ML20235K728
| ML20235K728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1987 |
| From: | Stefano J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K731 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707160404 | |
| Download: ML20235K728 (2) | |
Text
_
q l
t i
July 13, 1987 Docket No.
50-341 Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Group Vice President - Nuclear Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166
Dear Mr. Sylvia:
SUBJECT:
REPORT OF FERMI-2 MAINTENANCE SITE SURVEY Enclosed for your information is the report of the NRC team survey of Fermi-2 maintenance which was performed at the plant site during the week of April 20-24, 1987.
The report describes the status of the plant maintenance program as found by the NRC team during its visit, but does not reflect comments made by your staff during the meeting held at the plant site on May 27, 1987, to discuss the survey findings.
A separate NRC staff inspection of Fermi-2 maintenance operations is planned in the near future which will address the survey findings in the enclosed report.
No response is required by Detroit Edison, however, should Detroit Edison l
believe that the report has factural errors, they should be formally identified for consideration.
Sincerely, 1
1 Original signed by John J. Stefano, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V
& Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated I
cc w/ enclosure:
i See next page 1
l DISTRIBUTION bcc w/ enclosure:
GCwalina Docket File DPersinko NRC & Local PDRs EGreenman PD31 Gray File PPolk GHolahan l
RIngram l
JStefano 0GC-Beth EJordan JPartlow ACRS (10) k (d7Y D3 :DRSP
[
3/PD31: DRSP l
JS fano:lt KVirgilio 7/l-/87 7/)3/87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8707160404 070713 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
f i
Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Facility cc:
Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Ronald C. Callen LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Michigan Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 John Flynn, Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 48909 l
Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Company Regional Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 l
Mr. Steve Frost Supervisor-Licensing Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 l
Mr. Thomas Randazzo i*
Director, Regulatory Affairs Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway l
Newport, Michigan 48166 l
Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161 l
r N
I l
SITE SURVEY OF FERMI 2 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND PRACTICES i
l April 1987 e
-L 5!
{ $ 101 [30
/q
~ _,
, = = ~
L
I r
TABLE OF CONTENTS A.
GENERAL INFORMATION..................................................
1 B.
BACKGROUND...........................................................
1 C.
DESCRIPTIVE DATA.....................................................
2 1.
ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION................................
2 1.0 Organizational Structure..................................
2 1.1 Ba si c Organi za ti on................................... 2 1.2 Electrical, Mechanical, I&C.......................... 2 1.3 Modifications Group, Nuclear Materials Group, Maintenance Support Group....................
3 1.4 Organizational Change................................
3 2.0 Administrative Policies...................................
4 2.1 Business Plan Goals...........
...................... 4 2.2 Maintenance Performance Measures.....................
5 3.0 Preventive Maintenance....................................
5 l
4.0 Communication and Coordination............................
6 II.
WORKCONTR0L...................................................7 1.0 Planning and Scheduling...................................
7 2.0 Work Execution and Quality Contro1........................ 8 III.
PERSONNEL PRACTICES...........................................
12 1.0 Craft Experience..........................................'12' 2.0 T r a i n i n g................................................. 12 IV.
PROCEDURES....................................................
13 1.0 Genera 1..................................................
13 2.0 Technical Procedures.....................................
13 V.
EQUIPMENT / FACILITIES..........................................
15 1.0 S p a r e P a r t s.............................................. 15 2.0 Labe1ing.................................................
16
r N VI.
PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES........................... 16 1.0 Sunna ry of Percei ved Strengths.......................... 17 2.0 Summa ry of Perceived Wea knes ses......................... 18 VII.
CONCLUSION...................................................
19 APPENDIX A - Entrance Meeting Attendees APPENDIX B - Exit Meeting Attendees l
APPENDIX C - Plant Staff Interviewed APPENDIX D Day Schedule Process APPENDIX E - Miscellaneous Forms l
l i
1 l
1
)
s l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIVISION OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY EVALUATION (DLPQ)
FERMI 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE SURVEY REPORT A.
GENERAL INFORMATION Docket No.:
50-341 License No.:
NPF-43, July 15, 1985 Licensee: Detroit Edison 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Survey Conducted: April 20 - April 24,1987 Team Members:
Drew Persinko, NRR/DLPQ - Team Leader Tommy Le, NRR/DLPQ Ann Ramey-Smith, NRR/DLPQ Al Walker, Region III Jim Isom, NRR/RSIB Steve Reynolds, Region III Carl Johnson, RES/RHFB B.
BACKGROUND A site survey of the maintenance program at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant of the Detroit Edison Company (DECO) was conducted as part of the Phase II activities of the NRC Maintenance and Surveillance Program Plan (MSPP). The Fermi 2 survey was an extension of earlier surveys that were conducted during Phase I of the MSPP as described in NUREG-1212. " Status of Maintenance in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry:
1985." The Phase I surveys resulted in a broad description of the functions of the maintenance departments at a number of -
nuclear power plants. The method of information gathering was based on a nrotocol which consisted of a set of generic questions that were grouped into f we categories:
organization and administration, facilities and equipment, teci.,1 cal procedures, personnel, and work control (see NUREG-1212 for detaii-).
The objectives of the site surveys in Phase II are to gain further knowledge on the conduct of maintenance, to highlight unique features as warranted, e d to identify strengths and weaknesses of the maintenance program at the s1tn visited.
In preparation for the site visit, the team sent DECO a request to obtain information on the maintenance program at Fermi 2.
The team reviewed this information as well as other available data, including a resident inspector questionnaire, maintenance performance measures, LER data, SALP Reports, and Regional Inspection Reports.
In addition, the survey team modified and expanded relevant sections of the interview protocol prior to the visit.
The team reviewed the organization of Fenni 2 and the administrative
s i
l l 1
l I
procedures directing the conduct of maintenance and work control. The j
findings from the interviews and reviews conducted prior to and during the site visit are presented in Section C, Descriptive Data, below.
C.
DESCRIPTIVE DATA i
I.
ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION The following aspects of the maintenance organization and administration area I
were investigated:
Organizational Structure.
Administrative Policies, and l
Communication and Coordination.
l Each element will be discussed in turn.
1.0 Organizational Structure 1.1 Basic Organization j
i The organization chart of the Maintenance Department as provided to the NRC Survey Team by Detroit Edison Company is shown in Figure 1.
To better depict l
the interaction among the various organizational units, a number of j
simplified diagrams that place the Fermi 2 structure on a comparable basis to 1
1 other utility organizations are provided. The discussion then highlights the unique features of the Fermi 2 organization which represent characteristics worth noting for a comprehensive understanding of the functioning of the i
Maintenance Department at Fermi 2.
The basic structure of the craft shops in the Fermi 2 Maintenance Department l
is similar to only about 11% of other U.S. nuclear power plants.
The j
Maintenance Department has two distinct functional craft groups: one group 1s the electrical and mechanical, and the other is the instrumentation and,
control (I&C) group. The basic structure of the organization which illustrates the working relationship among the various groups is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 presents the organizational relationships among key maintenance personnel and Figure 4 shows breakdown of personnel in each l
group.
I i
1.2 Electrical, Mechanical, I&C i
The electrical and mecnanical crafts report to the maintenance and l
modification superintendent through a maintenance general foreman. At Fermi, the term maintenance personnel is used to refer to electrical, mechanical and shop personnel. As one progresses down the organizational chart, the electrical and mechanical crafts separate into their respective disciplines.
Each of these disciplines has an assistant general foreman immediately beneath the maintenance general foreman. Also reporting to the maintenance general foreman is the assistant general foreman for the shops, who is i
1 j
O
$ responsible for plant grounds and appearance, plant shops, and the metrology lab. On the same level as the maintenance general foreman is the general supervisor for maintenance I&C, both of whom report directly to the maintenance and modification superintendent.
1.3 Modifications Group, Nuclear Materials Group, Maintenance Support Group Also reporting directly to the maintenance and modification superintendent is a general supervisor of nuclear materials, a maintenance support supervisor, and a general supervisor of modifications. The modifications group performs larger capital projects which are projected to require greater than 200 man-hours or cost greater than $50,000. Additionally, this group is responsible for administering the welding and maintenance training programs.
The nuclear materials group is responsible for all aspects of material control such as receiving, inspection, status, handling, storage, issuing and returning, and packaging and shipping. Also, the group issues and controls tools and equipment, welding material, and measurement and test equipment.
The maintenance support group is responsible for:
- 1) supporting maintenance foremen by preparing work packages (planners), checking parts availability, inspecting and troubleshooting, 2) the preventive maintenance program, 3) the spare parts program, 4) the NPRDS program, 5) the equipment qualification program, and 6) maintaining equipment history data.
1.4 Organizational Change 6
The organization described here had only been in place for approximately 6 weeks at the time of the survey. Major changes between the old organization and the new include an increased span of control for the plant manager from four people to seven people. Planning and scheduling had previously been a function within the maintenance department.
In the new organization, planning and scheduling is a separate group reporting directly to the plant manager.
Similarly, the technical engineering group which previously reported to the operations superintendent now also reports directly to the plant manager. The nuclear materials group, which was previously part of the superintendent services group, has been moved to the maintenance group.
In both organizations, the supervisor of nuclear materials has retained the same vertical position in the organization and reports to a superintendent directly below the plant manager. The I&C department has been elevated in the new organization.
Presently, the I&C supervisor reports directly to the maintenance and modification superintendent whereas previously the I&C supervisor reported to an intermediary responsible for other functions in addition to I&C. Lastly, the maintenance and modification superintendent assumed this position as part of the reorganization.
Previously, he was a maintenance engineer immediately below the maintenance and modifications superintendent.
The organizational change was initiated by DECO's group vice-president who felt that maintenance work was not progressing as it should. DECO management felt that the old organization was better suited for big jobs and not smaller maintenance work.
The reorganization was intended to more clearly define
)
l responsibilities, to streamline the organization and to provide for better accountability.
Previously, maintenance work orders progressed in series The reorganization eliminated some I
through the various maintenance groups.
layers and, through the centralized scheduling group, more efficiently routed l
the work orders through the system.
Figure 5 depicts the purpose of the i
l scheduling group responsible for scheduling the work and acting as an I
intermediary between operations and maintenance.
The group has SR0s on staff who are familiar with operations.
Figure 5 is more fully discussed in Section II, Work Control.
)
2.0 Administrative Policies l
2.1 Business Plan Goals Detroit Edison has developed a maintenance business plan for 1987-1991 which
~,
contains a mission statement and four overall goals. Under each goal are strategies for attaining the goal and under each strategy are actions to be taken and expected results from each action. The maintenance business plan was developed to support the overall Fermi business plan for 1987-1991. The Fermi business plan also contains four goals with strategies, actions and expected results.
For example, one of the four goals of the Fermi business plan and the strategies to accomplish this goal are:
Achieve efficient and effective individual and organizational performance Cause all employees to focus on safely achieving the Mission a.
b.
