ML20062J975

Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-48,consisting of 901024 Nonconformance Rept

ML20062J975
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	08/18/1993
From:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
OLA-2-I-MFP-048, OLA-2-I-MFP-48, NUDOCS 9311190365
Download: ML20062J975 (5)

Text

) '76 286 (3/89) W -15.3

~ fjo j Ll[ tovision 10/24/90 ATIAODGENT A

.* NosecoNPCsew a REFORT Ef estles toa 12/31/90

1. Ismt Plant VMr L. Numbe Rev. 2. (kaality Probles hepert No'. (if applicable) I Dc2 ,,24. - - p /-

me. A0260212

3. Itealacti'itFMissed PM on CCW HX 2-1 6. Referoa a '93 GC' 28 F 6 a S. Description of Nanconformances 1 CCW HX 2-1 tubes were not scraped in,accordance with a commitment made torthe NRC a

j on Generic Letter 89-13. This is considered a nonconformancep'erINPAP C-12.

oaracraoh 3.1.1.8.

{ '

T O {\ , k1kO' ed By (p/s) 7 Organisation S. Date 9 , Dmit nat .10. Organisation 11. Date A .L(p/s) uw Mgr.

1 C. Svs. Enar. 3/19/92 \ H.

%w- nous i f" , W Tech. Sves. 3/19/9?

A 12. seCN Evaluation Attached en the IIQt fast Cent Leonation Sheets h I. Plant Conditions III. Cause of Problem v. Corrective Actions .

A II. ta,scription of Problem 1Y. Analysis of Probles T1. Additional Inforestion L

y 16. Estimated 15. Responsible i 5 13. Trend N/A Other compleuen Orsantuuan C 1 codes Il-1II Il-liI Il-11I ****

H s N/A Nuclear Engineers ,

u 1 R 16. 10CTRSD.73 17. Potentially 30CFR21 18. 10CFRSO.9 19. Reference Other f C E Reportable Reportable Reportable poportable, if opp. l A P ves i j po IX) Yes i I NoIX) Yes !] un ' K ) N/A L 0 R

T

20. Basis refer to attached -

A Initial 21. Time Limit 22. Method 23. Notifiod By 36. Time 25. Date R 8 Report N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E I l V L Fo11ewup 26. Required 27. Time Limit .28. 3JR No. 29. Date j i I aoprt vos ! I NolXI N/A N/A N/A E T W Y 3D. Other Agencies Motified None it. Renarts

• • • THIS NCR WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE A NON CONFORMANCE ***

9 0

U 32. Chairman (p/sl 33. Date 60. Ot.her (p/s) 41. Date F A MGBurgess %-5 W 4/'##l h P , s y 34. QA (p/s) _ 35. Date -

42. Other (p/s) 63. Date R GMTolson A% "% 5/ / I R L

TL c nia t ,

34. Reg. Comp for DCPP Date A6. Other (p/s) 47. Date only (p/s) pG0ahan .  ? k.fk P5ftC 68. Meetsng Dates

• 49. GONPRAC Metalacation Dets:

Review.

• N/A N/A Cor sctive 50. Ceeplete - TRG Dairman (p/s) 51. Date St. QA Verification by (p/s) 53. Date Action y Q.<p,.us b '3. 9 L >

) tri s t ritat ion .

MPC ,

Materials PSRC Secretary Manager, QA 5tation/ Hydro Construction 1mitteter Plant Manager, DCPP TES Appropriate QC OONPRAC Secretary Authorised Inspector, '

other

, l gngineering if applicable Other 9311190365 930818 PDR ADOCK 05000275 Q PDR

c. _ - .. _. ._ -_ . .- _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . - - - - --.

NUCLEAR KLevsn v.se ~

. s ist Exh.No. <

Docket No. b -M[I~NO O (Id bbk_

In the rutter of [Ad/80 h - '<

stm __ _

_ _ ,_r nirao. '

W Uvin _

NCR DC2-92-TN-N011 Rev oo 1: - .. - -

___.____ . April 2, 1992' imm , * / _ _ _ t ca(

,r 1 N ",'E -. -

/Mr,tss Other n,,e, k_ Ce Gj're/

MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY

During 2R4 PM's were scheduled performed on the Component-Cooling Water (CCW) pump heat exchanger 2-1.. Part of that' PM was to scrape the heat exchanger tubes with conco scrapers. This PM was initially thought.to be's commitment to the NRC as part of;our response to Generic letterL89-13.

