Ecarprrent a(.f\\D\\* W.p l\\f\\,
.e n
l
,2..:
~
i.,3 arid 1 TC 1 I
c) Environment E ! ;a, g,,.,.*3, i
gf1 g1 t
d) Nuclear e
13.
Pest Maintenance Testing requireo and Acceptance Criteria
\\
Estimated manheurs te certcrm joe:
.f{
4 ug.
14.
E IC M
U m p, M.
15.
Maintenance Foreman Am;ned: _
16.
QC Dept rev.ew. il re:cirec in item No. 8
?
{
Q C Suon.usar 17.
(
Supervisor of Maintenance a: rc.al to commence astk,-g* eM b.. t. '..s. d (..,.. C' Date,. '." A
\\
r
\\
18.
Shi!! Foreman's accroval to commence work Date
?i '7 f.
. h s-Date}
-7 y
'nual if Shif t Foreman
- was Accacat..'a.o
~
t si'; afdre es not reOuired i
a o.c.on ao. p.m,r so
~
19.
Comments on work certarmeo.
b 83
- A 5 f[.:
t s
s, c /J 4.
y,.2 s.. (
g Retest met accc:tance errtena Ye i i
- o j
Work Performed "v dare tira.e V
e:
\\','Ork Reviev.e1
'.iaintenance Foreman's S enat c...
4 d
ure 2..
20.
Work comoietea and comc:nent angnea f ut reting.
\\_
/,
f initialif S F signature is not re:;irtd
/l
- j. [
21.
-Testing completed ano comp-)nent retenc 1 f or normal _
u _.,s'n..
.nis.,n.,u,
a.i. T i
e
.s u*e L
,f,f)'
'g s
/
j initial if S 5 signature is not recoised
/
(G(
/
22 Cuality Control De::arment re.iew of wo, e : ic::m'campiet o 0Cp..' a.~.n i s,
_ C/9 97 y
c1 3
s,.....$, [ 4...
Superv,snr of Mainte%+u '.' ion
~
work only). y ov.
23 m o.,,.
f orm has been sinnec 00 as,rer;uiredre::uut and orreesure ate. complete and signeo of f o.,,
Mathis'ery history entsy has seen made if ret;uiredas required. Change /
~
a i
g1,/ m' -) ?
.s,. v -ne...,.o o-en.
.ar.
~~
c a
s p... o...e.
- c. s.,nuo,,
~
o...
Attach:r.ent a *gy}e *. ' -
A'
- j.. $ ( F ( b WORK REQUEST APPROVAL TMI Nuolcar Station I
[
/
.2 N 1C Unit No.
Work Recugst No.
W.01 Account No. 'TT1:M //CC/
NPRD Form Re;'d Priority 1M
/
l l~Gd*f items 1 throuch 5 compiered by oriainatar
$ < b::.
b 1.
System:
- - t\\>-
Si 0 -
Ie 2.
Comoonent (name 3 number)
I2 1
Descrs::e malfung on and cause of malfunction (if known) or modification oesired
*..sq-- Q u'f E?oAO-
\\
3, m
5 6 s s.e. o h C -a.. F.
s V (.
C) f h n.,k C ss M
, f-gg,.g.jf o.. v. A.
'A}/U. 0 j
s11 Qff( //
['<f. ) - (
/
~r
\\ -* - ' -
4 Ori:inator:
Date/ Time:
7
/ #- /77
~
U 5.
Otro'nator's Suoervisor's Signature
/f /.. 'I2 h
--4_
/ I 6.
Does..ork represent a change or mocification !o an exis:ing system r com::cnent?
If yes, an approved change mocification is required per AP 1021.
[
C/M No.
Yes No
/
7a.
Does work reouire an AWP Yes No P
7 b.
Is an accroved procedure recuired to minimize :.ersonnel exposure.
.Yes No Ba.
Is work on a QC component as defined in GP 1008.
Yes No 8b. If Sa is yes does work have an effect on Nuc! ear Safety? If 8b is yes.
POR C reviewed Superintendent approveo must te used.
Yes
/
No 9.
Agreement that a PO RC reviewed. Suoerintendent acDroved procedure is not recuired f or this work because it has no ef fect on nuclear safety. (Applies only il Sa isYes and 8b is No).