Refine the organization for operating and maintaining the plant in a safe and cost effective manner Provide personnel with training appropriate to their identified needs c.
d.
Provide leadership in all day-to-day activities in the Fermi organization by reinforcing the use of supervisory skil b appropriate to the developmental level of the organization Implement a programmatic human factor's review of procedures, e.
management plan documentation, and information systems to ensure need, eliminate redundancy and clarify programmatic direction f.
Improve the implementation of the Fermi QA program.
Actions to accomplish these strategies include:
Achieve 100 hour0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> run at 90% power (or above) by 5/87 a.
b.
Improve supervisory skills to include working in an operating nuclear environment.
The four overall maintenance goals in the Fermi maintenance business plan are:
I 1 1.
Perform maintenance such that in-service time for process equipment is maximized, and in a manner which protects public and employee safety.
2.
Perform maintenance to maximize plant availability.
3.
Achieve efficient and effective individual and organizational performance.
4.
Perf9rm maintenance in a manner which supports commitments to l
regulators and management.
2.2 Maintenance Perfonnance Measures i
The maintenance department is continuously tracking a set of performance measures to assess its performance.
The performance measures used by the maintenance department to evaluate maintenance program effectiveness are:
1.
Collective radiation exposure - maintenance 2.
Scheduled preventive maintenance completion rate 3.
Employee safety - maintenance 4.
LERs, Scrams, ESF Actuations - Maintenance 5.
Percent of work completed as scheduled 6.
Maintenance expenditures 7.
Capital expenditures - maintenance 8.
Maintenance backlog (maximum age of EDPs/MWRs and quantity of open items) 9.
Number of maintenance personnel Equipment performance (e 10.
caused plant DE - rates)quipment forced outage rates and equipment 3.0 Preventive Maintenance The preventive maintenance (PM) program at Fermi is proceduialized in Fermi administrative procedure P0M 12.000.17.
Prior to the beginning of each month, the preventive maintenance coordinator, who is part of the maintenance support group, obtains a computer printout of PMs to be accomplished in the upcoming month (usually about 500).
He forwards this listing to the planning and scheduling group who schedules approximately 200-250 of the PMs; the balance is deferred to a future date.
The PMs that are scheduled are reviewed by the preventive maintenance coordinator and others in the
. maintenance support group to assure that the deferral or scheduling actions is appropriate. Any PMs that the maintenance support group detemines must be scheduled in the upcoming month are brought to the attention of the planning and scheduling group. The percent of PMs completed, as reported by DECO. is based on PMs that have been scheduled.
Interviews with personnel indicated that problems exist in performing preventivemaintenance(PM). More than 12,000 items are scheduled fer preventative maintenance. A computer tracking system is used to provide a monthly list of the PM items due each month. An average monthly list contains more than 500 PM items. As discussed above, this list is provided to maintenance planning and scheduling where approximately 200 of the more than 500 listed PM items are actually scheduled for work. The balance are rolled over to the next month, rescheduled at a future time or cancelled. Of the 200 that are scheduled, approximately 90 per cent are actually perfomed.
Rescheduling is sometimes done so that a PM can be performed at the same time other PMs or surveillance are perfomed on the same equipment. Other reasons for nonperformance of PMs are the lack of sufficient manpower and the lack of replacement parts. Manpower constraints exist even though existing maintenance personnel are working from 30 to 50 percent overtime.
There is no system for tracking PMs past due other than for the current month due to limitations in the computer system. Many PMs at Fermi had never been performed.
In some cases where PMs have not been perfomed, the first scheduled date for the PM had not come due, the equipment was not operational, or the PMs were deleted or rescheduled.
Only one person appeared to have detailed knowledge of the PM program.
In the Fermi Maintenance Business Plan 1987-1991, the review of all PMs to ensure that all activities are accomplished efficiently and equipment downtime is minimized is listed as an action item. The expected result from this action is that efficient preventive maintenance be performed by 12/87.
4.0 Communication and Coordination
~
To accomplish the communication and coordination necessary to implement the maintenance program at Fermi, numerous meetings are scheduled on a routine basis. These meetings are described below.
0630, 1430, 2230 Monday-Friday, Plant Status Meeting The meetings are attended by the shift supervisor, senior engineers, general foremen, scheduler and representatives from other site organizations such as security.
In general, the shift supervisor and general foremen in attendance are finishing their shifts. The purpose is to, update the shift supervisor regarding progress made on maintenance work conducted during the previous shift and to discuss work which will be ongoing or begun during the incoming shift. The meeting also provides information used by the scheduler to update schedules. The basis for the meeting is the 7-day schedule prepared by the
, Planning and Scheduling group.
Following this meeting, the outgoing shift i
supervisor briefs the incoming shift supervisor and the respective crafts l
brief their incoming counterparts.
0700. 1600, 2400 Monday-Friday, Shift Turnover Meeting l
The 0700 and 1600 meetings are attended by the maintenance superintendent, the supervisor of modifications, the I&C supervisor, and the general foreman l
of maintenance. The 2400 meeting is attended by the general foreman and l
foremen. The purposes of the meetings are to update the maintenance superintendent on the progress of ongoing work and work that is to begin shortly, and to provide the maintenance superintendent with information discussed at the 0630 and 1430 meetings.
l 0930 Monday-Saturday, Planning Meeting The meeting is attended by the general foreman of maintenance, the I&C foreman, electrical technician representative, Monroe Plumbing and Heating foreman, preventive maintenance representative, Bechtel superintendent, Sussman foreman, representatives of the planning group, and representatives of other organizations such as engineering, security and health physics. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the status of jobs and schedule new work I
for the next 7 days. Additions to the schedule which have authorization from l
Operations are identified and scheduled.
l 6
0730, 0830 1230, 1630, 48 Hour Critical Path Development l
These meetings are attended by representatives of maintenance, operations and l
engineering. The 0730 meeting discusses the critical path items for the next 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. The 0830 meeting discusses the same items but is attended by personnel who are higher in the organization than those attending the 0730 meeting. The results of the 0730 discussions are presented at the 0830 meeting. The 1230 and 1630 meetings are to discuss start-up testing and. ar.e in effect only during the start-up test phase.
The meetings summarized above are scheduled Monday-Friday and are also held l
at the same times on Saturday and Sunday. Although on weekends they are l
attended by different personnel than those described, the purposes remain the same.
l l
II. WORK CONTROL l
1.0 Planning and Scheduling i
The vianning and Scheduling group reports directly to the plant manager in the new organization. Although the group is called Planning and Scheduling, it is primarily responsible for scheduling. As depicted in Figure 5, the Planning and Scheduling Group (PSG) forms a functional linkage between the Operations Department and the Maintenance discipline groups (i.e.,
Maintenance Support Group, Maintenance-Mech /Elec Group, Maintenance-I&C Group, and Nuclear Material Group).
l l
l l l
In the past, work packages were planned and assembled by each of the maintenance disciplines. When a work package was ready to be scheduled and worked on, a foreman or his representative would independently deal with the Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS) to obtain the necessary clearances and sign-offs. Rather than utilizing a pre-coordinated system where the review and tag out of equipment could be combined and the outage of plant equipment l
and systems optimized, the past process required the NSS to attend to the individual needs of each craft foreman. This independent dealing between craft foremen and the NSS had not only created distractions to the control room operators, but also occupied much of the NSS's time.
To alleviate this l
problem, a new Planning and Scheduling Group (PSG) was formed to:
1) l integrate the planning and scheduling effort, 2) identify the impact of l
maintenance work on plant systems, and 3) facilitate the coordination between various raaintenance groups and operations.
The head of the PSG is a licensed l
SR0 who was also an assistant Maintenance Engineer and superintendent of the Maintenance / Modification Group. The PSG group is currently staffed with three Maintenance Work Coordinators (MWC), one Operations Work Coordinator (0WC), and two senior planners. Besides the 0WC who is an NSS, all MWCs and planners are also experienced SR0s and/or maintenance engineers.
1 The PSG appears to be the integral part of the Maintenance Work Control l
System at the Fermi 2 nuclear plant. Through daily meetings discussed in Section 1.4, the group prepares the 30 day and 7 day schedules to assist operation and maintenance personnel.
The 30-day schedule is updated weekly.
The 7-day schedule, which is the first week of the 30-day schedule, is l
updated daily.
The 7-day schedules are for those work requests (WR) that are ready to be worked on and the 30-day schedules are for resource planning to meet the WRs workload.
In addition to the above, the scheduling group also prepares critical path schedules 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> in advance for start-up testing and other critical jobs. The process the PSG uses in developing their schedules is given in Appendix D.
The personnel responsible for preparing maintenance work packages for use in the field are located in the maintenance support group (MSG) of the maintenance department. The group is composed of personnel knowledgeable with maintenance. Although no set qualification requirements exist for personnel in the group, some personnel possess 2-year college degrees, and many have 2 to 5 years experience with Detroit Edison. The MSG currently has 20 supporting technicians and provides maintenance support only in the area of Mechanical and Electrical.
2.0 Work Execution and Quality Control The work control process used to perform maintenance tasks has been restructured since February 1987.
This new process is well defined both procedurally and conceptually and, according to the plant staff interviewed, is much improved over the old "PN-21" work process.
i
. Activities for requesting, processing, approving, and controlling w(ork are proceduralized in the Plant Operation Manual Proc 3 dure P0M.000.15 Revision
- 23) dated March 19, 1987. This procedure is applicable to all activities including corrective maintenance, plant modification / design changes, shop services, surveillance, preventive maintenance and other activities related to the radwaste system.
In addition, activities such as repair work that may not allow the equipment to return to the design-specified operational condition are required to have a Design Evaluation Request (DER) and are not allowed to proceed until the DER is evaluated and its disposition completed.
Other programmatic activities such as preventive maintenance, surveillance testing for technical specifications requirements, and reliability trending and performance evaluation programs are all currently proceduralized.
Currently, anyone in the plant who notices a plant equipment deficiency is required to:
- 1) report the condition to control room operators, 2) initiate and hang a Deficiency Notice Tag (DNT) on the equipment, and 3) initiate a Work Request (WR) describing the problem, system, equipment identification, location and identity of the initiator.
The flow of work is illustrated in Figure 6.
The WR is routed to the operations work coordinator (0WC) who will perform the preliminary evaluation of the WR, and prioritize the WR for scheduling. Most often, corrective maintenance WRs are initiated by j
operations department. After the 0WC has completed the preliminary screening, any unsubstantiated WRs are returned to the initiator for n' ore maintenance work coordinator (MWC) pproved WRs are turned over to the infonnation or cancelled, and the a for a detailed evaluation.
If any of the corrective maintenance WRs are classified as emergency, they are handled and approved by the Emergency team. An emergency WR receives priority treatment.
If troubleshooting and corrective work is required the appropriate maintenance craft will perform the task innediately without having to go through the scheduling process.
The 0WC performs the preliminary screening by checking part 2 of the WR form within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of receipt. A copy of the WR form is attached in Appendix E.
