ML20139A265
| ML20139A265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1985 |
| From: | Anderson C, Bissett P, Chung J, Phelan P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Z985 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-85-33, 50-278-85-30, NUDOCS 8510080421 | |
| Download: ML20139A265 (17) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1985033
Text
,
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos. 85-33
85-30
Docket Nos.
50-277
50-278
License Nos. DPR-44
Priority
Category
C
-
Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19101
Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 & 3
Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania
Inspection Coqducted: August 12 - 16, 1985
Inspectors:
d4 /d
a
7 9'/d
in
Ch
g, L d Reactor Engineer
~date
W
iddlW
Y lb Y
sset't, React r yt gineer
/
date
{\\
C
I
-
,
,E-C
-
. e2m
9
lb 7(
-
P'.~Phelari, Reaci.of ' Engineer
- d a t e
' '"
~
Approved by:
,\\ /a), 9
J
9-/d-
jPlantSystems
.'J. Anderson,
te
'
date
ti
, EB
Inspection Summary:
Inspec ion on August 12 - 16, 1985 (Report Nos.
'
50-277/85-33; 50-278/85-30)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee's administrative
controls; preventive and corrective maintenance programs; implementation of
electrical maintenance; implementation of instrumentation maintenance; and
facility tours. The inspection included 118 inspector-hours on-site by three
region-based inspectors.
Results: Noncompliance:
None.
Deviation: None.
h
$K05000277
1 851001
P
-
.
_
. - _ - - _ _ _ _
- _ ._
._.
_ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._
.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
Anderson, C., Branch Engineer, Research and Testing
Blasy, R. Shift Superintendent
Brower, R. I&C Preventive Maintenance Engineer
Cobosco, L. Test Engineer, Surveillance Test Coordinator
Davenport, J. K., Maintenance Engineer
- Donell,
T., QC Supervisor
DfAndrea, P., Foreman Elec-Group
Dalaary, P., 2nd Class Electrician
.
Foss,
0., Engineering Maintenance Group
- Fleischmann, R. S.,
PBAPS Manager
- Fulvio, A., Technical Engineer
Geiger, B., PM Engineer
Hewell,
L., H.P. Senior Technician
Hinkle, T.
C., Maintenance
Jackman, G. , Maint. Eng. - Cotabitic Corp.
Kemper, D. Maintenance Supervisor
- Mitmann, J. F., Maintenance Engineer
McDade, T., 1st Class Electrician
Mascitilli, F., Modification Supervisor
Mathews, C. , Engineering Aid
Rogenmuser, J., Maintenance Operations Engineer
Spiko, S., Administrative Engineer
Valentino, F. , Electrical Engineer
Voight, K., Nuclear Section Training Branch Coordinator
Weingard, R. I&C Engineer
Wilson, K. Maintenance
- Wilson, T. QA Supervisor
Young, D., Assist. Foreman Elec. Group, PECo
Yuill, S., Fire Protection Tech. Assist.
- H
Williams, Resident Inspector
The inspector also held discussions with other licensee employees during
the inspection, including operations, technical supports, and administra-
tive personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on August 16, 1985.
,
.
.
3
2.0 Administrative Controls for Maintenance Activities
Administrative Control procedures were reviewed to determine the
licensee's program for implementing requirements associated with the
corrective and preventive maintenance activities. The licensee's program
was evaluated to assure that the program was consistent with the Technical
Specifications, Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7-1972, and 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B.
Documents reviewed are listed in Section 7.0.
The inspection objectives were to ascertain that the following control
procedures were established and implemented:
Controls and approvals of station procedures;
Controls of locked valves and jumpers;
Preventive and corrective maintenance programs;
Controls of materials and materials handling;
Controls of documents and reviews;
Surveillance procedures; and
Housekeeping.
Within the scope of this inspection, no unacceptable conditions were
identified.
3.0 Maintenance Programs
Programmatic aspects and implementation of maintenance activities were
inspected to assure that:
Administrative controls for routine and emergency maintenance were
established;
Safety-related maintenance versus non-safety-related maintenance
were identified;
Preventive maintenance program was established and implemented;
Maintenance records were properly reviewed and stored;
QA/QC holdpoints were established;
Criteria and responsibilities were identified;
Programmatic controls for post-maintenance testing were established;
Programs for equipment controls and special processes were
established; and
Environmental Qualification (EQ) program was established.
_
-
.
. _ .
-
.
.
.