Unit Suoerintendent Date 10a. Is the system on the Environmental impact list in AP 1026 Yes No M
10b. If ICa is Yes, is an aoproved procedure required to limit environmental impact Yes No 10c. Agreement that 10b is No. (Required only if 10a s Yes).
un.e suu.-.n ren.* nuse-wr
- oi-* =a$
Date 11.
Plant status or are a- "sge conditions required f or worr kN
^
J'- A
- 12. Limis and Precautions:
a) Personnel g.,.g.; n 9 4h QO2 and CCG
'l b) Ecuipment I
c) Environment t F.d Sdf7 ' O d) Nuclear
~ ~. r o. tf,; : : t;, i ?
r
- 13. Post Maintenance Testing required and Acces:ance Criteria.
,dh[tt.)
g, kdL,,,,
f4. Estimated manhours to pertcrm 300: E IC M
U
- 15. Maintenance Foreman A: signed:
- 16. QC Dept. review,if recuireo in item No. 8
- see A!c2 72-!?3 3 C Supersisor Date
- 17. Supervisor of Maintenance accroval to commence work: I/h Nd Date 7 O'N 55 Shif t Foreman's aopraval to commence work
.d.M
/ [D'~~
Oate O-S '- 7.7 Initialif Shif t
/8 )/
A' 8 Foreman ranns amonCation no.
saaoi.on war ee<m.: so.
~
signature is not regi ired
- 19. Ccmments on work perf ormed:
Vchjz Y N, 9 f,',-) (,s d.
.I v $ (
~
CL S s
7 C Si./1 ou / /1' CA f,e 4 y 9.,,,g / :) Gg .p / Retest met acceptance criteria Yes { No l l Werk Performed by dateltime Work Reviewed. '.taintenance Foreman's Signature o Di. -c u u G % ib (s ~.- (i, ,../ t ( f$! kc-C U"* \\. , u.s
- 20. Work completeo and component aligneo f or tes, ting.
\\ F^f%1/0 l l /v ^;97 O _q"v initial il S.F. signature is not recaired. - " ~ ' - J sn v se,<eman i s.gn.twee wate
- 21. Testing completed and cornponent released tor normal use.
l l r/., ? ','~ /. 'T' y' ' Initial if S.F. signature is not required. sn t t coreman s 5.gnature Cate
- 22. Quality Contrni Department review of work and testingco,copleted (Cf work enlyL f
f AQ2 7[~-/ 7q [ rh... _ of1.1/7Y Surve' Hance Acoeri No GC Geoar'mant 'Cate '
- 23. Supervisor of Maintenance work recuest and procedure are com-ta:md signed of f as recuired. Change / modification f arm has ceen signed off as required. Macninery histor/y a 'CG~.s bec%te,il required.
to-lo -7f tr L-3 e ACruas Mannours to De'to'm loo su De" w'M' of Maintenance 5.gnature Cate ~..
liCR : 0. 78 173 P:. 1, +.... (X/ di'E:: DISTRIEUIIC:! !!ADE owl 7 JA U::IT 1:0. I Q6 CLCAED DISTRIDUTIO i tuDE V, n ,9/;,^,,, a QC l'0::CO:!7OR:G? ICE RE?0htT ,/ l K (X) L'CU ( ) VII DOR FILE (X) FILE '0:tIGI::.WID 3Y: i ( ) :*-7E ( ) CCG. DI?T. HEAD (ORIGI:IAL) ( ) !!-00 ( ) P.O. FOLDER (X) FILE CE:IF2ATIO - ( ) RECCIFT I:;.OI-- C:- . ( ) I:-GA ( ) PbRCHASI:!G DOC 24E'T CO:: TROL ( ) SJ1:7EILLl. :: : (X)14-G:4 Os.) CRC CEiiIIR REPORT :3. (<x) OIILED " +.., : < -.. c. e (- ) PCRC CII"I. ( ) S - LICE:!3II;G ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ pe t,i g ( ) U!:IT SUPI. (<x) SU?V. OF !!AI:IT. 9 l ITDI Ucrk Recuest 24576 P. O.'! f:/A LIII ITI'4s 'N/A E'ER N/A { LOCATID:t TitI-t;5 DEPT. P :. i rM.s e ~ s SYSTD! Correctiva Mainteonce Proym j .PROCE.,0 C. liO. tD 1076. Rav_ 6 6*ed 5 7.79 j DI3CRI? tic:i: Section 4.2.5 of AP 1026 states: "The Maintenance f$ reman is rest.. s",1:. f.v implementing the details of this procedure (AP 1025). He will insure all appr,pri?.;e approvals be obtained prior to ccemencing work..." Contrary to this requirement, work.was performed using work request 24576 without czpie-in i the required revir;5 price to ec rencing work. (CO!TmVED Ori ATTACHED SHET) kAlf?I E DATE: f-72 ( ) ?cTI:TI.cf Y FI?cRTA3LE ??EMED BY: EISOLUTIO::: 1. The Supervisor of Maintenance shall make personnel in his dephrt sr.t : re of the contents of this NCR and the requirements for Work Request reviews and appe:tals. 2 t. C00. DI?T/SICT. HEAD: M ' " 'd ~ DATE: @ / '2-7.P l DUI DAT : 9-29-78 'SupIRVISc3 - oc:. t f 4 ///. u h Jf.