The preliminary check includes a determination of the type of work activ.iti.es to be done (i.e., corrective preventive, modification, surveillance), safety review (QA-1, Tech Spec, RWP, etc.) and whether troubleshooting is required.
The 0WC then turns the WR over to the MWC.
The MWC performs a detailed evaluation of the WR by further describing work to be done, housekeeping, and specifying whether procedures, drawings, manuals or other documents are required. When completed, the WR is delivered to the Maintenance Support Group (MSG) for work package preparation if the work is of nonroutine nature.
If the work to be performed is routine, the WR is routed to the 0WC for other actions such as scheduling.
Upon receipt of the WR from the MWC, the Maintenance Support Technician (MST), who is part of the Maintenance Support Group, will take the necessary action to provide the detailed requirements as previously checked by the OWC.
Examples of work details include:
Providing a work plan, preparing a heavy
. i loads check sheet and EQ and Seismic check sheets, requesting HP review for radiation work permit, requesting QA review and incorporating QA comments, completing a post-maintenance testing requirements form with any operability restraints, and requesting job staging, For I&C related activities, the MWC routes all I&C work requests to the I&C Maintenance Group, and the required work as previously checked by the 0WC is then developed in the same manner as those in the MSG. Other technical /
engineering and HP staffs also provide special reviews and support to the MSG as needed.
After the WRs are completed by the MSTs, they are returned to the MWC for work coordination and scheduling. The MWC reviews,each of the packages for completeness, provides the code for the assigned worv. group, obtains F
necessary documents for the work package, and places the package on the 48-hour schedule on the agreed-upon start date. When special instructions are needed in lieu of approved procedures for safety-related work, the MWC completes a Safety Evaluation Checklist for obtaining approval from the On-site Plant Review Comittee.
The MWC distributes the approved WR packages to the appropriate Maintenance organizations for review at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to the scheduled start of work. The foreman from each of the assigned maintenance groups then reviews the package for completeness and delivers the work package to the Red Tag Center in the shift supervisor office for nuclear shift supervisor (NSS) review at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to the scheduled start of work. The Nuclear Shift Supervisor or his representative reviews the package to see how the work will impact plant operations, and authorizes the date and time to start the work.
1 The 0WC who also works in the Red Tag Center can provide additional instructions or operational requirements relating to the work to be
)
performed. The 0WC initiates the required protective tagging and obtains final approval from the shift supervisor for the release of equipment and,
notifies appropriate maintenance to start the work.
In addition to directing and supervising the cruft., the foreman also assumes the details coordinating function and upgrades any required information on the work package if necessarx for example, listing of spare parts used, and initiating new WRs for any additional work required. After the work is performed, the foreman reviews the package for completeness to ensure that appropriate procedures and standards were followed, M&TE calibration due dates are entered, DNT(s) are removed.
The foreman verifies that WR is signed off as " complete" on the Red Tag Record and delivers the completed l
package to the MWC for further review. The MWC coordinates with the NSS for returning the equipment to service and with the MSG for review and final close-out. The NSS also reviews the completed work package to verify
(
that actions required by the WR up to this point are documented "as completed," and to verify that no operability restraints remain. The NSS ensures that the post-maintenance testing requirements have been performed.
l
1 1 If part or all of the post-maintenance test requirements cannot be performed and the equipment cannot be returned to service (e.g., other work is in I
progress on the system), the NSS will initiate a "new" work request to accomplish the required testing or will transfer the testing requirements to another outstanding work order on the same equipment or system. The MSG group reviews the completed package for NPRDS reporting and upgrading the equipment history file. After the MSG review, the package is sent to QA as required; QA reviews the package for completeness and returns the package to the Work Control Center (WCC). The WCC then updates the tracking system and package is sent to the vault.
Currently, QC holdpoints are not specified in the maintenance procedures and holdpoints are added as needed to the work package during QA review on a case by case basis. As a result, there are occasions when holdpoints were missed because som work packages were bulky at.d holdpoints were hard to locate. To correct thw concern, QA is currently inserting QC holdpoints both in the work package and in the affected maintenance procedures during the review process of the work package. These holdpoints will then be reflected permanently in the procedures.
The organizational elements responsible for the work (i.e.. Maintenance, Operations, Material and Technical Support) coordinate tiair activities through a number of daily and weekly meetings described in Section I.4.
DECO is in the process of moving toward an in-house staffing (instead of contractors) to plan and conduct all plant maintenance and modification activities. The current work force will be reduced in accordance with the new management staffing plan.
The survey team learned that some maintenance work, particularly nonurgent work, is he".d up because either the foremen did not deliver the work package to the tagging center as required 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before work.was scheduled to start, or the operations shift supervisors did not approve the start of work l
as planned.
The communication in meetings between organizational units
)
appears to be effective. However, there are indications that operations l
staff sometimes did not release the equipment for maintenance work because -
J the scope and the impact of the work had not been sufficiently explained to them. This communications breakdown may be a result of maintenance personnel not fully understanding the impact of the planned work on plant operations.
The current work control procedure states that data on completed work packages are to be extracted and provided as input to the equipment data I
base. However, Deco currently has no computerized system for maintaining an equipment failure history and no trending of the equipment failure records l
was evident. A plant performance evaluation program to improve plant reliability and availability by monitoring the condition of selected equipment has been postponed, to a large extent, entil 1988. Although some reliability date are collected, the dsta do not appear to be used as input to the preventive maintenance program or to identify future potential problems.
It appears that the current maintenance program at the Fermi 2 plant is 1
reacting to equipment problems, rather than preventing them.
l
, )
l In addition, the survey team observed that DECO has a procedure to provide guidelines for component-level test requirements to ensure that corrective, preventive, and modification activities have been effective. However, i
i currently DECO has no established guideline on post-maintenance functional testing requirements, and has no defined acceptance criteria for restoring i
equipment to its normal operating condition.
j III. PERSONNEL PRACTICES 1.0 Craft Experience Experience level of the mechanical and electrical field foremen and craftsmen were noted as a strength.
In addition, the team saw the good attitude and high motivation of the craftsmen as a positive indication of the morale of the maintenance department. On the other hand, the team was concerned with the high number of relatively inexperienced I&C repairmen and the relatively I
high workload of the I&C shop.
I&C corrective work orders have been relatively constant at around 140 since the end of 1986. This total does not include EDP, radwaste, safety and shop and nonproduction work requests (WR).
l It could not be determined how many of the 420 PM work requests existing at I
the time of the site visit were I&C.
Plant staff indicated that I&C work was l
increasing due to the addition of instrument and loop calibrations to the i
preventive maintenance program.
Additionally, of the 36 I&C repairmen in the 1&C group,17 are I&C repairmen "A" with less than 1 year on-site L
experience. The combination of a heavy workload with a relatively high number of personnel with somewhat limited experience was a potential concern because some I&C personnel expressed a desire for more direct supervision and assistance while performing more difficult work. The team was concerned with I
the possibility of personnel-related problems in the I&C area due to j
inadequate supervision and heavy workload.
2.0 Training A decision regarding the adequacy of maintenance training at Fermi 2 would be premature at this time since Fermi 2 is currently working to attain INP0 accreditation of their training program for their maintenance personnel.
They have completed their self-evaluation and the initial INP0 team visit was conducted in October of 1986.
In addition, INP0 has conducted an evaluation of Fermi 2's initial draft response to INP0's recommendations during April of this year.
Currently, Fermi 2 is finalizing its formal responses to the INP0 reconrnerdations.
Interviews with the plant personnel indicates that training has improved.
In the past, training was less formal in that maintenance personnel requested particular training as it was required.
Presently, trainina courses are scheduled and personnel for training are selected according to their needs.
1 l
. I
V. PROCEDURE
S 1.0 General The team considered the current maintenance procedure upgrade program to be a strength.
Interviews with the maintenance personnel ind.cated that in the past, the procedures tended to be too wordy and too long but with the new procedure upgrade program, the procedures are being rewritten to be more concise, to better identify the action steps and to eliminate wordiness. On the other hand, it was brought to the team's attention by plant personnel that some of the procedures had too many interim changes attached to them which made them difficult to follow.
2.0 Technical Procedures Fermi 2 procedures require that technical information is reviewed and compliance verified against the Technical Specifications, the FSAR, ASME Codes, Regulatory Guides, ANSI and IEEE Standards, Licensing Commitments.
DECO Design Instructions and Specifications, and manufacturer documents.
Currently, DECO has developed a new Writer's Guide, and is planning to have all of its technical procedures upgraded in accordance with this Writer's Guide along with the previously available MIM-049. The MIM-049 is a maintenance instruction which was used to provide guidelines on how to incorporate technical information into Mechanical Maintenance Procedures.
The Writer's Guide was developed based on recommendations from consultants, plant experience, and INP0 guidelines. DECO requires that all vendor technical information be reviewed by the engineering staff and that vendor information be extracted and incorporated into plant maintenance and technical procedures. Vendor information had always been incorporated into the DECO procedures, including the appending vendor sketches and equipment drawings to the procedures. Deco has a dedicated Vendor Technical Information Review Group, currently manned by a contractor. This group reviews all vendor manuals to ensure that technical content is correct, complete, current and controlled. A checklist containing information related to installation operations, maintenance, preventive maintenance, periodic -
testing, characteristic curves, spare parts, troubleshooting, calibration, specifications and storage information, etc. is used to ensure the completeness of the manual.
If any manual is found to be inadequate, the involved vendor is contacted for additional information and the manual upgraded.
Information from vendor manuals is also used to provide input to the plant Central Component Data Base with cross-reference provided for easy identification of technical information with the plant structures and plant identification system.
The primary responsibility for preparing plant technical / maintenance procedures is assigned to experienced personnel in each of the craft disciplines (i.e., the first line supervisor and his experienced craft people). After a procedure is written, it is reviewed by the craft l
supervisor for technical accuracy and then is forwarded to the Plant Procedure Coordination (PPC) Group for editing, and further incorporation of
(
l l
l l human factors considerations. Each craft discipline has a dedicated group of j
personnel to write and upgrade its procedures.
For example, the I&C group j
currently has one foreman and four craftsmen assigned to develop and to upgrade the I&C procedures. Other technical and engineering groups are also involved in the writing and reviewing of technical procedures as required.
The review responsibility and assigned discipline for the groups are proceduralized in a plant administrative procedure, i
The Plant Procedure Coordination Group (PPC) currently has nine writers, and an increase of two more additional writers is expected soon. These PPC writers are working with plant staff in the formation of plant administrative procedures. However, for technical procedures, they only provide assistance in the form of editing and implementing human factors considerations such as format, fitting, and styling.
For specific large tasks, contractors are also used. Currently, DECO is hiring outside consultants to review and upgrade the plant surveillance procedures for compliance with plant Technical Specifications requirements.
j 1
DECc had not, in the past, specified QC holdpoints in the maintenance procedures. Consequently, the QA group had to review each safety-related work package and prescribe holdpoints for each package or work plan as required.
