ML20207B235
| ML20207B235 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Finkel A, Jerrica Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207B198 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-86-23, NUDOCS 8611110546 | |
| Download: ML20207B235 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000334/1986023
Text
..
-
- .
,
U.S. NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-334/86-23
. Docket No.
50-334
License No.
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company
'
Post Office Box 4
Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077
Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted: October 6-10, 1986
Inspectors:
b N h~v
hm
so/3r / M
i
A. Unkel, Le~ad Reactor Engineer U
date.
N'
- l3#
Approved by:
J. Johnson, Chief, Operational
date
Programs Section, Operations Branch, DRS
Inspection Summary:
Routine, unannounced inspection on October 6-10, 1986
(Inspection Report 50-334/86-23)
Areas Inspected: Maintenance program and procedures, licensee action on
licensee event reports and quality assurance / quality control interfaces.
l
Results: One violation was identified: failure to identify safety requirements
in the Maintenance Surveillance Procedure (MSP), and failure to implement these
l
requirements while working on the safety-related batteries.
$$[kD
G
-~
- q
.
.
. Details
1.0 Persons Contacted
Duquesne Light Company (DLCo.)
- H. Caldwell, Director, Site Instrumentation and Control
- C, Ewing, Manager, Quality Assurance
- R. Hansen, Director of Site Maintenance
- D. Hunkle, Director, Quality Assurance Operations
- A. Mizia, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Operations
- M. Pergar, Quality Control Supervisor
- D. Roman, Supervisor, Quality Assurance Maintenance
<
- B. Sipecak, Engineering
- J. Sieber, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W. Tro.skoski, Senior Resident Inspector
The inspector also held discussions with managers, supervisors and other
licensee employees during the course of the inspection, including
operations, technical and administrative personnel.
- Denotes those present at the e'xit meeting on October 10, 1986.
-2.0
Maintenance and Instrumentation and Control Organization
,
2.1 Administrative Controls
The inspector reviewed and evaluated the licensee's program control-
,
ling safety-related maintenance and I&C activities to assess whether
the administrative controls established were corsistent with the
plant Technical Specifications (TS), Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI
1
N18.7 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
The Maintenance and Instrumentation Directors are responsible for the
'
overall conduct of maintenance activities at the site.
The directors'
report to the Unit 1 Station Manager.
3
The Maintenance Work Request (MWR) is used for tracking, trending and
'
control of maintenance activities by both the Maintenance and the I&C
supervisors. The planning groups under both supervisors plan and
coordinate the activities that are to be performed by the mechanical,
electrical and I&C craft and update the MWR's when the tasks are
completed. Both preventive and corrective work orders are generated
by the MWR's as well as providing completed work order status data.
The review and approval of the Maintenance Work Request is performed
by the Maintenance and I&C supervisors to ensure that the operability
and maintainability of a designated system before and after mainte-
nance is not impaired.
4
- - , -
-
~.c,.,
-
-.n.p,
--e--
.-
---..,-e
- , . . - - --- -
,,--.1-
,- -, ,
- , . - - - .---
n--m
.
.
2
The inspector's review of selected MWR's verified that the Technical
Specification requirements-for both preventive and corrective mainte-
nance were identified and that the maintenance staff was complying
with the listed scheduled dates.
No violations were identified.
3.0 Maintenance and Instrumentation and Control Activities
3.1 Program Implementation
The inspector held discussions with the maintenance and I&C super-
visors, as well as directors in technical functions, and quality
assurance to evaluate controls in place to identify, schedule, track
and document-preventive and corrective maintenance.
The Maintenance Work Request Form, provides the following type of
information:
-A component deta base containing equipment nameplate data, TS
-
schedules and maintenance status;
Storage of maintenance and I&C history by task, component and
-
system;
Identification lof maintenance backlog, priorities and approval
-
delays; and
Scheduling of Preventive and Corrective Maintenance tasks and
-
Technical Specification surveillances.
The inspector verified that the MWR form documents the above
outputs.
No violations were identified.
3.2 Documentation Review and Equipment Inspected
The inspector reviewed records including MWR's of selected safety-
related eauf pment to verify that the following subject areas were
controlled as required by TS and the Quality Assurance Program:
Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to
-
initiation of work;
Appropriate approved procedures, instructions and/or drawings
-
were used;
Post maintenance testing was required prior to returning
-
equipment to service;
,
.
