ML20215J559
| ML20215J559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1986 |
| From: | Tullis D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J553 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610270082 | |
| Download: ML20215J559 (16) | |
Text
.~
I TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT COMPONENT FAILURE TRENDING Submitted by: d' D. H. Tullis Date: 9b#ds
/ '
k
> -h- '
'- i! .'i4
+ ,
l'
, , . . .>? e
<> a ,ir
- < < /> : yy;g.'.
8610270082 861003 a PDR ADOCK 05000327 . - .
P . . .. ; A , , , t , .
Jif.i'igyr
- . A4h
-r..,
G PDR y~.... a m. --.?i61
- :'M
?
GU"O Gi 'IM'IN' "M6!
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT PROGRAM FOR TRENDING COMPONENT FAILURES PURPOSE The SQN program for trending component failures is described in SQN site procedure SOM 58. The purpose of the trending program is to detect component failure trends in plant equipment that may not be apparent to the day-to-day observer.
OEFINITIONS PRIME SQN computer that contains maintenance history data files which provide information for maintenance history retrieval. For some documents, such as work request, the data files also contain summary descriptions of the information contained in the maintenance history document.
EQIS - Equipment Information System.
A computerized data base for storing nameplate, failure information, and other useful information on components utilizing their TVA unique identification number.
NPRDS Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System. A program managed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) to provide common maintenance history and reliability information between the domestic nuclear utilities.
REPETITIVE FAILURES A number of failures of a single component to meet its design function due to a common or related cause, or a large number of failures unrelated in cause that render a component unavailable for service for significant periods.
l GENERIC FAILURES A number of failures of components of the same model and/or manufacturer indicative of a common cause problem for a model and/or manufacturer.
MAINTENANCE HISTORY Maintenance history includes maintenance and surveillance data sheets, qualification maintenance data sheets, work requests, preventative maintenance data sheets, instrument calibration cards, special reports, tests, or other related documentation describing initial findings, repairs affected, tests conducted, or parts replaced for each major unit of plant equipment.
l l
- l
'.6
! ; :y g
.. Na
- t. -: - -.= z
..~ lRir$ Y :.
SEEK A routine in the plant PRIME computer that can be used for retrieving key information from maintenance history data files.
GENERAL
- In general, SQN has three methods in which maintenance activities and/or equipment failures may be trended.
- 2. Utilizing the EQIS Trending Program.
- 3. Utilizing the SEEK program of the plant PRIME computer.
However, the SEEK program is not considered part of the formal trending program defined in SOM 58 as will be explained later. -
TRENDING REPORTS Trending reports generated from maintenance history to be reviewed and evaluated for generic and repetitive trends are described below.
- 1. NPRDS Reportable Items Trend Report This report will be produced on a semiannual basis and will include component failures of NPRDS reportable items that exceed the threshold criteria of attachment D. These failures will be evaluated in accordance with attachment B and C, respectively, to determine generic or repetitive trends. The trending of this data file was initiated by SQN in February 1986.
- 2. E0IS TRENDING FILE TREND REPORTS The EQIS data base will be utilized to generate the component trend reports described below, f
(A) CLASS IE AND 10 CFR 50.49 ITEM This report will be generated on an annual basis and will include component failures that exceed the threshold criteria of attachment i D. These failures will be evaluated for repetitive and generic trends in accordance with attachments B and C respectively. Failure reports have been entered into this data base'since December 1985 and the first trend report ~1s expected to be available by January 1987 for the
. maintenance groups to perform evaluations.
(B) OTHER SAFETY SYSTEMS THAT ARE NON-NPRDS, NON-CLASS IE, AND NON 10 CFR 50.49 This report will be prepared on an annual basis and will include failures of items in safety systems that exceed the threshold
-2 ,
9
I' T
~ 6 ;
. . . - . _ a:a d 5bUMSOYY N
criteria of attachment D. Failures will be evaluated for repetititve and generic trends in accordance with attachments B and C respectively. Failure reports have been entered into this data base since December 1985 and the first trend report is expected to be available by March 1987 for the maintenance groups to perform evaluations.
(C) COMPONENT FAILURES THAT CAUSE REACTOR TRIP, TURBINE TRIP, LOAD REDUCTION, OR LICENSE EVENT REPORT (LER)
Whenever a component failure results in a reactor trip, turbine trip, load reduction, or generation of an LER, a repetitive and generic failure evaluation will be completed (The PRIME data base may be utilized to support EQIS trending if needed.) The threshold criteria of Attachment D will be utilized and evaluation forms similar to Attachment E will be used to document the evaluation. LERs associated with component failures since January 1986 are being evaluated for potential repetitive and generic failure trends.