Currently, with the new effort in procedure upgrading, the QA i
staff is reviewing both work packages and procedures.
Holdpoints are now inserted into each procedure that is reviewed. These changes will be permanently incorporated into the procedures as part of the DECO procedures I
upgrade task.
To ensure that procedures are technically accurate, a " Technical Review
)
Checklist" is used by both procedure writer and procedure reviewer. A " loop l
closing" process is also provided in the writer guide to ensure that changes are made to the procedure in case technical inaccuracies are found during the implementation or validation of the procedure.
In addition, DECO also has a system in place for identifying and documenting any needed change to a procedure by encouraging the field personnel to fill out a readily available
" Pro-Advice" form, where the craft or plant personnel can write down l
suggestions to improve job performance. All changes, except temporary l
changes, are required to be incorporated in the procedures within 14 days.
All maintenance procedures are to be reviewed and verified by a preassigned technical group before plant management review for final approval.
l All maintenance personnel at Fermi 2 are required to have procedure (s) with I
them at the job site. However, if the workers are in a high radiation area, procedures can be kept outside or in an area nearby, where instructions are verbally communicated to the workers through various means of plant l
communication systems.
Prior to the job being carried out and to ensure that the procedure in the work request package is of the latest version, the foreman in charge of the work is required to review the status of the Plant Operations Manual Index (POMI) from the computer. After the job is completed, the completed work package is routed to the clerk in the Production Information Center (PIC) for verification that the precedure(s)
I
. that was used, was of the latest version.
If it was not, the clerk will add a " Flag" sheet, describing the difference and send the package to the responsible engineering staff for evaluation and disposition. The PIC Center also serves as a distribution center for copies of all controlled procedures and is open 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, 7 days a week.
To ensure that all affected technical procedures and plant configuration drawings reflect a new change when plant equipment or systems are modified, DECO requires all engineering design and change packages (EDP) to have the latest changes " red lined" on all affected controlled drawings, and all affected procedures reviewed in accordance with a checklist attached to the EDP package. DECO reviews all active procedures every 2 years. The Plant Procedure Coordination Group is charged with the responsibility that within 6 months prior to the "due for review" date, a request for procedure review is initiated and sent to the appropriate preassigned reviewing groups.
The following pertinent fora,ats and checksheets used by DECO during the review of vendor manuals and during procedure writing are provided in Appendix E.
Vendor Manuals:
- Vendor Manual Review Criteria Procedure Writing:
- New vs Revised Manual - Review for Impact on Procedure
- Action Assignment Sheet
- Administration Format Review Checklist
- Generic Technical Review Checklist
- Technical Review Checklist V.
EQUIPMEsT/ ACILITIES 1.0 Spare Parts The spare parts support for the I&C shop appears to be a weakness. Although all three crafts expressed difficulty at times in obtaining spare parts, spare parts availability appeared to be a particular problem for the I&C craft.
In addition, there seems to be a general consensus among all three crafts that too much time is wasted either waiting for a part that is located at a remote warehouse or dealing with supply personnel who are not knowledgeable.
Following is a list of other spare parts problems:
1.
The SPRS (spare parts reference system) does not accurately reflect the number of spare parts currently in stock.
(SPRS inaccuracies regarding quantity was field verified by the NRC Team; The MMS Computer System, however, was accurate.)
I 2.
The SPRS incorrectly identifies parts.
l 8 3.
The SPRS often does not list all the required parts for the plant component identified using the PIS (plant identification system).
In the third case above, when the SPRS does not list the required part under the desired PIS number, repairmen have to get the part validated by the Materials Engineering Group (MEG) using the Request on Stores (ROS).
PIS is the supply numbering system which uniquely identifies all components in the plant. At present, the MEG is reviewing 10-15 R0S per week for the IAC shop as compared to 2-3 per week for the electrical shop and 4-5 per week for the mechanical shop. Furthermore, the survey team noted that there are some 2000 SPRS data entry forms submitted to update the SPRS which have yet to be processed.
In addition, it was suggested that parts support for obsolete electronics equipment was lacking. Therefore, the team concluded that because of the inadequacy of the SPRS in the I&C area and the lack of corrective action taken so far to.nlleviate the errors in the SPRS, the spare parts support for the I&C equipment is a weakness in the DECO maintenance program.
Actions included under strategy B of the Fermi Business Plan, 1987 1991, include improving spare parts reliability by 12/87, and developing and implementing a plan for the identification and replacement of obsolete equipment.
{
2.0 Labeling l
1 Plant components were generally labeled throughout the plant.
Inadequacies exist in the labeling of electronic and electrical components, however.
These labels are very difficult to read and are inconsistently located, i.e.,
sometimes the label is above the component and sometimes the label is below.
Pressure transmitter and instrument valve labels are particularly difficult to read. This labeling inadequacy increases the probability of error of the wrong unit / wrong train / wrong component variety.
VI.
PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Upon completion of the survey, the team concluded that both strengths and weaknesses exist in the maintenance program at Fermi. The weaknesses were confirmed either through consistency in the interviews, observations in the field, or a combination of the two. The purpose of providing feedback of the team's observations is to make the licensee aware of areas for improvement that have perhaps been overlooked, and to share infonnation obtained by the NRC staff on previous site surveys at other facilities. The overall intent is to assist the licensee in improv'ng the maintenance program.
Feedback on perceived strengths and weaknesses to the licensee had been provided on previous site surveys and was well received by those licensees.
At the exit meeting at Fermi on April 24, 1987, the perceived strengths and weaknesses given below were presented to the licensee. Also on April 24, 1987, prior to the exit meeting, the NRC team met with utility representatives to discuss the strengths and weaknesses in a working group
environment to afford the licensee the opportunity to provide additions, deletions, corrections and further considerations.
Utility representatives pointed out where some of the weakness noted by the team had been included in the Fermi Business Plan.
No disagreements were voiced and the utility representatives appeared to take the information with the intent with which it was provided, namely, that the licensee should review certain aspects of the maintenance program in order to improve the overall program.
It should be noted that the plant manager and maintenance and modifications superintendent were urievailable during the week the team was on-site and, therefore, the team's findings could not be discussed with them at the time of the site visit.
1.0 Summary of Perceived Strengths
- 1) Mechanical and electrical crafts appeared to be very experienced.
- 2) Craftsmen and supervision had a positive attitude toward their work and try to perform quality work.
- 3) Reliance was being placed on DECO personnel, and acting managers were being replaced with permanent ones.
- 4) A centralized scheduling group was established to streamline processing of MWRs.
L
- 5) A strong attempt was being made to keep operations and maintenance informed and to facilitate scheduling.
- 6) Procedures were being revised which included both technical and human factors reviews. The procedure upgrade program will result in i
a plant impact statement in the I&C procedures. Procedures will i
also include QC holdpoints.
- 7) Vendor manuals werc being reviewed for adequacy in accordance with a l
checklist comparable to that of the industry. Needed information -
I l
from vendor manuals were being incorporated into the maintenance l
l procedures to obviate the need to search through the vendor manuals j
each time.a procedure is used.
8)
Information requested from the WR tracking system was obtained
- rapidly, i
- 9) No complaints were expressed regarding the work packages.
i
- 10) Fermi had recently joined INP0's Human Performance Evaluation System I
(HPES).
j
- 11) An INPO maintenance self-evaluation was being conducted.
1 i
l
. 12) Out of 11 Deficiency Notice Tags (DNT) found in the field and located in the WR retrieval system, 6 were paper completed and the tags should have been removed. This is listed as a strength because this was recognized by the licensee and a mission paper dated April 1,1987, was written on this subject for future WR close-out.
The task remaining is to remove those tags presently in the field where the paperwork has been completed.
- 13) Peripherally related to maintenance, red escape lines are painted on the floor to assist personr.el in exiting quickly in an emergency.
- 14) The plant is divided into different zones and cleanliness /
housekeeping for each zone is assigned to various plant staff.
Plant housekeeping appeared good.
2.0 Sumary of Perceived Weaknesses
- 1) An inability to promptly obtain spare parts was causing delays in i
maintenance activities.
- 2) There appeared to be a disparity between workload and experienced /
j trained personnel in I&C.
- 3) Foremen did not appear to be devoting as much time in the field supervising work as would perhaps be desirable, possibly due to paperwork and other responsibilities (e.g. getting procedures for work packages; checking on parts availability). This could affect I&C disproportionately because of less experience relative to the other crafts.
- 4) Some difficulty existed in the smooth functioning of the operations-maintenance interface. After spending time studying work packages and preparing to start a scheduled job, maintenance personnel sometimes found that operations could not support the job.
In som'e cases, operations was uncomfortable with particular individuals performing certain jobs. A better system of qualification for particular jobs and recognition by operations of this system would expedite the work process.
- 5) The Materials Engineering Group (MEG) is responsible for reviewing parts that are to be substituted for previously approved parts.
Currently, MEG controls the SPRS system and updates this system to reflect MEG approval of parts use after MEG has completed its review.
Prior to this arrangement, warehouse or technical engineering controlled updating the SPRS system. When a request on stores was submitted, the SPRS system was updated before MEG approval was received, suggesting that SPRS data may be inaccurate and that parts listed as " approved" may not have in fact been approved by MEG. The NRC team did not field verify that the SPRS system reflected parts disapproved by MEG.
B e 6)
Inadequacies in labeling electrical, electronic, and instruments (e.g. pressure transmitters, instrument valves) may lead to wrong train / wrong component events.
- 7) No complete trending / equipment history program was in place.
- 8) Approximately 427 WRs (approximately a 6 week backlog) were in final close-out (i.e. field work complete).
It is important to expeditiously close out WRs completely since components are declared operable before final close out is complete.
- 9) The program did not include preventive maintenance of manual valves.
- 10) The accuracy of the WR tracking system was questioned since the licensee personnel interviewed could not locate 4 of the 15 DNTs requested by the team.
- 11) Labor hours expended were not consistently shown on completed WRs to assist planning and scheduling in the future.
- 12) The preventive maintenance program appeared to need improvement to reduce the number of outstanding PMs and to improve the PM tracking system and deferral process.
Although not cited by the team as a weakness, the team cautioned utility personnel to assure that a transfer of knowledge has taken place from contractors to DECO personnel before contractors are released.
VII. CONCLUSION 1
A horizontal cut of the maintenance program at Fermi was reviewed by the NRC team through interviews of licensee personnel at all levels in the organization and through field observations. The team obtained an understanding of how maintenance is conducted at Fermi and, by consolidating j
information obtained through the interviews and direct observation.
formulated strengths and weaknesses perceived in the Fermi program.
Feedback on the team's findings was provided to licensee management to alert the licensee to potential areas of improvement within the maintenance program.
The maintenance department at Fermi was reorganized approximately 6 weeks prior to the survey to facilitate the conduct of maintenance.
