ML20139A265

Safety Insp Repts 50-277/85-33 & 50-278/85-30 on 850812-16. No Noncompliance or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Administrative Controls,Preventive & Corrective Maint Programs & Implementation of Electrical Maint

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: ML20137Z979 ML20139A265
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

DPR-56

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

in Ch

a

g, L d Reactor Engineer

7 9'/d

~date

Wsset't,iddlW React r yt gineer

Y lb

/ date

Y

{\ -

, C I

- ,E-C ~

-

. e2m 9 lb 7(' '"

P'.~Phelari, Reaci.of ' Engineer *date

Approved by: ,\ /a), 9 J 9-/d-

Anderson,

'

.'J. te date

jPlantSystems 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

P

1 851001

$K05000277 PDR

- .

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

.

l

l

!

!

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

Eskmon, B., Lead QA Auditor .

Foss, 0., Engineering Maintenance Group l

• 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.

USNRC

• 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.

7 The Suspected Maintenance Request Form (SMRF) which could be initiated by

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

• Emergency Diesel Generators

• 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

DPM/100cm2 . 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