- 3. SEEK PROGRAM ON THE PRIME COMPUTER SEEK is not included as part of the formal trending program. The PRIME data base does not support generic trending and repetitive failure trend information must be obtained manually through computer terminals. However, this computer routine is a useful tool that is often used to obtain additional information when failure trends are suspected.
TRENDING REPORT REVIEW AND EVALUATION The intent of both the NPRDS trend method and the EQIS data file method is to determine if trends are developing in the failure of components and to determine where symptomatic repairs may have been made without properly identifying the root cause.
Trend reports are initiated and tracked through the Maintenance Trending Section and forwarded to the maintenance groups for assignment of personnel to perform the evaluations.
In the course of evaluating failures for trends, if actual trends are substantiated, the assigned reviewer is requested to consider the following in determining action to correct or resolve the failure trend.
A data sheet similar to attachment H is being used to ensure consistency in evaluation documentation.
- 1. Is there adequate PM performed on the item?
- 2. Are supplementary inspections needed?
- 3. Is the component application adequate?
- 4. Are modifications needed to correct the problem?
. . 'n
___s. m a Bb N o 5 Q. ' MM
- 5. Are operational requirements too harsh?
- 6. Are maintenance techniques adequate?
- 7. Are calibration intervals adequate?
- 8. Are changes or clarification in calibration techniques needed?
The reviewer is expected to propose a resolution for confirmed failure trends and attach supporting documentation, reports, etc., to the evaluation forms for supervisory review.
When the supervisor agrees with the proposed resolution, the' corrective action will be initiated by the supervisor and tracked until resolution.
MAINTENANCE HISTORY FILED IN DATA BASES FOR TRENDING
- 1. Work Request (WR) initiated HR attachment forms, similar to figures 1, 2, and 3, will ce utilized to identify component failure history for inclusion into computer data files. Maintenance planners will ensure appropriate forms are
, attached to WR packages. General foremen make history decisions and review HR packages for accuracy of information for historical data.
The NPRDS aides complete failure forms similar to figures I and 2.
Refer to attachment A for the logic chart to determine inclusion of maintenance history into data files for failure trending and/or history.
- 2. Out-of-Calibration Reports Instruments found out of calibration during the performance of surveillance instructions will be reviewed by NPRDS aides who will complete NPRDS failure reports or HR attachment forms as applicable.
This failure information will then be entered into the data base for future trending.
l s
I l
l i
d 4 *
+ 'er= 6 N h e 'MWess aw'I - - - -- I A dli - ' .
,_ Will the activity involve equipment -
which has any of the following functions? .
Did or can the activity effect the ,
operability, require removal from
' service or be considered critical to CONTROL Y the following equipment? ?
REPORTABLL N go gpq 30,49 N c33c N yy )
(4up OR (C4 TROL VALvl3 7
~
Y Y Y u rRio y V '
COMPLETE N *'
3 AT T AC H - AT TACHME NU MLNTS ATTACHMtun flLE INPO FILE. EQi5, d ,
yQL ECIS, PRIME PRIME Y v4Lvi on suPPcRT ro
>4*
PIPE WA5 FILE. oR is INTERLOCK N WR N PRIME ONLY COR R ECTIVE ?
Ah - D 7
- PIPING d Y >2*
a
, N l
00E5 00E5 N 3
,! COM9ONE NT y COMPCNCN T jg,
?
r? NEED A HAVE A Srtcut
- g uNID UNIO Y DEF7NENIN
- g ?' ?* 50M 63
!$ 7' , FILE M AY k
Y Y at DESTROYED FILE N ESTABil3H f*
E033 UNID %
l- PRIME FIRE Y coags
?
O Note: INPO - NPRDS files y EQIS - Trending files PRDIE - History files Y N a
h[ llISTORY LOGIC CllART 1
(?.
s ELECTRIC DLvacE 0- IN POWER OR CONTROL
.E CIRCu_hT TOR coHPONENT i 5HOWN ON F40V OR JIN6LE
'a LINE DR AWlH6
ATTACHMENT B REPETITIVE FAILURE TRENDING Repetitive failure reports will include as a minimum the equipment identifier, date of discovery, failure description, cause of failure, and corrective action for all components in the applicable data base exceeding the threshold criteria of attachment D. The threshold criteria will be adjusted as necessary to provide a reasonable, but not unwieldy amount of data for evaluation. The report will be divided by discipline by the Maintenance Trending Section and forwarded to the maintenance groups to be dispersed to the cognizant engineers using the following steps.