Key positions have been filled with r,ew personnel, new ways of conducting business have 1
been implemented, and goals have been set. A reduction in overall maintenance personnel is ongoing. Consequently, it is premature to predict whether the new personnel assignments and the new ways for conducting i
maintenance will accomplish the intended purpose of improving the conduct of l
maintenance.
l l
l l
l l
e 1
ill 11:
11!
og i-n i.1,
=
'3
'8" gl a
1 3
q s,
i.
m i-i u
n
!l:h 5
di!E 4
i! !
9 11:
lI.l a!a g
q-E lI!
1-lll:I 8
!lE:
3-r
.i1
.i s ggn
=
81:
9 i
a E
w lil ldI:
iiE E-C
!l:
i III$
Ill!
~~
I "lll e
lii l-
i.
E
.a.. m.
=
__s.
i l
l
=
.- w.,,..
i E _,
- =. h-
.o.
l l
=l T
E R
A c
H
. n.
C l
l L
)
A
=. _n d
N I
e O
u I
i n
T
= _
i A
t Z
n I
o N
I c..
c A
=,
(
G
- l.,
R n,,,.
=
1 O
E N
R 0
- ==
U S
G I
=..
I D
F E
e I
s a
T t
I
==
s O
.- u R
I
=
s T
w,==:
I E
I I
J D
=..
=
r rs=
=
I I
=
1I
=4
=m u
s t
T. "a I
u
., J
_I E
nc.._
i I
l.
i I
E M
=.
E l
M I
EMl EIeM
.c sI EEtM IIII IJ l1\\
I!,t lll,t1
POM 12.000.015 (SR). Page 1 of 2 022587 WORK REQUEST DE H3 2792 e n.es.smo e.,
= -
su.
Work Request
,,,j,1,j Ty P
.n, Ote<w Dev Dvoo Olvev O s oe DCs i
E iri i a6 h rt 1
- ese.ordousa tawt e'o.)
_E---
---+--7
..m ar a e=r e; ^ -.., esges. ms.s.w y..
.~.e.
I Pa rt 2 : aaa emsw.ca town sae. cs nsa Ir.- W -
A
+,. a p, tsac, how.se 9 e.
- 3...
n te.,.~. g.. p..,.......~.
] nv nA
- t. te.. n. a....
o.e
,e...e
_'Me-..
ef"1 A n v sm 6,e., 6..., o.
A.
e M 8.
y_
z.,
4-
.n.,
c
.e~.
..e n,
n.. i..
nv r m.,..
etss nv n sss nv n e, e.,. -
1 ?=Mwmem.
D ope'.
..D ao 5Ae80+7.........D(a5. N D ** W..
....D **...
J *emiatemp... D 0 r-*'s
. D Sr* *
. O ve***!....D '*'.a..
..D(**aw!....D ot**t 3 opee, a,p,e n t e. e,*,-,
n s,$.e.
n o...,.ca
- now, n o,ne.
- 6. "
_ 6, 0.(
tew B
f"i t==.e. e f f"I O T s * *. ave
- 9.-
kI f t 3 '.M p*Meca i
f resMf f *H W*e M*e' e t wo.6 f *,*s Asg ggg y p., t.e ct' A
9.* T 8 T A' MA&
6 ew n a.6 e leg 6.e.e v e nn e.e e.
t.
s pisin ess.
a so.
D hA n 0.4 n h&
nh4 mi
.+
n (989.A 'e4 ap.
ew (
- e. et t.e p ig 6
4.e a.ne 4.e.as e eet n v..,.,su ses.e,
,,..p1 n tv cia e,an, se t 3 ee.no a o i e
9 We.6 G.es l l l l Retr %,r*.aa l l l ? #e.4e"med f r Os.,
T r.,
See W0rk Req West $WppItfnefit a, esteetel ter Peett 4 tow w ? (4*4waed nedest WR e Weeppeeved)
Pa rt 8 oe.,ev. een r w os
- 4. s,.. a.
e 5- _.. a Sa.. a ne...
4.e660, si.&e 8..
L. ! -
a
-m,_
Ie We t e 6*
nha F$G nha Us0 esa M$C e.6ei 6..
.. e. 6.
6, n
.e a.
bk$
bO O. 0 UN e
POM 12.000.015 (SR) Page 2 of 2 022687 WORK REQUEST $UPPLEMENT OE 063-1914
.~.
we.
...!,l,1.,
- w
,- ceuw am o uoo esv=v a s.o ces I
r-7: >+ 1 Pa rt a. e**w w-* m -
twwt w>o wsc,,,i n=a rf i
4 O (WW.0=
tseme tr rea 9t 969 M.O O T 8. M.*.ea.
Mk O R D#**f O h0*J O@*f OIo D 4' Dswar D eut_a_e_t Den s o o*
D *o
- Na Dm D 'e **.n D***r** De'*M D h *8 D o*
D *1 D64*e9 DD'a D Sta D0*
s.......'
......e,
.s...,
s...
f f f f f f I f 7
Pa rt 5: wwe ae.wwe, mss sss own s.ee es n n.a k
'4 m a E.
c.-
i s
Ms n Aa his nsa
_4 as a.
a 0***.
4 tee leg 6
.e 16h 6.=
.e en.
4.a.eas. 6, W
T.=
f'a b 04 A OA&
Pa rt G me,i e,d
..au twe>
t E.-
n.
h MN N$
M Oh&
M ha 1
p m
~.
4. _..
E4 Wo+t c'eer lll 7 # de***f f O p.,
%*f t >, n 7 :.,,,.... s,..., ~s c *s s
.'I f G e t ? St *..ea 9
ss een som cs n.
L "I'l7.
e g w e*L.
w.
. e. w. i., 6 w.
h hh NS k$$
b$
hs 8kOhh
- %.g sa..
s..
a.
a s
a.
o.s ) AAs' Mba O*(
Cantswed Oa West Amtwest
W P-38 Revision 1 Page 14 ATDCEMENT B Attachment B Page 1 of 2 VDOOR MANUhL REVIDi CRITERIA he following are reconnended as items to be checked or action to be taken when determining vendor manual acceptability.
l General - Review technical information and instructions to verify compatibility with actual hardware and interfacing plant parameters.
j his shouM be based on Q00 data, procedures, drawings, specifications, FSAR, etc. Also review vendor manuals to determine if information is current relative to existing hardware.
l 1.
Installation Instructions - All installation details required to prepare equipnent for plant operation should be pcw3ded.
{
l 2.
Operating Instruction - Se information provide 5 should include the following (if gprogriate):
A.
Conplete starting instructions for equipment furnisha$,
noting the sterby-step procedure to be followed for starting the equipment.
B.
Couplete operating instructions for all equipnent furnishe5 including precautions and critical points to be observed.
Possible operation difficulties with the pr6able causes listed and remedial action to be taken under each one may be included.
C.
Operating paranaters for current voltage, temperature, pressure flow, etc., giving the reading for normal operation (including ranges) ard also set points for instrument alarms.
D.
Couplete shutdown instructions for equipment furnishe5, noting the stepby-step procedure to be followed for shutting down the equipment. Precautions and critical points to be cheerved should be noted and emphasized.
3.
Troubleshooting Guidelines - Possible equipnent malfunctions, probable cause, nethod of detection and corrective action should be provided.
4/5. Maintenarre Instructions - Yhose procedures / steps require 5 to disassemble and assenble the equipnent and its ocuponents should be provided. Se instructions should include settings, clearance, and adjustnent data tabulate 5 for all equipment covering instnment settings for operation, alarm, an5 shatdown, lubrication requirements and operating clearances for equipnent, and adjustments required for proper operation. Also included should be a list of special tools required to operate or maintain the ogsipment.
l IOP-38 i
Revision 1 Page 15 l
ATDCfMEIR B l
Attachnent B Page 2 of 2 i
6.
Equipment Technical Specifications - Data including application data should be included. Information on horsepower, clearances, tolerances, kilowatts, voltage, anperage, pressure, temperature, I
flow, leM, cooling or heating requirements, etc. should be provided. Se operating characteristics and requirenants of the equipment should match the application requirements in the plant.
I 7.
Characteristics curves for all equipment where called for in the equipient specifications or normally furnished for the particular equipment, such as power consumption, head capacity, horsepower, efficiency, etc.
4 IV9. Spare Parts /Reconnended Spare Parts - his type of information is normally associated with an exploded view drawing but should
-include venSor part nunbers and reordering requirements.
10.
Periodic Testing and Preventive Maintenance - Tests, inspections, an5 parts renewal to be perforned after various periods of operation should be included. S e frequency of
(
performance should be indicated.
11.
Fabrication - Any lubrication requirements including specific manufacturer, grade, and type of oil (s).
~~
12.
Storage Requirements - Raccnnended storage conditions for the supplied equipment. Any special precautions that nee 5 to be taken shall be listed. Rese reccamendations will address storage of incoming equipment as well as long idle periods after the equipnent has been in operation for some time.
13.
Generic Information - A designation normally used when a ven5or.
catalog is the only vendor documentation available as a manual for a r.xmponent.
14.
Ven5or contact Initiata5 - he reviewer's initials are entera5 here when the review criteria are insufficient.
15.
Drawings - Drawings referenced in the misnual should be included as a part of the annual. Werever applicable, these should include the outline, cross-sectional, assenbly, piping, an5 electrical elementary and connection diagrans.
[
10P-38 Revision 1 Page 16 l
ATDOMENT C l
VDOOR MANUAL REVIEW SHE2.T l
(Pg 3 of W Package) l l
W ndor Manual No.
Rev. No.
Reviewed by:
Date Source (s) used to ves.fy that AINS MIL MVL W matches listed PIS No.(s)
CEDO Field Wrified _
Drawing No.
Other (List)
W Applies to RTS Cong.
Applicable criteria Acceptable
- 1. Installation Instructions
- 2. Operating Instructions
)
~
.g 3. Troubleshooting Instructions
,, y 4. Maintenance Instructions
- 5. Assenbly and Disassembly g
Instructions
- 6. Technical Specifications (exanples clearances,
(
tolerances) h y7. Performance Information,
- 8. Spare Parts
- 9. Recennended *0N BhtO' 7
Spare Parts Lis~ ting
- 10. Preventive Maintenance Instructions
- 11. Imbrication y.
- 12. Storage Requirements f 13. Generic Information VE2OOR CONDCT:
Date Vendor Phone No. Called Person Contacted Manufacturer Model d
Information Re<per.ted Disposition l
Signed Date
10P-38 Revision 1 Page 17 s
' ATDCINENT D Attachrent D Page 1 of 2 VDOOR MANUAL COVER SIEET 1.
VDOOR MANUAL f_,
REVISION 2.
VDOOR MANUAL TI'Mr Manufacturer / Vendor Model/ Type /Serien Description 3.
Reviewed by:
Dates Checked by:
Dater 4.
Approved by:
Date:
Engineer l
5.
Approved by:
Date:
Imad Engineer / Supervisor IEE:
Engineering approval inplies that the manual meets the a5equacy an5 applicability criteria established in NE 2.5.10.