4
3.1 Corrective and Preventive Maintenance Programs
A Computerized History and Maintenance Planning System (CHAMPS)
was instituted to retrieve and track down activities associated
with any maintenance activity.
The CHAMPS is maintained and updated for corrective and preventive
maintenance work, including scheduling, status and disposition.
Station procedure, A-25 addressed the preventive maintenance program,
and identified routine and periodic activities on plant equipment,
including replacement parts. The corrective maintenance procedure
was prescribed in the administrative procedure A-26, which detailed
the initiation and disposition of the maintenance request.
When suspected maintenance work is identified, a Suspected
Maintenance Request Form (SMRF) is generated.
Should this SMRF be
approved by Operations, a Maintenance Request Form (MRF) will be
generated from the SMRF and entered into the CHAMPS. The MRF
identifies the component and nature of the work to be done with
a provision for operational verification after the maintenance work
is completed.
Section 2 of the MRF requires identification of the post-maintenance
testing and test procedure by the originator as per administrative
procedure A-26A. When the maintenance work is completed, the post-
maintenance testing has to be completed on an Operation Verification
Form (OVF), which will become a part of the MRF package.
The MRF also has a QA/QC provision in Sections 2 and 4.
Final dis-
position will be made by the operations department upon completion
of the OVF.
The CHAMPS also maintains preventive maintenance information, includ-
ing detailed component and system identifications and frequency of
the PMs.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.2 Equipment Controls
The station administrative procedure, A-26A establishes a program for
releasing and returning to service plant equipment or systems under-
going maintenance activities. The program assures that the status of
equipment and test, prior to returning to service, is documented in
the MRF and CHAMPS.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
.
,_
. - - - - . , _ .
- -
- . , - _
_ ,
.
- -
,
. - - . .
,
,
-
,
.
.
5
3.3 Special Processes
A station program for controlling special processes was developed to
identify and provide instruction for the activities. The program is
prescribed in several procedures, including ignition source and
,
combustible controls, welding, cleaning of fluid system components,
and special testing requirements.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.4 Housekeeping and Cleanliness
Station procedure A-30, " Plant Housekeeping Controls", delineated the
station housekeeping practices, including housekeeping and work acti-
vities, snow and ice removal, plant conditions and periodic inspec-
tions.
The procedure also identified personnel responsibilities that
may effect the quality and operations of significant areas in the
,
plant.
'
During a routine tour in the HPCI pump area, the inspector found
several unacceptable conditions, which were subsequently corrected,
as detailed in Section 7.0.
3.5 Post-Maintenance Testing
Generic letter 83-28, paragraph 3.2 requires that a licensee
establish a post-maintenance testing program, and that the post-
.
maintenance operability testing be conducted on all safety-related
!'
equipment.
The licensees' administrative control procedure, A-26A " Procedure for
Corrective and Preventive Maintenance Using CHAMPS", requires that
specific post-maintenance testing be specified in Section 2 of the
MRF, as_per Section 7.2.2.6 of the procedure.
The inspector reviewed the following MRFs and associated operations
verification forms (OVFs) for post-maintenance testing:
MRF #8501855, HPCI Lube Oil Piping, OVF, performed July 8, 1985.
MRF #8301506, Unit 2 HPCI Discharge Test Return to Condensate
-Storage Tank, OVF, performed June 6,1985.
MRF #8301502, Unit 2 HPCI Pump Suction From Condensate Storage
Tank, OVF, performed April 3, 1985.
The inspector concluded that the operation verification program
for post-maintenance testing was consistent with the generic
letter 83-28, and that its implementation was acceptable.
.
.
- -
-
- . - .
.
.
.
. .
._.
_._
.
.
.
.
6
3.6 Environmental Qualification (EQ)
The licensee developed an Environmental Qualification program as
per I&E Bulletin 79-018, and implemented " Environmental Qualification
Report for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3" on June
28, 1985. The program included safety-related and nonsafety-related
equipment and post-accident monitoring equipment, which are important
to safety as defined in 10 CFR 50.49.
The EQ report delineated and
identified the following:
(1) EQ design criteria,
(2) EQ equipment and service conditions
(3) Qualification testing and analysis,
(4) Evaluation methodology,
(5) Corrective action plans,
(6) Associated maintenance and surveillance programs,
(7) Replacement parts program
(8) Detailed equipment list and records review
'
(9) Specific EQ report on equipment.
The inspector reviewed the computer listing dated July 8,1985.