- DATE: c/ -/r A' STATUS t ? l CLosID: 9-15-7S: The Supervisor of Maintenance has completed the resolution as st? ed; see attached memo to members of his department. % g Su?IR'iISo?-QC: d$$' DATE: 9-"- 7/ ^ r /* ,.a. l CPT I.012.001A
-.. e 7-QO'NONCONF0P.MANCE REPORT GCR NO. 78-173 UNIT NO. I Pace 2 of 2 DESCRIPTIOi: (C0"T'D) Further, Section 4.3.1.1.21 of AP 1025 statet that the block 21: " Signature indicates that the system or comparent is acceptable for cpera tions. QC work requests are then routee to the QC Department for review". Contrary to this, the completed work request was routed to QC for review prior to releasing the ccmponent/ system for operational This equipment (RR-PIA train) is Tech. Spec. related (sect. 3.3). use. 9 s 6
1. ?S METROPOLITAN EDISON CO M P A N Y se,a.,, o, c.emi e .e ur.ut.. co,no,,,,o,, i Subject ICNCCNFCRMANCE PIERT # 78-173 Location mI t:uclear Statien Middletcwn, pa. Date septerier 11, 1979 To Maintenance Superviscrs !'aintenance Foreman i t'aintenance Shift Fcrc an I .NCR =78-173 concerns wrk perfer ed en a cm.penent (PR-V-12A) listed in G.p. 1008 withcut apprcpriate signatures (line 16, QC Superviser and line 17, Supervisor of *a.ntenance approval to cccance work). Ap 1026 specifically states tPat these sig.atures are required prior to wrk:.ng en a Caality Centrol cceponent. i { plear ensure in the future that the' app.4priate signatures are obtained _hefore start..c to erk en a cmpnc..t. Standing croceitres only require a notific c. tion j (telephone call) to Oaality Cent:o] and doct. entng such in line 16. For line 17, there are a nt=ber of persennel designated who ca. sign for the Supervisor of Mainter.ance's approval pe-VM--=-mce Depart.ent Crder No.14, Rev. 7. per this memorandts, this nonconfor ance report is_ closed. J I h 4),~b-d D. M. Shovlin j Superintendent of I*aintenance rig / pas cc: T. :*ackey t D. me 4 i 4 e i i. t l INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM l
~ [ 'J N/2N At tach-.ent 9 p j l c' - 1 + h.. ivw METROPOLITAN EDISON CO M P A N Y sa,w,y a c e.oi eei,e uiu,, -.x,,m,, 3
- n. m. _o..ru_. 7..m_ _...*_. e._-
T... +..tJD ~. ~.e Location Re a.u~ng Subject c.CI_ To_13, .u u (, ,,-.,) c..D w. C.w. C.7,.. o uA a. ..v a. Date Aug.,,33 13,, 3973 .;.0 L. L. LWYER GO! 3D6 G. P. MILLER J. P. O'HA'fLOI I. Persons Conductine Aniit a. T. F. Barbago" o* Tea = Me=ber b. P. A. Le.ine* Tea Leader II. Personnel Contacted a. M. 3. Bezilla Unit 2 - PORC Secretary b. E. R. Cravfoot Electrical Maintenance Foreer, c. A. J. Divittore Maintenance Dept. Clerk Typis: Jr. d. E. C. Fuhrer Engineer II HP/Chenistry e. J. R. Gilbert I & C Maintene.ce Fore = m f. D. L. Good" Tech. Ana.lyst Sr. g. II. S. He.~eisey* Mechanical Maintenance Fore =an h. R. M. Klinga n Manager Generation Engineering 1. J. J. McGarry Supervisor of Mechanical Maintenance ,i. H. M. Mitchell* Electrical Maintenr.ce Supervicor k. H. R. Morris Generation-Supervisor of Electrical Maintenance 1. R. E. Heidig QC Specialist n. C. A. Nixdorf Office Supervisor n. J. P. O'Hanlon Unit 1 Superintendent o.