'Ihis signature does not imply that all the details of the i
manual are accurate. A detailed review of a verdor manual or i
part of a verdor manual may be initiated via a PDC in l
accordance with PCM 12.000.11.
g vendor Manuals should not be used in the place of approved procedures or work implementation docunents. Drawings contained in verdor Manuals are for information only ard are not verified to be accurate. Part Nos. should be confirmed with the verdor before placing order.
P AR4S - INPOTEATION SYSTEMS (See AIMS / CECO Update Sheet) 6.
IUC_ 'IMRE DSN_VM Rev Date PIS PIS File 1800 Recipient
IDP-38 Revision 1 Page 18 ATDCIMENT D
)
Attachment D i
Page 2 c,f 2 I
VD00R MMRAL COVER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS i
Caplete the cover sheet as follows:
1.
Fill in ver:5or manual nunber (see section 4.1.3) 2.
Ca plete vendor manual title information as indicated on form.
'Ihe last word in the egipment description should be the couponent name (in CICO the term is ' NOUN" vice nane)
Exanple: Manufacturer /Verdor: ITT Hamel Dahl Model:
Model 502 ppt 62CA29
==
Description:==
Urbalanced Case Trim Valve l
3.
Sign and dates Reviewer (VMG)
Checker (VIG) 4.
Sign and date:
/
If E approves the W - System Ergineer, E signs & dates If E delegates final approval - Discipline Engineer sings & dates b
5.
Sign and date:
If E approves the W - VM3 Iea5 signs and dates If E delegates final approval - Ima5 Discipline Engineer signs &
dates 6.
AINS - Information Systems section is couplete5 by the Cheker, except for blocks named "Date", 'PIS' ar 5 'Racipient".
l l
10P-38 Revision 1 Page 19 ATDCINENT E S&W \\ DOOR MMRAL REVIm SEEET Verdor Name Document Title Verdor Document No.
Rev.
Document PIS No.
Equip. ID Code Procurement Doc. Refereg N/A Responsible Engineer I4 cation Required Return Date Date to Reviewer (s)
Reviewer Namp fe ation Reviewer Strio 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments:
Recomerded Disposition (Check only one):
6::epted Accepta3 as Noted - Return for Corra:: tion & Resubmittal.
Not Accepted - Return for Correction and Resubmittal tbtes:
(1) Each reviewer must specify his coments in the "Ccreents" section of this form.
(2) Comnent copies /forns to be returned to the Nuclear Design Records Administrator, Fermi - 2 Job Site, TAC-180.
B&W siensture Eleck (Verdor Manuals Only):
Responsible Engineer Date Lea 5 Discipline Engineer Date_.
l Plant Prccaduras Coordination NEW OR REVISED VENDOR MANUAL REVIEW FOR IMPACT ON PROCfDURES
[]
Part A: New Vendor Manual 1.
Determine the impact, if any, on existing procedures. Describe below.
t I
2.
Determine the need for new procedure.
j
[ ] None needed.
[] Procedure needed. SME will be 3.
Determination by Date
[]
Part B: Revised Vendor Manual r
i POMI Cross Reference data search results:
1.
Determine the impact, if any, on existing procedures.
[ ] No impact.
is
[ ] Impact. List the affected procedures below and attach a marked up copy.
2.
Determination by Date
~
PPC Use Only Date received Writer assigred 040687
Plint Pracsduros Cscrdin:tinn A
ACTION ASSIGNMENT CHEET TO:
Date FROM:
DOCUMENT:
t.evision PCR F L ACTION REQUESTED DATE DUE
[ 11.
Initiate PCR.
[]
Change requested by
- markup attached.
[]
Cancellation or supersedure needed
[]
Minor changes due to periodic review
[]
Major changes due to periodic review
[]
Major change, limited review sufficient
[]
Major change, full review required; approval due
)
[ ]2.
Perform licensing commitment review.
[ ]3.
Perform preliminary safety evaluation.
[ ]4.
Anst.ver surveillance progam impact question.
[ ]5.
Perform administrative review, i
[ ]6.
Perform technical review.
[ ]7.
Perform technical review required after final-typing.
[ ]8.
Send for general review.
[ ]9.
Resolve comments from:
[]
Admin review
[]
Technical review
[]
General review
[]
Unsolicited review
[ ]10.
Mark up procedure to incorporate comments.
I
[ ]11.
Obtain approval or approve.
[ ]12.
Add [ ] revision bars or [ ] graphics.
[ ]13.
Update tracking data base or POMI as follows:
i
[]14.
Evaluate the impact of the attached new or revised vendor manual and complete the attached review form.
[ ]15.
Other:
RESPONSE
Action completed by, Date 4
Comments 040687 j
WG11 FERMI 2 WRITERS GUIDE Revision 0 Administrative Format Review Checklist l
/~>
I Approved by C A Ba[r DRAFT 01-09-87 Date Approved by S K Ennb Date is a generic Administrative Format Review Checklist. The checklist is tool used by writers to conduct the administrative format review of procedures. The l
questions on the checklist are designed to ensure that the procedure being reviewed is formatted correctly, dramatically correct, and written clearly and with human factors l
incorporated.
Unique administrative format review checklists are also attached.
Completed checklists are considered records and are retained in procedure working files.
[OR SHOULD THERE BE ONLY ONE ADMIN FORMAT CHECKLIST FOR ALL?]
I l
l Attachments 1
Generic Administrative Format Review Checklist (010987) 2 a
3 a
4 a
5 n
6 a
. ARMS - INFORMATION SYSTEMS DTC TPHAND DSN Rev 0
Date PiS PlS File 1721 Recipient
?
l WG11 1, Page 1 l
010987 draft b GENERIC ADMINISTRATIVE FORMAT REVIEW CHECKLIST Document Number:
Revision PCR Number Change Type:
[ ] Major Review Type:
[] Full l
[ ] Temporary
[ ] Limited Author:
Reviewer:
(print)
(sign /date)
Reviewer: Answer each question by checking the Yes, No, or N/A column. Check the Remarks column if any comments are necessary; write comments in the Remarks section and refer back to the checklist question. For temporary or major limited changes, review only changed portions unless section numbers are changed; if section numbers are changed, review the entire procedure to determine impact. Slgn and date above when complete.
Author: incorporate or resolve comments with reviewer.
Yes No N/A Remarks 1.
COVER SHEET / NUMBERING a.
Title is definitive.
c.
Pages are identified with document number,
]
b.
Revision summary is clear.
revision or date, and page number.
l_
d.
Titles on Table of Contents match text.
l[
e.
Section numbers run sequentially.
[
[
l f.
Step numbers on attachments / enclosures agree with text.
g.
Attachments / enclosures are legible.
[
]
]
2.
FORMAT a.
Format complies with current guidelines.
b.
Notes / Cautions are correctly formatted.
c.
Charts / tables / checklists contain adequate
[
]
]
]
room for entering data, d.
Referenced documents are referred to by document number, not reference section number.
L L
L l
]
e.
"Use" references are cited in text AND "use" references cited in text are listed in the l
"use" reference section.
~
"'~
f.
Revision bars indicate what is new.
I g.
- END OF TEXT" and "END" used correctly.
3.
STATUS l
s.
Outstanding changes agalnst this procedure I
have been incorporated or cancelled.
L L
L l_
i List changes l
b.
- Leters" eliminated, if possible.
L l_
L L
l c.
Titles and numbers of references are correct.
L L
L L
l 1
l
WG11, Pago 2 010987 draft b GENERIC ADMINISTRATIVE FORMAT REVIEW CHECKLIST (CONTINUED)
Yes No N/A' Remarks 4.
MECHANICS a.
Non-standard acronyms are spelled out at first use.
l_
L
[_
l_
b.
Acronyms, abbreviations, and symbols are used consistently.
c.
Spelling is correct and consistent.
d.
Capitalization is correct and consistent.
e.
Punctuation is correct.
f.
Grammar / sentence structure are correct.
5.
STYLE a.
Instructional steps are short and concise, and limited to one step (unless actions are related l_
and can be done at the same time).
l_
b.
Action verbs are simple and precise.
c.
Sound-alike verbs not used (for example increase and decrease).
l l
l_
l_,
d.
Three or more objects are listed rather than embedded in a sentence.
l_
l_
L l_
e.
"Shall," *should," and *may* are used properly (for example, *will* used only to indicate future equipment action or response).
L l_
f.
Concrete, specific words are used.
l l_
g.
Neutral language is used.
E_
L 6.
DOCUMENTATION a.
All steps which require the performer to record data direct the performer to where the data is to be recorded.
l_
l_,
(_
l_
b.
The disposition of records generated by the procedure is described or contained in a generic procedure elsewhere.
l_
l_,
l_
l_
c.
Attachments which will be retained as records contain a Nuc Ops File Manual nurnber.
l_
l_
l_
l_
7.
REMARKS Checklist Section i Remarks I-l 1
,A I
I I
I I
WG12 FERMI 2 WRITERS GUIDE Revision 0 Generic Technical Review Checklist Approved by CABak(
FT 01-09-87 Date l
Approved by S K Ennis Date l
l is a generic Technical Review Checklist. The checklist is tool used by writers to conduct the technical review of procedures. The questions on the checklist are designed to ensure that the procedure being reviewed is technically correct, meets requirements and commitments, contains the appropriate sevel of detall, and incorporates l
human factors considerations.
1 Unique technical review checklists are also attached.
l Completed checklists are considered records and are retained in procedure working files.
I l
l l
l l
1 Attachments 1
Generic Technical Review Checklist (010987) 2 xx 3
xx 4
xx 5
xx 6
xx ARMS - INFORMATION SYSTEMS DTC TPHAND DSN Rev 0 Date PlS
- PIS, File 1721 Recipient 9
L____-._
m[~p
- MS 'qjp
//x /
,JlSi IMAGE EVALUATION r
s.
DS.
p TEST TARGET (MT-3)
%a
.^', ;f gg$
\\%
jf j////
/
e s+
%;+
' l.0
' a 15
~
\\
l 1.1 ll43 l.8 l.25 l_4 1.6 150mm
+/>
/ sb
+3s/pN y)a,,//
,m y,
y
l A
4 dia (O
.:c :,u
- r..
v.
s, IMAGE EVALUATION ea
- h*
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/
4
,[,j[ #e,
\\//
I m ll.
\\l\\N l.l bN 4
ll==l.8
=
i25 gg
- j i.6 150mm 4
6" b%
sA*
R
%///
+ +////m%g
,,*: :,y/
.,e 4 p - [ ;;;
o O
q y
g'pq) g o
i)#'
IMAGE EVALUATION i
~[#[/
[%
e, t
k,/g/ '.
t$/
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
,6 f,1 Y &,
pp j/,jj/
eg(g;
=
+
l.0
- .: M
- T r l" W
{ O lllll1e I.l ll2 i 25 l
i.4 i.6 4
150mm 6"
$ %//
/
%Ag
.g s ~'//o
,;e, s,
m
'S'hh'"
O 4%
4 y
m.