This
printout identified specific components, systems, and EQ specifica-
tions, versus specific qualification of the components compared for
each EQ parameter. The EQ parameters included operating time, tem-
perature, pressure, relative humidity, radiation exposure and aging.
Within the scope of this inspection, no unacceptable conditions were
identified.
3.7 Preventive Maintenance and EQ
The Environmental Qualification Report (EQR) specifies lifetime
of specific parts and components, and the replacement frequency
of an aging part as a preventive measure. The EQ program was being
incorporated into the preventive maintenance (PM) program.
The
EQ-driven PMs and MRFs during this outage were already entered into
the CHAMPS, and two examples of the EQ-driven MRFs and PMs were
reviewed as follows:
Unit 3 HPCI Valve A0-3-23-042, MRF No. 8561720.
~
Unit 3 SGTS SV-30452
Based on the review of the above documents and discussions with a PM
engineer, the inspector determined that the EQ pregram was being
incorporated with the station PM program and that no unacceptable
conditions existed in this area.
-
.,
_
_
- - . -
-__,
_
~ . - _ , _ ~
, , _ _ _
.
.
.
7
4.0 Instrumentation and Controls Mai.tenance Activities
4.1 I&C Program / Implementation
The inspector reviewed randomly selected instrumentation implementing
procedures and associated temporary procedure changes covering diesel
generator and high pressure coolant injection system maintenance
activities.
This review verified that the applicable procedures con-
form with the criteria of both the applicable station and department
administrative procedures, which included the following:
Provision for administrative approvals for removing an item
from service and returning it to service.
Provision requiring that the latest approved drawings and
instructions be used.
Provision assuring that materials, parts and components are
correct and suitable.
Provision for assuring that TS required limiting conditions
for operation are identified and satisfied during the calibra-
tion or repair period, including the verification of redundant
system operability when required.
Provision for the control of housekeeping during the maintenance
effort.
Provision for cleaning of safety-related systems or components
during maintenance.
The inspectors also reviewed, on a sampling basis, records of
preventive and corrective maintenance performed by I&C to verify
the following:
Maintenance activities were performed within the frequency
as scheduled.
Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to
initiation of work activities.
An appropriate approved procedure was used.
Functional testing, adjustments and calibrations, as necessary,
were completed prior to returning equipment to operation.
Procedures and appropriate data sheets were properly completed.
Appropriate reviews were completed.
,.
8-
_
._
.
.
8
Records were assembled, stored and retrievable as part of the
maintenance history.
Qualified I&C personnel performed the maintenance activity.
Acceptance criteria were met.
Preventive and corrective maintenance activities and associated Main-
tenance Request Forms were reviewed to verify that the above was
accomplished.
Tha inspector also witnessed the performance of ST2.9.19A, "Calibra-
tion of LT/LIS 3-2-3-99A" to verify the following:
.An approved, up-to-date procedure was used.
The procedure was adequately detailed to assure satisfactory
performance.
Operational personnel were notified prior to and upon completion
of the test.
Properly specified parts and materials were identified for the
activity.
Calibrated test equipment was used.
Proper restoration of barriers and covers was accomplished.
The inspector reviewed the qualification records of two I&C techni-
cians who performed maintenance work on safety-related instruments
to verify that their experience levels and training were in accord-
ance with the guidance of ANSI 18.1-1971 " Standard for Selection and
Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants." Discussions were
held with two I&C technicians in reference to the performance of in-
strument calibrations and were found to be knowledgeable in this
area.
The inspector also discussed briefly, the I&C training program with
the Nuclear Section Training Branch Coordinator.
The licensee is
striving towards INPO accreditation of the I&C training program by
the end of 1985.
The licensees establishment of formal controls for vendor technical
manuals is almost complete.
The engineer responsible for the devel-
opment of technical manual program controls informed the inspector
that the program should be in place by the end of the year.
Requests
were previously sent to all applicable suppliers requesting an eval-
,
- - - - - .
.- .-
- . . . . .
--.-
--
.
.
,
.
9
uation of the status of respective manuals presently possessed by the
licensee. Once all replies have been received, the licensee plans to
maintain two controlled copies of all the technical manuals on site.
Various departments possessing uncontrolled copies will be supplied
with a controlled index by which they will be able to verify the
status of those manuals in their possession.
4.2 Findings
During the performance of ST 2.9.19A, as observed by the inspector,
the I&C technicians noted an unexpected result following the comple-
tion of a procedural step. The technicians immediately stopped the
test; notified the control room; and reverified that the previous
steps had been executed correctly. After reviewing the procedure and
evaluating the error with the I&C engineer, the cause of the error
was determined. A Temporary Change Notice, including appropriate
review and approval, were made to the procedure to correct the
problem. The test was reinitiated and the test results were found
to be within acceptable limits.