3
Hold points were appropriately identified and implemented;
-
Qualified test equipment and tools used were identified;
-
Procedures and appropriate data sheets were properly completed;
-
-
Acceptance criteria identified and complied with; and
Records were assembled, stored and retrievable as part of the
-
maintenance and I&C history.
During the course of'the above verification process the inspector
inspected and made observations'of the following in progress
maintenance and I&C activities:
Preparation for inspection of the Laundry and Containment Shower
--
Discharge Flow Loop Valve FLW103, Maintenance Surveillance
Procedure (MSP) 17.05 and,.
'
Maintenance Surveillance Procedure (MSP) 39.02, Revision 24,
--
July 2, 1986, Battery No. 2 Test Inspection.
During the testing of the No. 2 battery the licensee's technician
recording the battery parameters had a metal chain hanging from his
neck, a metal watch and band, a group of keys hanging in the rear of
his belt and a metal belt.
When the inspector questioned the technician regarding the appro-
priai.eness of wearing metal objects, the technician removed the metal
or placed it such that the equipment would not be affected. The
Precautions and Limitations sections of the procedure did not speci-
fically define the conditions that should be used in testing of this
type of equipment.
Instead of a specific requirement the procedure
had the following general statement:
" Ensure that the applicable. safety precautions of the Duquesne Light
Company Accident Prevention Manual are followed throughout this
procedure". This manual is a general employee information document.
To determine if this condition (lack of specific precautions) existed
in other maintenance procedures the inspector randomly selected the
following MSP's for review:
MSP 39.03, 04, 05 and 08, Battery Testing and Inspection,
--
MSP 43.09, Revision 5, June 5, 1986, Radiation Area
--
Monitor-RM-RM2158, Containment Gas Calibration
MSP 21.19, Revision 12, May 20, 1986, P-474 1A Steam-line
--
Pressure (Loop 1) Protection-Channel 11 Calibration,
.
.
4
MSP 1.5, Revision 30, July 24,1986, Reactor Protection Logic
--
System Train"B" 31-Monthly Test, and
MSP 2.04, Revision 28, July 30,1986, Power Range Neutron Flux
--
Channel, N-N142, Quarterly Calibration.
In each of the listed MSP's, the wording in MSP 39.02 is also listed
in these documents.
It appears that the MSP procedures do not have
specific precautions to protect the safety-related equipment identi-
fied in the procedures.
The failure to prescribe and implement specific precautions in the
Accident Prevention Manual prohibiting the wearing of metal objects
to protect the safety-related battery equipment during testing is a
violation (50-334/86-23-01).
4.0 Quality Assurance Audits
The licensee's audit group has performed two recent audits in the mainte-
nance and I&C area for 1986. However, as of this inspection period the
reports have not been completed or reviewed by licensee management and are
scheduled for issuance during the first part of November, 1986.
The inspector reviewed the maintenance audits that were performed during 1985.
The inspector selected the following audits for evaluation:
Audit BV-1-85-11, June 11 - July 1, 1985, and
--
--
Audit BV-1-85-36, September 30 - October 10, 1985.
4.1 Audit BV-1-85-11, June 11-July 1, 1985
The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the welding requirements
applicable to the Mechanical group and the control of Measuring and
Test Equipment in the I&C, Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance
Groups. Areas reviewed during the audit included calibration and
control of Measuring and Test Equipment, welding and procedure
control.
The audit inspection checklist that was prepared by the audit group
was developed from the insurers (ANI/MAELU) recommended engineering
inspection criteria document, section 10, Revision 2.
It is a
complete and thorough check-list with the exception that a technical
evaluation of existing procedures is not included.
4.2 Audit BV-1-85-36, September 30-October' 10, 1985
The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the maintenance groups
compliance to requirements delineated in the conduct of the Mainte-
nance Manual, Station Administrative Procedures and the Nuclear
_ . _ . _,
_
..
..
_.
.
.-
5
Division-Directives. Areas reviewed during the audit included:
' Maintenance Work Request (MWR's), hydrostatic testing, housekeeping,
,
relay testing, dispositions of materials, control of procedures, and
load handling.
~
The audit l findings and status are maintained in the audit Follow-Up
Report System (FRS). The report identifies the Audit No., Findings,
Response to Findings, Comments, and History of Audit Findings. A
"
review by the inspector indicated that answers were received in a
reasonable length of time and that corrective action to resolve the
findings was adequate for'the selected sample.