(
4 WG12
", Page 1 010987 dran b GENERIC TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKUST Document Number:
Revision _
PCR Number Change Type:
[ 3 Major Review Type:
[ ] Full
[ ] Temporary
[ ]Limiteo Reviewer:
Author:
(print)
(sign /date)
)
Answer each question by checking the Yes, No, or N/A column. Check the Remarks column Reviewer:
if any comments are necessary; write comments in the Remarks section and refer back to the checklist question. For temporary or major limited changes, review only changed portions unless section numbers are changed; if section numbers are changed, review the entire procedure to determine impact. Sign and date above when complete.
Author: Incorporate or resolve comments with reviewer.
Yes No N/A Remarks l
7 F 0RPOSE/ SCOPE 1.
The purpose describes the overall purpose of a.
the procedure and is clearly stated.
l_
l_
l_
l_
b.
Technical Specifications sections implemented by the procedure are identified.
l_
l_
l_
l_
Applicability to personnel or equipment c.
is defined.
l-l~
~
d.
Any use restrictions are stated.
l_
[
l Required Personnel training or certification e.
is stated.
l_
l_
L l_
2.
FORMAT a.
Document contains required sections.
~
b.
Notes / Cautions do not contain actions.
Component identification is correct and c.
consistent.
3.
OVERALL TECHNICAL ACCUCACY a.
Procedural steps (and accompanying precautions, notes, and cautians) stated so that the desired outcome will occur while precluding undesirable events such as:
- personnel injury
- equipment damage unplanned or uncontrolled events
- Technical Specification violation
- operation of undesired equipment l_
L l_
l_
b.
Completion of the procedure fulfills its purpose and any actions which may be required due to the results of the procedure are clearly and correctly stated.
L L
L L
WG12 Attachm:nt 1, Page 2 0109R7 draft b j
GENERIC TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST (CONTINUED)
Yes No N/A Remarks l
~
~
Independent verification actions specified c.
are in accordance with requirements and they ensure proper post-performance conditions have been established.
L l_
d.
Licensing commitments are addressed.
l 4.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS a.
Cautions that apply to the entire procedure are listed in the Precautions section.
l_
l_
L L
l b.
Step-specific caution statements are placed before the step they affect and are not listed in the Precautions section.
L L
L l_
c.
Precautions or cautions are specified where l
needed regarding the following:
l
- protective clothing l
- high voltage, temperature, or radiation
- proper system isolation and tagging
- required plant status (operating mode)
L l_
L l_
5.
PREREQUISITES a.
Prerequisite working conditions are specified.
l_
l_
L l_
b.
Performance of another procedura is specified L
l_
L when it is a prerequisite.
c.
Required work permits are specified.
~
~
~
~
if Thran nr mnro ablects are llMtad.separgt1lT*y" rather than hiiriari in a caraorsnh- _
L l_
l_
L f
I i
6.
MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, AND PARTS a.
User will be able to locate and identify materials referred to in the document.
l-l-
'l l]
]
[
l b.
Special tools are listed.
l c.
Repair parts are specified.
l d.
Materials, tools, equipment, and parts are listed by name or type, manufacturer, model l
l_
l_
L L
number, range, etc.
l e.
Substitutions are allowed where acc Ttable.
l_
l_
l_
l_
7, ACCEPT ANCE CRITERIA a.
Qualitative acceptance criteria are specific.
l_
l_
L L
b.
Quantitative acceptance criten,a are specified whenever possible.
L l_
l_
l_
t
WG12, Page 3 010987 craft b GENERIC TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) 8.
LEVEL OF DETAll User can perforrn procedure without obtaining l
a.
additional information from persons on l_
l_
L L
documents.
b.
Instructions are adequately detailed f ar the task.
l_
l_
l_
L c.
Increased detailis provided for critical tasks.
l_
l_
l_,
l_
9.
TECHNICAL ACCURACY -- STEP LEVEL Steps that may be performed in any order are a.
so identified.
- l__,
l_
l_
l_
b.
Numerical information (setpoints, allowable l
l l
values, tolerances, etc) or equetions/ formulas are clearly and correctly stated.
L l_
l_
l_
f Refernces are technically appropriate and c.
l_
l_
l_
l_
correct.
d.
Data on graphs and tables is appropriate and l_
L l_
l_
correct.
Equipment location information is u.
l_
l_
L l_
correct.
f.
Instructions are provided for reasonable contingencies.
l_
l_
L L
l g.
Appropriate units of measure are I
specified.
~
~
P' h.
Tolerances are expressed in ranges.
~
~
~~
~~~-
1.
Contamination control techniques are specified.
l_
l_
L L
j.
Appropriate personnel are notified (NSS, etc)
I before actions that effect equipment l
l]
l are performed.
l l
k.
Steps are listed in correct order.
10.
HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS a.
Conditional statements come before the action, and logic words (and, or) are emphasized.
l_
l_
L L
l b.
Space for calculations is provided, and I
graphs and tatiles are provided to help the user.
L l_
L l_
Ranges and setpoints with tolerance bands c.
are specified, and the units are the same as appear on the M&TE or plant instruments.
l_
L L
l_
l d.
Location information is provided for components which have poor access or are infrequently I
used.
l_
L L
L, e.
Referenced procedures and steps are l_
l_
l_
l_
correct.
f.
"Use* references are actually needed.
l-l~~~~
l-l~~
l g.
Referencing and branching instructions are l
corrrectly worded. (Referencing:
- refer to," "in l
accordance with.* Branching: *go tof) l_
l_
L l_,_
WG12 Attachm:nt 1, Page 4 0109P dre.ft b GENERIC TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST (CONTINUED).
_Yes So
^ ~ TA ~~Nimarks i
N h.
Exit conditions are compatible with entry conditions of the referenced or branched I
document.
l_
[,
L l_
i.
Instructions avoid routing the user around l
important information such as cautions.
l_
L L
L l
Ii.
IMPACT ON OTHER PROGRAMS l
a.
The impact on the Surveillance Scheduling l
program has been correctly marked on the j
Procedure Change Request.
l_
L l_
L l
b.
Indicate whether the Fire Protection Progam l
is impacted by this document change. If yes, i
resolve with NP Fire Protection Specialist and have the specialist sign and date here.
L L
L L
12.
ADDITIONAL CROSS-DISCIPLINARY REVIEW REQUIRED a.
Additional reviews are required.
l_
L L
l_
l If yes, the procedure will be sent for review to the established min l mum review distribution unless otherwise specified below:
I i
13.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIRED IF FINAL-TYPED AFTER APPROVAL a.
Technical Reviewer, author, or Supervisor, Plant Procedures Coordination has proofread the procedure after final-typing. Errors found?
L l_
l_
L i
Sign and date here and resubmit for correction.
b.
Other cosmetic errors (format, spelling, or other nontechnical changes were needed.
L l_
L l_
If yes, sign here and indicate changes.
14.
REMARKS Checklist Section l Remarks l
l l
l 1
l l
~
(enntinur on new shert i' noresssrvi
POM 12.000.007 j
Anachment 4, Page 1 of 4 031787 TECHNICAL REVIEW CHECKLIST Proc. No.:
Rev. No.:
PCR No.:
Date:
Major change Full Review Limited Review Temp Change Reviewer:
Preparer:
Signature Print Name 1 A.
ATTRIBUTE: The purpose of the procedure is clearly stated. If the procedure is meant to satisfy specific requirements (Technical Specifications, Surveillance requirements, FSAR analysis, Licensing commitments, etc.), then the specific requirements are clearly and correctly stated (test frequency, OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS for testing, setpoints, tolerances, etc.).
ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND:
)
DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory init.
Inst.
RESOLUTION: (unsat. only) i 18.
The new procedure or procedure change is reviewed to determine the effect on the Surveillance Scheduling Program. The "Yes" or "No" box in the Surveillance Scheduling Program section of the Procedure Change Request or POM Index Update Form for Procedures !s appropriately marked.
E ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND:
I DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory init.
Init.
RESOLUTION: (unsat. only)
POM 12.000.007 Attachm:nt 4, P;ge 2 cf 4 031787 o
2.
ATTRIBUTE: Any prerequisite and equipment requirements for performance of this procedure are clearly stated, complete, and appropriate'in order to accomplish the procedure.
ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND:
l
~
1 DiiTERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory l
Init.
Init.
RESOLUTION: (unsat. only) 1 3.
ATTRIBUTE: The procedural steps and accompanying precautions, notes and caution statements are stateo such to cause the devised outcome to occur and preclude undesirable events such as:
o Perbonal injury o Equipment Damage o Unplanned or Uncontrolled Events o Technical Specification Violation o Operation of Undesired Equipment ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND:
l l
DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory init.
Init.
RESOLUTION: (unsat. only) 1 j
l POM 12.000.007
., Pag 3 3 cf 4 031787 4.
ATTRIBUTE: Any numerical information (setpoints, allowable values, tolerances, etc.) or equations / formulas are clearly and correctly stated.
ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND-I l
l DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l
Unsatisfactory init.
nit.
RESOLUTION: (unsat, only) 5.
ATTRIBUTE: Completion of the procedure fulfills the procedure's purpose and any necessary actions which may be required due to the results of the procedure are clearly and correctly stated. Vendor Manuals referenced are adequately addressed and that for QA Level I equipment, only approved vendor manuals are referenced.
ACTION TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITION FOUND:
b l
DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory nit.
Init.
RESOLUTION: (unsat, only)
)
l l
l l
l
POM 12.000.007, Page 4 of 4 031787 6.
ATTRIBUTE: Independent Verification actions specified (if any) are in compliance with requirements and provide assurance that proper post-performance conditions have been established.
ACTIONS TAKEN TO VERIFY AND CONDITIONS FOUND:
DETERMINATION:
l l Satisfactory l l Unsatisfactory init.
Init.
i RESOLUTION: (unsat. only) l,
1 1 7.
ATTRIBUTE: This procedure impacts the fire protection program.
Yes No l
If Yes, contact the Nuclear Fire Protection Specialist for resolution.
1 RESOLUTION:
/
NFPS Signature
/Date 8.A.
ATTRIBUTE: This section is applicable if the procedure is final-typed after approval. All changes are incorporated after final typing by Word Processing. Any errors found have been corrected.
1 I
Proofread By Date Satisfactory 8.B.
Were any other " cosmetic errors," such as format, spelling or other non-technical type errors, found during final proofreading? If so, attach a copy of the marked up pages and sign below to authorize the changes.
(
Technical Reviewer or l
Supv., Plant Proc. Coord.