- 3. J. Rittle Electrical Maintenance Forenr.
p. R. L. St. Pie'rre QA Assistant q. W. J. Sawyer Unit 1 Supervisor of Maintenance r. J. L. Shirk Technical Analyst II s. D. M. Shovlin* Superviser of Maintenance t. R. E. Sieglite Engineer Sr. I Uuelear u. P. A. Sinegar Maintenance Dept. Clerk Tycist Jr. v. R. H. Trautnan Engineer III Maintenance v. A. M. Trout =an Clerk - Jr. x. H. L. Wilson
- Unit 1 I L C Maintenance Fore:a-Nuclear
- Personnel present at post audit review held on July 6, 1973.
III. Aculicable Reference Dceu ents a. CQA Plan Rev. T b. TMI Unit 1 and 2 Taa'- '-"' Specifications c. Audit 76-10 d. AP 1016, Rev. 12 Operations Surveillance Progran c. AP 1021, Rev. 1 Plant Modifications f. AP 1026, Eev. 5 Corrective Maintenance and Machine:f History ifjTER-OFFICE t',Er.10RANout.1
J = - e.., 0 gs August ik, 1978 L. L. L.WYER GQi 35L6 G. P. MII.?IR J. P. O ' u_' ". ' ^". Aud*' 'p' Q.,'.' g. AP 1027, Eev. L Preventative Maintenance h. G? 1003, Rev. k Change Meno #3 Control of Design Change /Medifi-Cations IV. S"-= rf An audit was conducted on April 2k, 26, May 17, 22, and July 6,1973 for the purpcse of assessing the adequacy of and cc=pliance vi:h the Statica **--=-=--= Pros ?n/P ocedures for DII 1 and 2. In perfo:.ing the audit, t%~ a"'d : ean reviewed a nunber of work requests, change nodifications, and -=~-* / history cards as well as the cenputer pro ra: that has been established to control preventive -' a-e--a. e The audit identified the following discrepancies which a e do-"
- a'ad on the attached findings and can be s"-
riced as follows: 1. Discrepancies between the procedu-al requirenents of 12 1027 and. current practice. 2. Inadequate or unclea procedural requirements fer repo:-ting conditions per 10 CFR 21. 3 Inadequate utilization o' ~~k4nery history cards and reggar records. k. Unit 1 ~~aka-4 cal and electrial shops did not have the latest revision to 12 1026. 5 A nu=ber of inconsistencies in the procedural requirenents for processing change modifications between AP 1021 and GP 1C03 V. Detailed Su= arf The following areas vere audited utilizing the prepared checklists that were based en the procedural requirenents of AP 1021,1026, and 1027 1. Plant Modifications 2. Corrective Maintenance and Machinery History 3 Preventive Maintenance 4 Those itens covered by 12 1016, Operations Surveillance Progran vere not audited during the cou-se of this audit, because the auditors decided that this activity would nore appropriately cone under the heading of :!ornal Station Operations rather than Statica t ' -+ ce. A. Uns. tis factort Areas The audit identified the following discrepancies: 1. Preventive Maintenance p a me 4.:ag. 4 ee a,-. w m..wepes.a"+ i y= r-tintenance gvsten
i ~ August ik, 1978 "['* L. L. LAUYER ~ CQM 35h6 G. P. MILLER J. P. O ' HAM LON Audit 78-11 functicas and provides directions for plant personnel in performing plant preventive maintenance. The preventive maintenance tasks for various cenponents has been put en caster lists which have been computerized and from these = aster lists =aintenance schedules have been developed. The various co:puterized lists have been =ade part of AP 1r" and require certain information to be listed. It was no during the audit that the cc=puterized = aster lists, bei: i presently used at TMI, do not in all