,
4.3 Qualification of Auditors
4
'
The inspector reviewed the-licensee position regarding on the use of
technical specialists in performing QA Audits. The licensee stated
that the quality. assurance unit performs audits to assess the compli--
ance to existing approved procedures and that the technical adequacy
-
of these procedures is assessed during their initial review and
approval.
Using this concept the licensee rarely uses technical
specialists to accomplish or support the auditing of the quality
assurance program at this. site.
It is not clear that the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
j
Criterion XVIII, to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality assu--
rance program are met without including the adequacy of the procedure
i
'
being audited.
This item is considered unresolved pending further NRC review of the
licensee's audit program for this site.
(50-336/86-23-02).
5.0 License Event Report (LER)
To assure that the licensee's LER program is in compliance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.73, Licensee Event Reporting System, " Reportable
t
i
Events," the inspector selected the following LER for review and evalua-
l
tion:
LER-86-005-00, Inoperable Filter Bank Sprinkler Nozzles. A test to
--
verify the operation of Train "A" of the Main Charcoal Filter Bank
Fire Suppression Sprinkle System was in progress.
Forty-Five of the
ninety sprinkler nozzles were found to be obstructed by particles of
!
a substance later identified to be charcoal.
During the inspection of the nozzles the licensee established that the
major blockage to flow of water was foreign material on the outside of the
nozzle with some material identified inside the nozzle.
The original LER
had some errors that are to be addressed in a re-submittal that the
licensee plans to provide. This event is being followed and tracked as
i
item No. 50-334/86-15-03.
The LER will be reviewed by the NRC during a
future inspection.
.
.
-
.
6
6.0 . Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation System
The inspector reviewed the seismic monitoring instrumentation data and
hardware installation for compliance with the criteria of 10 CFR 100,
Appendix A, VI (a)-(3) " Required Seismic Instrumentation," Regulatory
Guide 1.12 " Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes," and the
facility Technical Specification (TS) table 4.3-4,
6.1 Seismic Instrumentation and Control Procedures
The seismic monitoring instrumentation surveillance requirements are
listed in the TS table 4.3-4.
A review of the data associated with
functional testing of the instrumentation and sensors was selected
by the inspector on a random basis and is listed below:
Monthly testing channels checks,
--
Eighteen month calibration of the Time History Accelerographs,
--
Triaxial Peak Accelographs, Triaxial Seismic Switches and
Response Spectrum Recorders.
In reviewing this test documentation the inspector verified that the
equipment met the requirements of the Maintenance Surveillance Proce-
.
dure (MSP) 45.03, Revision 7, Seismic Monitoring SMA-3/SMP-1 Calibra-
'
tion which was written to implement TS paragraphs 4.3.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.3.2.
6.1.1
Response Spectrum Recorder (RSR)
The 18 month data for the RSR located at the Containment
Foundation, the Top Floor of the Auxiliary Building and the
N.W. Corner of Control Room is sent to 'Endahl Enterprises
for review.
In a letter of July 2,1986 the consultant
approved the test data and certified the equipment to be
operable and within the design specification for th'
site.
6.1.2
Seismic Equipment Installation
In verifying the seismic instrumentation installation and
location as listed in the Technical Specification, page 3/4 3-39,
the inspector selected the Control Room Seismic Panel, the
Top Floor of the Auxiliary Building and the N.W. Corner of
the Control Room. A review of the equipment history records
and test results indicated that the maintenance records
were within the TS requirements.
No inadequacies were identified during this review.
.
_._
. . _ . _ _
__ __
_,_ _
.
.
. _ _ _
.
..
.- .-
_ _
. . .
.-
o
7
,
7.0 Unresolved Items
Unresolved item are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, or violations.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in
paragraphs 4.0 and 5.0.
8.0 Exit Meeting-
The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives (denoted
in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 10, 1986.
,
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as
described in this report.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the
licensee by the inspectors.
.
A
1
l
,
. - , , - - - - .
, , - _ . . - - , _ _ , , , -
-,.,.---r~,-m. - , ,-- , . ,, , ,-,
-
,,y,,-
. -
, _,. _ . - . - , , . , _ _.
r,
.- -
-- -,._
,4
,. - - ,
_
.- -
--