-
5.0 Electrical Maintenance
5.1 Administrative Controls and Procedures
The inspector reviewed the licensees' programs by review of adminis-
trative procedures, and verified that the program was fully imple-
mented for safety-related maintenance activities in accordance with
the licensee commitments and regulatory requirements. The inspection
"
was focused on the following items:
Corrective Maintenance
responsibilities that form the basis for determining the
activity as safety or non-safety-related have been included;
appropriate inspection hold points were included;
methods and responsibilities have been designated for performing
functional testing of components and systems following
maintenance work;
,
causes of failures were evaluated and adequate corrective
maintenance was taken;
considerations to radiological hazards were included;
provisions for fire protection, cleanliness, and housekeeping
-
were included; and
supplementary reference material was listed.
..
_
__-
_
_ _ _ _ . -
__._.
.
-
_ _ _
. _ _ .
.
_-
.
-
,
.
o
.
10
Preventive Maintenance
procedures specified were adequate to control the scope of the
-
maintenance;
administrative approvals and tag-outs were included;
QC hold points were established where required; and
measuring and test equipment were identified.
The following procedures were reviewed:
(1) HPCI Pump and Gear Box Assembly Maintenance, M-23-2, Rev. 3,
May 1, 1981.
(2) HPCI Turbine Examination, M-23.17, Rev. 1, Nov. 13, 1981.
(3) HPCI Motor Operated Vacuum Breaker Isolation Valves (VRV - 140
A, B, C, D) M-23.19, Rev. 2.
(4) Routine Inspection of Diesel Generators S.8.4.E, Rev. 2,
Sept. 1, 1977.
(5) Diesel Generator Maintenance, M-52.1, Rev. 5, May 1, 1983.
(6) Diesel Engine Maintenance, M-52.2, Rev. 16, Aug. 2, 1984.
(7) DG Current Transformer Replacement, M-52.4, Rev.2, July 9, 1985.
(8) DG Cylinder Liner Replacement, M-52.11, Rev.1, July 12,1985.
(9) 125 VDC Equipment Maintenance, M-52.1, Rev. 4, Oct. 27, 1982.
(10) 125 VDC and 24 VDC Battery Corrective Maintenance M-52.3, Rev. 3
Nov. 14, 1980.
(11) Battery Charger Maintenance, M-52.4, Rev. 2, Jan. 18, 1979.
(12) Administrative Procedure for Reporting Fire System
Impairments, A-12.3.
.
(13) Control of Combustibles, A-12.2, Rev. 3, June 29, 1984.
(14) Ignition Source Control Procedure, A-12, Rev. 4, Oct. 10, 1982.
!
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
_ . . - .
.
.
. .
. . .
.
-
- -
-_
__
- . .
- _ - . _ _ _ _
- - - - . _._
.
.
.
11
5.2 Safety-Related Maintenance Activities
The inspector reviewed randomly selected corrective and preventive
safety-related maintenance activities to verify the following:
Proper operational personnel had been notified and clearance
obtained.
Appropriate maintenance work requests were issued.
Latest approved procedures, drawings and instructions were used.
Qualified test equipment and tools were used.
Functional testing was performed prior to returning equipment
of service.
Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to
initiating work.
Acceptance criteria was met.
Qualified personnel performed the work.
Inspection personnel signed off at the designated steps.
,
Trending analysis was performed.
The following corrective and preventive maintenance documentation was
.
reviewed:
(1) Maintenance Request Form (MRF) #8401409, dated March 10, 1984.
(2) MRF # 8407049, dated Nov. 2, 1984.
_(3) MRF # 8301686, dated July 25, 1983.
(4) MRF # 8406991, dated Oct. 21, 1984.
(5) MRF # 8408383, dated Jan. 1, 1985.
(6) MRF # 8404039, dated June 2, 1984.
(7) MRF # 8408224, dated Dec. 26, 1984.
(8) MRF'# 8400153, dated Jan. 19, 1984.
(9) MRF # 8401122, dated Nov. 7, 1984.
(10) MRF # 8302937, dated Dec. 22, 1983.
,
p.,_
-
.
.
.
12
Findings
At 10:00 a.m., on August 12, 1985, low pressure coolant injection
(LPCI) valve, M0-2-10-154A, (closed for a surveillance test) was
stroke-tested in order to meet the TS requirements of 4.5.F. , and the
valve failed to open.
Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) E3 was inoperable at that time for
six-days of scheduled preventive maintenance work. With an inoper-
able EDG, TS 4.5.F.1 requires that all LPCI and containment cooling
subsystems be demonstrated operable on a daily basis. Otherwise, an
orderly shutdown is required per TS 3.5.F.1 and the reactor has to be
placed in the cold shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. To meet the
surveillance requirement of TS 4.5.F.1 with E3 EDG inoperable, LPCI
operability test was conducted and the MOV 154A was to be opened for
the stroke test. The valve failed to open on Unit 2.
At approxi-
mately 9:40 p.m. on August 12, 1985, an orderly shutdown was com-
menced as required by TS.
Subsequent inspection of the valve indicated that the valve yoke nut
dropped approximately 6" from its normal position.
The licensee
disassembled the limitorque and found the upper bearing and lock
nut damaged. On August 14, 1985, under MRF # P506032, the upper
bearing.and the nut were replaced. With the E3 EDG in operable
status, Unit 2 reactor was made critical at approximately 6:45 a.m.,
August 15, 1985.
The root cause of the failure is being investigated jointly with the
vendor.'The yoke nut of the MO-2-10-1548 valve, a similar valve, was
visually inspected, no damage was observed.
The . inspector was concerned with 1) failure cause, 2) generic impli-
cation and 3) preventive measures to preclude recurrence. The licensee
stated that the inspector's concerns would be investigated for this
type of valve.
-This is an unresolved item pending licensee's actions and resolution
on this item and subsequent NRC:RI inspection (50-277/85-33-01,
50-278/85-30-01).
5.3 Witnessing of In-Progress Maintenance Activities
The performance of corrective maintenance activities was witnessed
to verify that:
Proper instructional procedures were available and used;
Qualified test equipment and tools were used;
-
-
.
.
.
13
Proper restoration of barriers and covers was accomplished; and
Post-Maintenance testing was conducted.
- *
On August 12-13, 1985, the inspector witnessed a portion of the pre-
ventive maintenance conducted on the E3 Emergency Diesel Generator
(EDG). Due to the extent and nature of the work, two security guards
were stationed to control and monitor the personnel traffic in and
out of the E3 EDG room.
The inspector noted that several outside
contractors were working on the premises and were using vendor
manuals, specifications, and drawings.
During the course of the
work, one dedicated QC inspector was continuously monitoring the
in progress work activities.
At 5:00 p.m., on August 14, 1985, the inspector witnessed a portion
of the acceptance test at rated output. A licensee QC inspector also
monitored the test.
No unacceptable conditions were identified on the EDG E3 activities.
The licensee was committed to modify the unit 3 HPCI system to meet
the Appendix R and 10 CFR 50.48 requirements. The modification to
install an alternate control station (ACS) outside the control room
was completed by Bechtel, per modification package No. 1353A. Bechtel
turned the system over to the field engineer, and the control / transfer
logic test was in progress. The inspector observed that engineers
were using calibrated instruments and instruction sheets with proper
- wiring diagrams.
No unacceptable conditions were observed.
5.4 Maintenance Personnel Qualification
The inspector reviewed the qualifications of two electrical techni-
cians who routinely perform maintenance on safety-related equipment
and verified that the individuals level of experience and training.
were commensurate with the type and degree of work being done. The
training and qualification programs were reviewed for the following:
Training was kept up to date to reflect plant modifications and
procedure changes.
T)o years of working experience were required in their
speciality.
A minimum of one year of related technical training was
required.
d
.-,n.
- - ,
,
v-,
- - - - , , , , - - -
-.,,,,,-n,-,---.----.-w.,
- . - . , - . , - - , - - ~
- , -
m
_.
. _ -
.
.
_ _.
.
.
14
Training programs were scheduled and planned. This training
included reviewing text material, attending lectures and taking
frequent examinations.
.
Technicians were well versed with the equipment being worked on.
Supplementary and reference material was easily accessible.
A retraining program was implemented.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
6.0 Quality Assurance and Control
The inspector discussed QA/QC involvement in the corrective and preventive
maintenance programs. The station had two separate QA and QC depart-
ments, both reporting to an offsite organization.
The Suspected Maintenance Request Form (SMRF) which could be initiated by
7
'
Quality Control personnel and accepted by operations, would become a
Maintenance Request Form (MRF) with a new identification numbering
sequence and would then be entered into CHAMPS.