cases, contain the same infor:ation as listed en the a"aa"-**'s to AP 1027 (See Finding Hos.1 and 2) b. AP 1027 requires persennel who are perfor=ing preventive maintenance to,identi_^/ conditions that are reportable per 10 CFF. 21. The procedure, however, does not clearly define the rechani:= to be used for reporting such adverse conditi (See Finding Nos. 3 and h) f 2. Corrective Maintenance AP 1026 provides directions to personnel in the perfornance of plant corrective taintenance and the me; hods to 'ce used to docu maintenance activities such as Machine:/ History Cards and Megger Cards. A reviev of the Machinery History Cards en file in the a. Uni',1 Electrical and Mechanical Maintenance shops deter =in that the person who made the entry is not indicated, nor does the card provide a space for identifying the data recorder. (See Finding No. 5) 4 i b. The reviev also noted that History Cards are not maintained for all plant co:ponents and that certain =aintenance activities such as routine bearing replacement or pu=p repa are not recorded unless proble=s are encountered. (See Finding No. 6) t Megger checks en cotors rated h80V and belov are not being c. documented on the tegger cards. (See Finding Mo. 7) 3 Docu=ent Control The auditors noted that the Mechanical and Electrical Shop aree files did not contain the latest revision of AP 1026, even though the copy they had was marked " controlled copy". (See Finding No. 9) 4. Procedural Inconcietencies AP 1021 referenced the wrong section of the TMI CQA plan at a. being applicable to Plant Modifications. (See Finding No. b. There are a nunber of inconsistencies in the change nodifi-cation forns that cre u ed for processing change modificati between AP 1021 and GP 1033 (See Finding Co.10)
f.s L. L. LA'..~rER August ih, 1973 G. P. MILLIR GUI 35L6 J. P. O ' HA iLOII -k-Audi: 73-12, i 3. Satisf2ctor/ Areas Tne following docunents were reviewed and it appeared -ha, they vere being processed in accordance with the app' d - ' = procedu-al require:ents. i-1. Unit 1 Chang * ad* ~ations 852, 903, 920, 1075, 1:52, 979,1c26,1029,1060, 973, lo6h, lolo, 996, 9k9, 976, 1o77, 1085, 1079, 1c68, 1067, and Unit 2 change Moiification 1 0001, 0013, ccli, co20, c022, 0023, 2-0080, and 2-C031. 2. Unit 1 Uo n P.eques:s 23559, 235L3, 23523, 23h99, 23h71, 23hks, 23h23, 23351, 23366, 23290, 2376L, 23791, and Unit 2 Won Requests h066, 3917, ho18, Lo26, and h027 3 Megger cards for 10 - P - 1A and HH - P - 1C. h. Unit 2 Loop Calibration Sheets for ES - PS - 3570, IS - PS - 3571, ES - PS - 3572, BS - PS-3573, SP 1A - LT1, S? 13 - LTl SP 2A - LTk, SP 1A - LT5, SP 1B - LTh, SP 1B - Lt5, and SP 3A - TT1. VI. Conclusion The auditors cencluded that with the exception of the itens identified in the attached findings, station naintenance and modificatiens are being perfor:ed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable procedures. J i Y v,, A.* V c.2-
- /1/? ?
Sub itted by: P. A. Levine Team Leader EXT. 162 Sub=itted by:.NM[M24. .4 i'. T. F. Barbagallo / Team Member 4 l 7 5-2600 EXT. 2y3 - / ' / S, /!<r.b1 6.!/t7/7'I LJ ' r. Approved by: _. C. JJ Trofier ls.;. Manager-Generation-Quality Assurance EXT.lll PAL:TF3:GJT:bv cc: GOR 3-D. H. Reppert GRC-2 T. A. Stanislav H. E. Bodden J. G. Herbein R. M. Kl. inca =2n T. A. Msekey (D. K. Gee) (cont) -}}