A review of. Work Order R0072875 shows that.this scraping.was-not performed. A preliminary review of the performance' data taken at the start of 2R4 indicated that there was sufficient margin in the heat exchanger, thereforeLnot performing the scraping does not render.the_ heat exchanger

imparable.

l l An investigation of the event determined that the tubes had l been inspected and determined to not need the cleaning'this outage. A, review of the PGS response to Gegeric letter ow ,

?J showed that PG&E had committed to clean the. heat exchanger in accordance with the DCPP Preventive Maintenance Program. The DCPP Preventive Maintenance Program requires the heat exchanger to be. inspected and cleaned as necessary.

Thus no commitment was missed.. The TRG ruled that since no commitment had been missed, this event did not meet the-definition of an non-conformance. Therefore this NCR will be closed as a non-nonconformance.

I L

91NCRWP\92TNN011.PGD Page 1 of 7

. V

N 1

NCR DC2-92-TN-N011 Rev. 00 April 2, 1992

c. Dates and Approximate Times for Major Occurrences:

Not Applicable D. Other Systems or Secondary Functions Affected:

None.

E. Method of Discovery:

During a review of Work Order R0072875 it was discovered that the required scraping of the heat exchanger tubes was not performed.

l

! F. Operators Actions:

1 l

None required.

G. Safety System Responses:

i

)

None.

III. Cause of the Event A. Immediate Cause:

Not Applicable.

B. Determination of Cause:

Not Applicable.

C. Root Cause: ,

Not Applicable.

D. Contributory Cause. 1 Not Applicable.

IV. Analysis of the Event A. Safety Analysis:

The lack of scraping of the heat exchanger does not in itself render the heat exchanger-inoperable. Therefore, the health and safety of the public was not adversely affected, and there 91NCRWP\92TNN011.PGD Page 3 of 7-

_ . - . . ~. . - _ _ _ _ _ _

NCR DC2-92-TN-N011 Rev. 00 April 2, 1992 Response: None.

2. Determine effect of cleaning based on heat exchanger differential pressure.

RESPONSIBILITY: Foster, V.

DEPARTMENT: PTES Tracking AR: A0261927 ,.AE.# 2 STATUS: COMPLETE.

After cleaning, dp was 104 inches.

3. Document basis. fut deferring ' tube cleaning.

RESPONSIBILITY: Seward DEPARTMENT: PGMC Tracking AR: A0261927 , AE #,3 )

STATUS: COMPLETE.

4. A review of Work Order R0072875 shows that.

this required scraping _was not performed. -As:

a preliminary review the performance data taken at the start of 2R4. indicates that there is margin to.the heat exchanger and the failure to perform the required scraping does not render the heat exchanger inoperable.

5. An investigation of the event determined that.' l the tubes had been inspected and-determined.to not need the cleaning this. outage. A review of the PG&E response to_ Generic letter-89-13 showed that JJ&E had committed to clean the heat exchanger in accordance with the DCPP Preventive Maintenance Program. The DCPP Preventive Maintenance Program requires-the-heat exchanger to be inspected and cleaned ~as necessary.

Thus no commitment was missed. The TRG ruled that since no commitment had been missed, this event did not meet the' definition of an.non-conformance. .Therefore this NCR will_be closed as a'non-nonconformance.

C. Corrective Actions to Prevent Recurrence:

None required 91NCRWP\92TNN011.PGD Page 5 of . 7

. -._...___.-._u_.______-.-. _ _ _ . _

i id' j.-.

s NCR DC2-92-TN-N011 Rev. 00 April 2, 1992 4

]

3. Tracking Action Request A0261927.

l H. TRG Meeting Minutes:

! on March 25, 1992, the TRG convened and added  !

three investigative actions. The TRG will reconvene April 2, 1992, to review these items.

1. Review NRC commitments to determine if a l commitment had been missed.

RESPONSIBILITY: Blakely ECD: Return DEPARTMENT: NSARA Tracking AR: A0261927 , AE # 1 Response: None.

2. Determine effect of cleaning based on heat I exchanger differential pressure. )

l RESPONSIBILITY: Foster, V. ECD: Return ,

DEPARTMENT:'PTES  !

Tracking AR: A0261927 , AE # 2 l After cleaning, dp was 104 inches.

3. Document basis for deferring tube claw.ing.

RESPONSIBILITY: Seward ECD: 04/2/92  !

DEPARTMENT: PGMC l Tracking AR: A0261927 , AE # 3 STATUS:

On April 2, 1992, the TRG reconvened to review the )

results of the investigative actions assigned I during the last TRG. A review of the PG&E response to Generic Letter 89-13 by NSARA confirmed that no commitment was missed. This  !

event was determined to not be non-conforming. I Therefore, this NCR will be closed as a non-nonconformance.

I. Remarks: None.

J. Attachment (s): None.

91NCRWP\92TNN011.PGD Page 7 of 7

_ _