- 1. Complete a repetitive failure review and evaluation form (similar to attachment F) for each component exceeding the threshold criteria. ~
- 2. Assign a tracking number and cognizant engineer for each form with a 60-day due date.
This review for repetitive failure must be based on prior knowledge and experience in review'of system performance, as well as judgement of the engineer. For example, a motor-operated valve with two failures over a six-month period, involving a control circuit failure and a mechanical problem, would not be considered repetitive, if the valve had operated for
! four years without a failure.
When potential repetitive failures are substantiated, the section supervisor will ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent recurrence. The evaluation form will be used as a cover sheet for a package detailing the corrective action taken or planned for repetitive failures.
This package will be reviewed for adequate corrective action by the appropriate section supervisor and the site quality staff and then forwarded to Document Control as a QA record. This review and resolution plan should be completed within the 60-day assignment period.
9 i
,M ~ '
r
. t
-. ._ _< .~ .. -. e 44~ - d' l1 - ' d M
ATTACHMENT C GENERIC FAILURE TRENDING Generic failure reports will include as a ninimum, the manufacturer's model numbers, equipment identifiers, dates of discovery, failure ,
descriptions, causes of failures, and corrective action taken for all components in the applicable data base exceeding the threshold criteria of attachment D. The threshold criteria will be adjusted as necessary to provide a reasonable but not unwieldy amount of data for evaluation. The report will be divideo by discipline by the Maintenance Trending Section and forwarded to the maintenance groups to be dispersed to the cognizant engineers using the following steps.
- 1. Complete a generic failure evaluation form (similar to attachment G) for each component exceeding the threshold criteria.
- 2. Assign a tracking number and cognizant engineer for each form with a 60-day due date.
The review for generic failures must be based on prior knowledge and experience in performance of the questioned manufacturer component, as well as the judgement of the cognizant engineer. For example, failures of three different Limitorque model SMB-00 valve operators would meet the threshold criteria and be considered failure potentially generic to Limitorque SMB-00. An evaluation form would be completed. However, upon review, the engineer may find the failures were totally unrelated in cause and thus would be evaluated as nongeneric.
After completion of the evaluation, the form is signed by the cognizant engineer and used as a cover sheet for a package detalling the action taken for evaluated generic failures. This package will be reviewed for adequate corrective action by the appropriate section supervisor and the site quality staff and forwarded to Document Control as a QA record. This review and resolution plan should be completed within the 60-day assignment period.
i (
l l
l
., , -s-wak : == W ' - ~ ' - ^ ' ^ ~ '
- ATTACHMENT D THRESHOLD CRITERIA Repetitive :
Any component within the data base that falls two or more times in a 12-month review period.
Generic By Model Number Any manufacturer's model number component that has more than three percent, but not less than two failures of its population in the data base being searched within a 12-month review period.
By Manufacturer Any item of t'he same function code (pump, valve, etc.) made by the same manufacturer that has more than five percent, but not less than two failures of its population in the data base being j searched within a 12-month review period.
i 6
l n
l l
l l
i 9 I
[ ')
, V.'.
-. ~ ; *: ~ r t::: r : W % . "' ''
~"' . .Y < #: .
., ATTACHMENT E Special Review and Evaluation of Failure Trends Date MATS Tracking Number Type Report E I M (circle one) UNID Manufacturer Model failure Discovery Date HR Number
- Failure Resulted in: Reactor Trip Turbine Trip Load Reduction i
a
- LER No.
Other I have reviewed the failure identified above and performed a review of the maintenance history. I have determined the above failure to be:
Repetitive YES NO Generic to Manufacturer YES NO Generic to Model Numoer YES NO The following resolution is recommended or has been completed:
Evaluated by /
Name date Reviewed by /
Name date
! Plant QA Review /
Engineer date cc: Maintenance Superintendent
- i
/ , . C l lh
' " ' ' * " -' ~^ ' * ~ " ~ ' ' ^ ^
---z
^
~ ~: " ~:
ATTACHMENT F Identifier E I M Report (Circle One)
Date MATS Tracking Number Due Date REPETITIVE EQUIPMENT FAILURE REVIEW AND EVALUATION I have reviewed the Repetitive Failure Report dated '
for Electrical, Instrumentation or Mechanical (circle one) equipment and The following repetitive failure has been identified in an earlier report and resolved. Listed below are the identifier, tracking number'for the earlier report, and the earlier report date.
