ML20058H651
| ML20058H651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1990 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H653 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011210114 | |
| Download: ML20058H651 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000440/1990012
Text
<
,
.,
'
.
l
.-
.
I
-v
.
=
L
NOV 14 D90
!
!
!
!
Docket No. 50-440
l
i
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
jl
Company
ATTN:
Mr. Michael D. Lyster
'Vice President
Nuclear - Perry
10. Center Road
I
Perry, OH
44081
Gentlemen:
l
This letter refers to the special maintenance team inspection conducted by
Mr. H. A. Walker and others of this office on September 17 through 21, and
.
October 1 through 5, 1990.
During this inspection, we evaluated activities at
the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-58.
i
We discussed our inspection findings with you and others of your staff on
i
October 12,' 1990.
-
'
The inspection was conducted during the second refueling outage to assess and
evaluate your support for and implementation of maintenance in order to assure .
that plant structures, systems, and components perform reliably on demand. We
evaluated various activities to determine if maintenance was accomplished,
effective, and adequately assessed by your own quality verification process.
,
The enclosed copy of our inspection ~ report identifies specific areas . examined
during the inspection. Within these areas, we selectively examined-procedures
and representative records, made observations, and conducted interviews with
your personnel.
Overall, the inspection team concluded that implementation of the inaintenance
program at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant was satisfacto*"
The . material
condition of the-plant was also satisfactory; however
- covements were
needed in both housekeeping and identification of items requiring maintenance.
Section 4.0 of the inspection report provides a synopsis of the effectiveness
of your maintenance program.
The team identified . strengths a well as weaknesses in implementation of the
maintenance programs. The most significant strengths were: (1) management
commitment to maintenance as evidenced by the maintenance staffing and new
maintenance facilities;
(2) dedicated and experienced maintenance personnel
as evidenced by good work performance during the inspection; (3) review and
tracking of maintenance performance as evidenced by the tracking of many
maintenance performance indicators; and (4) a reliability centered maintenance
program.
l
9011210114 001114 .>
.
ftDOCK 0500
. a.-
y
go\\
.
.
_
.
.
_
'
.
.
i
The Cleveland Electric
2
NOV 3 4 50
tiluminating Company
The most significant weaknesses were:
(1) the failure to have methods in
place to identify poor housekeeping and defective plant equipment as evidenced
by plant conditions observed during the inspection; (2) inadequate planning
for some work (even though the program for maintenance planning appeared to be
good) as exemplified by delays due to poor control in troubleshooting Main
Steam Isolation Valve problems; (3) inadecuate procedures as evidenced by
deficiencies in several
I&C procedures; (4) the failure to follow procedures
as evidenced by improper testing of the fire pumps; and (5) the practice of
beginning non-emergency maintenance work in some cases before issuing the
maintenance work order.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements, as specified in ;he enclosed Notice of Violation.
A
written response is required
'n audition, several instances were noted where
alternate methods were used tu expedite work and bypass thorough reviews or
controls.
Examples were: use of emergency work authorizations to allow
maintenance work to begin prior to release of the approved maintenance work
order; use of temporary changes such as lifted leads and jumpers rather than
using the modification process;
and use of temporary change requests to
revise procedures rather than the normal procedure revision process.
Practices in these areas appeared to differ from those described in your
procedures.- Please address these areas in your response as well,
in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,-a copy of this
letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the
NRC Public Document Room.-
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
CRIGINAL SIGNED BY T. O. MARTIN
T. O. Martin, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-440/90012(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
Rlli
Rlli
Rill
Rlll
Rll i
Rill
e pwtA >ph
/hO
@%
Walke /lc Burgess
Lanksbury
Schumacher
Ring
Martin
11/ /90
11/ /90
11/ /90
11/ /90
11/pj/90 ll M /90
-
,
'
o
,
>
'
,
.
.
The Cleveland Electric
2
IWV 2 - m
111uminating Company
1
The nost significant weaknesses were:
(1) the failure to have methods in
) lace to identify poor housekeeping and defectivo plant equipment as evidenced
)y plant conditions observed during the inspection; (2) inadequate planning
for some work (even though the program for maintenance planning appeared to be
good) as exemplified by delays due to poor control in troubleshooting MSly
problems; (3) procedure inad9quicies as evidenced by deficiencies in several
I&C procedures; (4) the failure to follow procedures as evidenced by improper
testing of the fire pumps; and (5) the use of alternate methods and controls
,
to expedite work as for exampic the practice of beginning non emergency
maintenance work prior to issuing the maintenance work order.
During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation
of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response
is recuired.
in addition, several instances were noted where alternate
methocs were used to expedite work and by) ass thorough reviews or con?.rols.
Examples were:
use of emergency work aut1orizations to allow maintenance work
to begin prior to release of the approved maintenance work order; use of
temporary changes such as lifted leads and jumpers rather than using the
modification process;
and use of temporary change requests to revise
procedures rather that the normal procedure revision process.
Practices in
these areas appeared to differ from those described in procedures.
Please
address these areas in your response as well.
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790
of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and
your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The res p nses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
,
'
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96 511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY T. O. MWh*
l
l
T. O. Martin, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
i
Enclosures:
l.
Notice of Vic'r ion
'
2.
Inspection Report
No. 50-440/90012(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
Rill
Rlil
Rlll
Rlli
Rill
RIII
/M n / w
M> w
%$
f
'WalkVr/lc Burgess
Lanksbury
Schumacher
Ring
Martin
11/g/90
11/#4 /90
11/cf/90
11/q /90
11/ /90 11/ /90
-
- -
_ - _ . ._ _
t
.
,
.
- The Cleveland Electric
3
-' " ' '
,
111cminating Company
,
.
Distribution
,
cc w/ enclosures:
F. R. Stead, Director, Nuclear
Support Department
R. A. Stratman, General Manager
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
R. A. Newkirk, Manager,
licensing and Compliance Manager
S. F. Kensicki, Director, Perry
R: clear Engineering Dept.
H. Ray Caldwell, General
Superinterdent, Nuclear Operations
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
Licensing fee Management Branch
Resident inspector, Rill
Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
James W. Harris, State of Ohio
Robert E. Owen, Ohio
Department of Health
A. Grandjean, State of Ohio,
Public Utilities Commission
Clinton SRI
CommissionerCurtiss,OCM/JC
Tom Foley, NRR/LPEB
Director / Division of Reactor
Safety RI, Ril, RIV, RV
,
1
I
l