The QC department had an
unlimited access to the CHAMPS.
The QC department had approximately 30 QC inspectors, mostly contractors,
whose qualifications were certified by the QC supervision. The inspector
reviewed the quality control monitoring schedule for the month of August,
1985, and a Nonconformance Report (NR) # P84-033. The QC monitoring
schedule included housekeeping and cleanliness inspection of various areas
in the vital areas. A licensee representative stated, and the inspector
verified, that a dedicated QC inspector was assigned to #3 EDG maintenance
work. Two randomly selected QC inspectors were interviewed for their
qualifications.
4
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.0= Facility Tours
The inspectors conducted " walk-through" inspections of selected plant
facilities and observed work-in progress to verify that facility. opera-
tion was in accordance with the station procedures and Technical Speci-
-
fication requirements. The areas inspected included;
Control Room
Reactor Building closed Cooling Rooms
,
--
,
,
-
- _ . , - - - , -
3
- , ,
. - _
,- - - - - - , - , - - . - . ,
. , , . - - - , ,
. - - . ,
g-
, , .
.m
--
.
,
.
15
1
Battery rooms
HPCI pump rooms
Switchgear rooms
Findings
The inspector noted that the valves were identified by white plastic tags
which were made of temperature-oil resistant materials and were coded by
. computer-coded identification bars. The locked-valves were also
color-coded to indicate the normal valve position status.
In general, housekeeping and cleanliness controls were consistent with
the station procedures, except for the following examples:
At 6:00 p.m. on August 12, 1985, the normally clean step-off pad at
the entrance of the Unit 2 HPCI pump room was found to be dirty with
mud,and water, an indication of apparent contamination. Health
physics personnel were informed of the finding, and a contamination
wipe-test was performed at 1845 with a beta gamma reading of 500
2
DPM/100cm .
The step-off pad was cleaned, and the item was closed.
The inspector observed on August 12, 1985 that one small valve
handle was on the floor of the Unit 2 HPCI pump room and several
small valve handles were missing. A smali unidentified water leak
was found in the HPCI pump room and hand-written procedures and test
jumpers were scattered around the HPCI pump. The licensce was in-
formed of the findings . The inspector toured the area again on
August 14, 1985 at 1:00 p.m., and found the area clean and the test
wires removed.
8.0 Other Documents Reviewed
8.1 Administrative Control Procedures
(1)
A-1, Administrative Procedure for Preparation and Approval of
Administrative procedures, Revision 5, May 1, 1985.
(2)
A-2, Administrative Procedure for control and use of
Documents, Revision 27, January 7, 1985.
(3) A-3 Procedure for Temporary changes to Approved Procedures,
Revision 7, January 7,1985.
3
(4)
A-8, Procedure for Controls of Locked Valves, Revision 5,
March 14, 1983.
-
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
16
(5) A-19, Administrative Procedure for Preparation and
Distribution of Maintenance procedures, Revision, 13,
January 9, 1981.
(6) A-25, Preventive Maintenance Program, Revision 2,
December 30, 1983.
(7) A-26A, Procedure for Corrective and Preventive Maintenance using
CHAMPS, Revision 2, February 21, 1985.
(8) A-26, Procedure for Corrective Maintenance, Revision 24,
January 4, 1985.
,
(9) A-27, Procedure for Material Confrol System, Revision 13,
August 11, 1984.
(10) A-28, Cleaning of Fluid Systems Components, Revision 0,
June 5, 1978.
(11) A-29, Procedure for the Review and Implementation of Amendments
to the Technical Specification, Revision 1,
January 9, 1985.
(12) A-30, Plant Housekeeping Controls, Revision 4, June 10, 1981.
(13) A-32A, Procedure for the Review, Approval, and Implementation
of Temporary or Permanent Setpoint or Range Changes,
Revision 3, February 17, 1982.
(14) A-36, Periodic Review of Procedures, Revision 7, August 20, 1984
(15) A-41, Procedures for Control of Safety Related Equipment,
Revision 2, August 31, 1982.
(16) A-42, Jumper Log Procedure, Revision 9, April 22, 1985.
(17) A-43, Surveillance Testing System, Revision 17,
October 19, 1983.
9.0 Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to
determine if it is a violation, a deviation or acceptable. An unresolved
item is discussed in paragraph 5.2.
-
,
.
-
.
.
17
10.0 Exit Meeting
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in paragraph 1
on August 16, 1985, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the
inspection.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspector.
.
L