Identifier Tracking Number Date (Earlier Report)
Following is the equipment identifier that was investigated for possible repetitive failures. Attached is the documentation for the investigation and resolution.
Identifier i
SYSTEM ENGINEER /
NAME DATE Reviewed By /
SUPERVISOR DATE Plant QA Review /
ENGINEER DATE d
4 y
.. 4; g- (k
,a :n
'"$ ~"
~
ATTACHMENT G MANUFACTURER Code Number Model Number E I M Report (Circle one)
DATE MATS Tracking Number Duo Date GENERIC EQUIPMENT FAILURE REVIEW AND EVALUATION I have reviewed the Repetitive Failure Report dated for Electrical, Instrumentation or Mechanical (circle one) equipment and The following generic failure has been identified in an earlier report and resolved. Listed below are the identifier, tracking number for the earlier report, and the earlier report date.
Manufacturer-Code Model No. MATS Tracking Number Date (Earlier Report)
Following is the manufacturer's model number that was investigated for possible repetitive failures. Attached is the documentation for the investigation and resolution.
Manufacturer-Code Performed by -
/
NAME DATE Reviewed By /
SUPERVISOR DATE Plant QA Review /
ENGINEER DATE
.'- . e -
o
. '1 ', . l lc. f" >
~ ~- s .,n- .-ea- -.<. mw.s. -.ma.is- m i h M_n-~ - - '! '"$ - *Sb
k Attachment H IPEDS TRENDINC EVALUATION DATA SHEET Identifier Failure Report Period Minufacturer Madel No.
Research WR No.'s Other-Results of Research Failures determined to be [ ] Generic [ ] Repetitive
[ ] Nongeneric [ ] Nonrepetitive (explain below) (explain below)
Comments: (Attach separate pages as needed)
Evaluation (Complete for generic and repetitive failures) YES NO N/A
- 1. Preventative maintenance needed? [ } [ ] [ ]
- 2. Current PM adequate? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 3. Supplementary inspections needed? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 4. Adequate component applications? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 5. Modification needed? (obsolete equipment, etc.) [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 6. Operational requirements too harsh? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 7. Maintenance techniques adequate? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 8. Calibration interval adequate? [ ] [ ] [ ]
- 9. Changes or clarification in calibration techniques [ ] [ ] [ ]
needed?
- 10. Inspection and replacement of damaged or [ ] [ ] [ ]
deteriorated parts needed?
Comments: (Attach separate pages as needed)
Proposed Resolution (Corrective Action, PM's, Inspection Interval, etc.)
(Attach separate pages as needed)
/ - r 2 -
Cognizant Engineer .
/M.',
- i-#*
v ,6 'V M fsa.4 gh , n +.s mhae ~ e ' - - - ' - _ -
. Figure 1 TV A 6436F (ONP-3-84)
REPORT OF FAILURE-NUCLEAR PLANT RELIABILITY DATA SYSTEM (NPRDS)
MR NO. A -
WORKPLAN NO.
DATE OF NPRD EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIER:
ACTION DISCOVERY U FUNCTION SYSTEM ADDRESS lS S/C CODE YEAR MONTH 1
DAY FAILURE NO. U/ SYSTEM COMPONENT.
~
ADDRESS S FAILURE EVENT START FAILURE EVENT END S REPORT DATE T
YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR MIN. YEAR MONTH DAY HOUR MIN. F YEAR MONTH DAY z 1 I I II I I II I I I II I II I l I I I I II I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I w9
$$ i1 I II I I II I I I I l l l l 1 I I ! I I II I I I I II ' f ! ! I I I ! ! I i I i I de Ibo i! I ! Il l I I I I I !! I I I I I 1 ! ! ! 1 I 1 I I I I I ! ! ! ! I i ! 1 I I I I I I l I I I l ! I Il I l l I l ! !I f ! l I I I I ! l l1 l l f I I I I I I I I I i l! !l
! ! ! II I I III I III i l I I I I I I I I I !I I I II i ! ! ! ! l! ! I II!II g3 I l ! l ! I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 l l l t 1 ! ! ! ! I I ' I I f I I ! I I I SE v' I ! ! !I I I I 1 1 I I I i 1 li I I I I I I I I I l I I I ! l ! I I I I !! I I I ! ! I I I ! I I ! ! I I I ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I ! ! l ! I ' I I ' 8 I I I ! I w I ! I II I III I l lII I IIl 1 1I I I I I II I I I I I I ! ! ! I 1 ! ! l I l i I E z U9 II IIi l I IIi1 III ll IIIII I III II II III I I I I lIi ! I I II I du I 1 l l ! I I l l l I l l 1 l 1 l l l l I I l l l l 1 l l l l I l l I I I l l l l l' l I l l I ! ! I I I l 1 1 I I I I l l l l I I I l l I I I l I I l ! I I I I l l l l I I l l I I T F O DF M F -
CAUSE OF EFFECT OF E Y A O A CORRECTIVE F7AILU RE FAILU R E y m P 1 D I E ACTION UL E*< E L E L C MO LER NO.
