Text

Discusses Insp Rept 50-440/93-19 on 930920-24 & Forwards Notice of Violation
	ML20059H500
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/05/1993
From:	Grant G; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Stratman R; CENTERIOR ENERGY
Shared Package
ML20059H503	List: IR 05000440/1993019; ML20059H500; ML20059H515;
References
	NUDOCS 9311100103
	Download: ML20059H500 (6)
	v • d • e

. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -

!

.

Novwmber 5, 1993

Docket No. 50-440 t

Centerior Service Company

ATTN: Mr. R. A. Stratman

Vice President-Nuclear

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

c/o The Cleveland Electric !

Illuminating Company

P.O. Box 97 - 5270

Perry, OH 44081-9514

Dear Mr. Stratman: ,

!

This refers to the team inspection conducted by Mr. G. M. Hausman and others !

of this office on September 20-24, 1993. The inspection included a review of

activities authorized for your Perry Nuclear Power Plant. At the conclusion ,

of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your

staff identified in the enclosed report.

i

Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. The

purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by l

the license were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements.

This was accomplished through the selective examination of procedures and

representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations of

activities in progress. The inspection included an assessment of the quality

and effectiveness of your engineering and technical support organization.

Although the inspection was limited in scope, the team's findings raised

significant concerns which are similar to the concerns with your corrective

action program documented in Inspection Report No. 50-440/93011(DRP), which

were the principal bases for the $200,000 Civil Penalty recently issued. We

also noted that your system engineering resources appear to be strained,

resulting in engineers spending the majority of their time reacting to events

l rather than conducting routine work to identify issues before they become

major problems.

We understand that you are developing a Perry Course of Action to resolve your

engineering problems. We recommend that you review your course of action to

ensure the above identified problems are addressed and will be corrected.

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 of

Violation (Notice). Because your response to Inspection Report No. 50-

440/930ll(DRP) included an overall discussion of improvements in your

corrective action program, we suggest that you limit your response to the

specifically identified violation. The violation is of concern because

engineering management lacked an aggressive questioning attitude in each

9311100103 931105 )

PDR ADDCK 05000440 g

l PDR' / ,

.

O

/[$f

. -- -. -.

~ - . -- -. .-

!

)

,

. Centerior Service Company 2 November 5, 1993

of the examples cited. Adequate technical evaluations of the issues were not ,

performed nor were corrective actions taken commensurate with the safety

significance of the issues. For example: .

o improper installation of bearing lock collars, identified in December I

1992, damaged residual heat removal system fans; however, a decision was i

made to delay inspection and disassembly of similar safety-related j

bearing units until October 1993 and February 1994, ,

,

o engineering had not corrected the water hammer problems associated with '

the radioactive waste treatment system and high pressure core injection j

spray system (HPCS) identified in 1988; and '

o engineering had not assessed a number of technical concerns associated

with the relief valve (RV) lift and HPCS pump dead heading prior June ,

i 1993.

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 enforcement action is

necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. ;

In addition, the report addresses an unresolved item. We request that you

i also address this item along with your reply to the cited violation identified i

in the enclosed Notice. '

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter, its enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed

l 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,

1

Original signed by Geoffrey E. Grant

Geoffrey E. Grant, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

1

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-440/93019(DRS)

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURREICE P1GE

See Attached Distribution

RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII

Hausman/bp/jk Pegg Lanksbury Shafer Wright Forney G

11/01/93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93 1 /93

i

{

h

.- .- ,, - - . , , ,.---,r- . . . - . , -- , , , - - ,, - , - - - -

_ _ _ . .

- - _ . . _ _ - . - - - .

- ---_ _ - - -

i

,

.

. Centerior Service Company 2

of the examples cited. Adequa;e technical evaluations of the issues were not

peformed nor were corrective actions taken commensurate with the issues

m ," significance. For example:

o improper installation of bearing lock collars, identified in December

1992, damaged residual heat removal system fans; however, a decision was

made to delay inspection and disassembly of similar safety-related

bearing units until October 1993 and February 1994;

1

!

O engineering had not corrected the water hammer problems associated with l

the radioactive waste treatment system and high pressure core injection !

spray system (HPCS) identified in 1988; and

l

0 engineering had not assessed a number of technical concerns associated l

with the relief valve (RV) lift and HPCS pump dead heading prior June l

l 1993, I

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions

specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your i

response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional i

actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this !

Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future j

inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is ,

necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. '

In addition, the report addresses an unresolved item. We request that you

l also address this item along with your reply to the cited violation identified

l in the enclosed Notice.

I

t

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter, its enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed

in the NRC Public Docurant Room.

l

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

subject to the clearance proceduras 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.

4

Sincerely,

I

Geoffrey E. Grant, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

1

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-440/93019(DRS)

s Previ us concurrence Page

See Attached Distribution

RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII

Hausman/bp/jk Pegg Lanksbury Shafer Wright Grant

11/01/93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/su/93 11/ /93

, ,

. -

- r - - - . , . - . , . , - . . , , - . ., _ . . . . ,, .,,mm, ,o ,, ,_

,,

. Centerior Service Company 2 ;

I

an aggressive questioning attitude in each of the examples cited. An adequate .

'

technical evaluation of the issue was not performed nor were corrective

'

actions taken commensurate with the issue's safety significance. For example:

'

o improper installation of bearing lock collars, identified in December

1992, damaged residual heat removal system fans; however, a decision was

made to delay inspectior, and disassembly of similar safety-related

bearing units until October 1993 and February 1994;

o engineering had not corrected the water hammer problems associated with

the radioactive waste treatment system and high pressure core injection

spray system (HPCS) identified in 1988; and

o engineering had not assessed a number of technical concerns associated

with the relief valve (RV) lift and HPCS pump dead heading prior June

1993.

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 enforcement action is

necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

In addition, the report addresses an unresolved item. We request that you

also address this item along with your reply to the cited violation identified

in the enclosed Notice.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter, its enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed

in the NRC Public Document Room.

I

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not i

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,

Geoffrey E. Grant, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report ;

No. 50-440/93019(DRS) SEE PREVIOUS CmCURRCCE PAGE

See Attached Distribution 4

RIII RIII RIII RIllyYpp RIII Rill RIII

Hausman/bp/jk Pegg Lanksbury Sh r . ht Forney Grant

11/01/93 11/ /93 11/ /93 II/p/93 11/ /93 11/ /93 11/ /93

i

.

<

Centerior Service Company 2

o improper installation of bearing lock collars, identified as early as

December 1992, damaged residual heat removal system fans; however,

without an engineering justification a decision was made to delay

inspection and disassembly of similar safety-related bearing units until

October 1993 and February 1994;

o engineering had not identified the root cause(s), evaluated the

consequences, or corrected the water hammer problems associated with the

radioactive waste treatment system and high pressure core injection

spray system (HPCS) first identified during the 1988 HPCS quarterly pump

tests; and

o engineering had not assessed a number of technical concerns associated

with the relief valve (RV) lift and HPCS pump dead heading prior to the

RV lift identified during the HPCS pump test conducted in June 1993.