d aQ U U C DESCRIPTION S PLANT T EW Q o O R O R A Y I N- R L< F E F E y* O T. U E 5' N P DOC. -
YR. SEO. -V.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: EXT.
-A u h.9 &&& Sp & ~ " ' " ' &&*" "^
F Figure 2 TVA 6436I (SNP-1-86)
MAINTENANCE HISTORY l
WORK PLAN NO.
WR NO. ,
EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIER:
U FUNCTION SYSTEM ADDRESS S FAILURE EVENT START FAILURE EVENT END YEAR MONTH DAY YEAR MONTH DAY Z
w9 m-30-dE
<U
'UO Ew Oe N3 3<
u' u
pZ uO w-Eo E<
O u
PREPARED BY: INPUT BY: VERIFIED BY:
e e
.h. . e4*s 4 .eW .4bS 4d mum _ _ - ^ ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' - ' '
c Figure 3 TgN"sDNLEMENT 2"* "'^" MR No. A -
HOLD ORDER CLEARANCE YES NO FIRE WATCH YES NO RIGGING YES NO SWP,RWP CONFINED SPACE ENTRY SCAFFOLD OPERS. AUTHORIZATION DIGGING lCONCRETEl SPECIAL PROCESS l CHIPPING / DRILLING OPERATOR ASSISTANCE FIRE BARRIER BREACHING SPRAY PAINT s
5 HEALTH PHYSICS ASSISTANCE HOT ENVIRONMENT (TEMP.) TRANSIENT FIRE LOAD l e l U COMMON MODE FAILURE RENDER FIRE PROT. SYS. INOP. VITAL AREA OR SYSTEM l PENETRATION
@ l Z UNIT OUTAGE RESPIRATORY PROTECil0N WELDING, CUTTING, GRINDING, l OPEN FLAME ASME SECTION XI SPECIAL TOOLS AND!OR QE DATA SHEETS REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE l
EQUIPMENT REQUIRED OTHER.SEE REMARKS APPLICABLE WARRANTY ITEM.
No.
l (B) No. i No. l REMARKS:
NO-Y~OUL.w.
F0HLMAN b PLANNkH: DAIE: bN NN WN *bN CONCURRENCE: / / O O O O DATE EQUIPMENT RETURNED TO SERVICE: l COMPONENT EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIER YEAR MONTH DAY TIME CSTIU FUNCTION SYSTEM ADDRESS Sl
$ THIS COMPONENT AND/OR SUBCOMPONENT(S) 4AS BEEN INSTALLED AT THE FOLLOWING UNID LOCATION.
MFG. CODE,'NAMEl l l l l MFG. SERIAL No. l l l l l l l l -l l l l l l l l l l l TilC No. I I I H I I I I MFG. MODEL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l QUALIFIED LIFE-l l l ll l l yrs.
w ITEM INSTARED:
Z MFC. CODEiNAMEl l l l l MFG. SERIAL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l TilCNo.1 I I H I I I I W
MFG. MODEL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l QUALIFIED LIFE-l l l l.l l l yrs.
l W
ITEM INSTALLED.
3m MFC. CODE /NAMEl l l l l MFG. SERIAL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l TilC No. I I I H I I I I wa.o MFG. MODEL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l a: QUALIFIED LIFE-l l l l.l l l yrs.
wO MFG. CODE;NAMEl l l l l ITEM INSTALLED:
Z $ MFG. SERIAL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l TilC No. I I I H I I I I h MFG. MODEL No. l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l QUALIFIED LIFE-l l l l.l l l yrs.
8 MFG CODE,NAMEl l l l l ITEM INSTALLED:
MFG. SERIAL No l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l TilC No. I I I H I I I I MFG. MODEL No. l l ll l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l QUAllFIED LIFE-l l l l,l l l yrs.
PREPARED BY: DATE:
YEAR MONTH DAY 1
- m &~~" '
_. :f '