Date END i
I 1
I i
l
.1
APPENDIX A EntranceMeetingAttendees.(4/20/87)
NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION Drew Persinko Maintenance Engineer -
Fermi Team Leader NRC/NRR Jim Isom Reactor Operations Engineer NRC/NRR Tomy Le Maintenance Engineer NRC/NRR l
Al Walker Reactor Inspector NRC/RII Steven Reynolds Reactor Inspector NRC/RIII Carl Johnson Sr. Reactor Engineer NRR/RES Ann Ramey-Smith Human Factors Specialist NRC/NRR Mike Parker Resident Inspector NRC John Hughes Senior Engineer DEC0/Maint.
John Malaric Gen. Suptr. Modifications DEC0/Maint.
l I
Frank Sonderoth Licensing DECO Bob Szkotnicki Principal Engineer DEC0/Maint.
Jerry Bragg.
Maint./ Mod. QA Inspections DEC0/Maint.
Jim Kepus Licensing DECO Steve Frost Licensing DECO I
Bill Tucker Superintendent Operations DEC0/ ops.
l 1
l 1
_____-_ _ _____-_ A
i i
APPENDIX B Exit Meeting Attendees (4/24/87)
NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION i
Drew Persinko Maintenance Engineer -
Fermi Team Leader NRC/NRR Jim Isom Reactor' Operational Engineer NRC/NRR l
Tommy Le Maintenance Engineer NRC/NRR Al Walker Reactor Inspector-iiRC/RII Steven Reynolds Reactor Inspector NRC/RIII Carl Johnson Sr. Reactor Engineer NRR/RES
(
Ann Ramey-Smith Human Factors Specialist NRC/NRR l
l Mike Parker Resident Inspector NRC John Stefano Project Manager DEC0 Frank Sonderoth Licensing DECO Bob Szkotnicki Principal Engineer
-DECO L. Lawrence Maint. Advisor DEC0 R. McLeed Nuclear Training DECO Steve Frost Licensing DECO James Rotondo Supervisor DECO Ed Juarez Senior Planner DECO C. J. Cassise Maint. Gen. Foreman DECO B. E. Wickman Supv. Maint. and Mods. QA.
DECO Bill Tucker Superintendent Operations DEC0 John Hughes Senior Engineer DEC0 John Malaric Gen. Supv. Modifications DEC0 l
Frank Agosti Vice President - Nuclear Operations DECO 1
J APPENDIX C
. Plant Staff Interviewed:
Group Vice President-f l
Planning and Scheduling Superviosr:
\\
Operations Superintendent (Acting plant manager during the team i
visit)
Maintenance and Modification Quality Assurance Supervisor Principal Engineer /0utage Principal Engineer PM l
Senior Planner Planning Services Supervisor Shift Supervisors Maintenance Senior Engineer General Supervisor of Modifications Maintenance General Foreman Personnel in Maintenance Support responsible for preventive
{
maintenance
\\
~
Foreman in all crafts Craftsmen in all crafts l
HPES Coordinator Senior Nuclear Training Specialist a
Warehouse personnel Personnel in Planning and Scheduling
1 a
o f
APPENDIX D 30-DP& SOEDCLE - PROCESS DESCRIPTION A.
Prior to Enterina the 30-Day Sche 3ule (WC/M1C) The CWC and the M1C review all Work Requests to determine what jobs are apsvgiate for the 30-Day Schedule. h is involves a review of work package preparation requirements ard the plant conditions, manpoaer, parts, naterials etc, required to work each job. If plant conditions and resources allow workability of the jcb within 30 days, the Planning and Fcheduling Group is notified. If conditions do not allow workability of the jcb within 30 days the Work Requests are filed (through Work Recuest Tracking) in the central backlog for future consideration.
B.
Week 5 (Buildina Week)
(PLID) The Planners / Schedulers review all Work Requests that have been detentined by the CWC and M1C to be avsvgiate for the 30-Day Schedule.
They then load the work into the appropriate week of the schedule.
(E Order and Priority 1 Work Requests are loaded onto the 48 Hour Schcdule with advance notice to tie affected work groups)
(M1C) Through the Work Request Tracking System, the M7C forwards all rejor Work Requests to the Supervisor Maintenance Suppw.t for package preparation.
The Supervisor Maintenance Support notifics the M1C of individual Maintenance Support 'Ibchnician (MST) assignment within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Work i
Requests not requiring package preparation (i.e. inspection, tnuble shootirry,, minor rework) are forwarded, through Work Request Tra: king, to the appn vinte General Maintenance Forerran.
C.
Week 4 (PLIU) The Planners / Schedulers begin preparation of detailed work i
schedules.
(MST) The MST begin work package preparation for the major work on the 30-Day Schalule. %e MST maintains work request tracking responsibility throughout the preparation of the packages.
R
.~
30-DAY SCHEDULE - PROCESS IESCRIPZ' ION Page 2 I
D.
Week 3 (MST) Through Work Request Trackincl, ca. rdr cutrite ccrpleted packages to the INC.
(M1C) The MfC reviews the packages for ccrpleteness. He then routes the' to the apsusiate kerk groups, through Work Request Tra:: king, for their review and input.
I (WG) The work groups walk down/re/iew the verk packages. If a work group j
identifies restraints or determines that the work cannot be performed as I
scheduled, this information is recortied on the work package ard returne3 to 1
the M1C.
)
(!MC) Through Ucrk Request Tracking the M4C returns the unacocptable packages to the IST for revision and notifies the Planning Group.
(The I m l
l tray request the work group to prepare a plen to reicve restraints or justify the duration)
(t m ) If the work package revision rcquested by the work group will delay I
the scheduled start time of the work, change the ranpower estirate or the craf t assignment, the im notifies the Planning ard Schcduling Group.
(PLIC) The Planners /Scha ulers adjust the 30-Day Schedule to acccrrodate l
the package revision or they will remcve the work fra:: the scha3ule, notify the Im end M1C, then file it, through the Tracking System, in the central backlog.
l (MST/PLIG) The MST and the Planners review the work packages ard identify those ready to work. Inccrplete packages are assigned an expected " ready to work" date.
E.
Week 2 (PLIG) The Planning and Scha3uling Group reviews the detailed work i
schedules with the General Maintenance Foraran and rakes adjustments as necessary. A daily schedule is generate 3 in preparation to roll onto weeR l
]
1.
F.
Week 1 i
(PLIG) The Planners /Scheulers review all work packages in Weck 1 of the 1
30-Day Schedule and determine what can be rolled onto the KD (7 Day Schedule). Adjustments (i.e. scheduled day changes or replacement itens)
I are made as necessary.
i I
I I
we
E I
i i
il i
i
)
1 i
l APPENDIX E MISCELLANEOUS FORMS a
o
I i
l Maintenance Superintendent i
I i
I I
Electrical l&C l
Mechanical l
i FIG. 2 SIMPLIFIED MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART i
1 Maintenance j
l Superintendent i
I I
I I
Gen. Supervisor Gen. Forman Gen. Supervisor Supervisor I&C Maintenance Modifications Maintenance Support I
I I
I I
I Maintenance Asst. Gen.
Asst. Gen.
Engineer I&C Foreman Foreman I&C Foreman Maintenance Shops I
1 I
I J Asst.1 & C Electrical Mechanical Foremen Foremen Foremen FIG. 3 ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF KEY MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL c__-_-_-______-__-___-_
S C
NR TI SO
.IE NN URRAL II BPSMC AM MD 41118 A
IIi illl Il IlI llIIlI Il V
D P
f EN U
0 SSE Il S
Y0&
KHM VS_
NLU T2RWE SPC 2
S PL ETSTA01 &R UT GA PM0C W
SAi MSS C
L ii M
T L
D LOT I
N SCTTLETON EC SUALETATO GU ANMPWNM C
N 6
1 181 419 ll Iilllllll1l IIllIllll ll F
S L
_T F
TTT E
N A
RRRT N
IT T
AOOP N
AR S
PPPS O
MO PP S
I I Pl T
SEUUE R
VP R
DRSST I
E PU OsRA S
P US P MPPTHA S
UPNSCCW EED E
C Il I i l I S - - - LMA E
R N
T 0
3 A
NS 1
613 N
ED E
DO Ill!lliIl T
NM N
E I
T&
A N
iI l Ill Ill eI M
I T RN S
F EI E
N O
PA R
M UM TU R
N S
RD F
Il W
OE O
RPCNT i(l I D
C GPOMS K
V&
NURRSs A
PI ESPFAA E
U R
ii R
Sf CCCCCI I 1 B
N E&&&&N NI IIIII EA 6
4 GM 157163 E
ll IlIilllI RU G
I Ill llllIlilll F
S N
P DS M
Os SSCLR R
HJ eRPEEE ll FN SMJEOPI N N
MN GMRHSFA A
NRMTNGES
- E M
EFRL Nv BBL GN E
C FPT osAAC NA RT T
CHcJLL IN
- ONil TCHNECEM T
TE 1l FI SECMLEPGTTL AT A
SLEREMINEEP EN NM AEMF P
MM HI E
09 5
1 G
33622341142
&M il IilllllllllI!
GL NA I R 1Il l II lIll lIlI I BET MN N
F C
UE M
T F
D E
LGI R
PS A
LSP P
F UT T
ERS T
SP S
IG EA NN P
U GFND OE il MENUNLS LN EL RL V
RCESAE TEIG E
NC P
F M
MTDFrNNEW OU U
TEHSHLANIET MN SS NSR&SCERCA EC D
ESOPUEICERRIU
NO1i GAFMSBF BTSFN lI EM 0
BJA G _
1131213527131
&M l)_
)l) l l
n o n i
cmd t a ).
s 6
a St sMs t
fie o Sf r
e)
Nhi ePug d c(M ir S
nf qi oF n
n oek M
r a g c nka l
Pirr P
ot l
r u odws U
n u
O Ca1 5
e t
i St n hM a C
R m
A m
)
)
Sif t
e cC s d
)
e S
C e
G
&e&
Nh Wi Cl h S(d r
r S
b g n
oI I
u N
F(
Wro u a
M q
_ O po e
O P
r)
(
r I
MhQ r
T
(
U t
k M
r CsE or A
e O
o t,
A R
t sC a w t o c
C nn) f e
ae.
4 a o I
uQ n
F f
oq, d o nmh R
G S t Si A
nn i
I c
f e
G S
Nh idierg n
D ee r
t r
ioM t
oo O
n A
N S
r a
M M
aF(
o u k (e oi O
r t
I ol T
gC vwp r
C a D
aos u
I t
e u
l 1
kl f
a L
A k yso r v e
r er oe E
c A
R r
P St Wioy Wd o at g N
n u C
nn)
E 3
a a.
e N
nmtc r
Sf 8
mr a eil O
O Nh si;s c
i a
A e ee t
S netys t
r l I
l n e N
io(
n E
T T
_ opr c ad ri e E
aF C
N o e n s i
T M
t N
A si a
r n e m N
mp L
r t
r U
P er I
od no
)
A F
pf n if h
a r M (P M
rc t
2 Oera e
Coe L
St P
O Sf 8
T
& pT i
(
pC Nh N
u R
S I
A Se T
L N
I P
(
O e
C c
nt 1
r)
K St 8
n oT a
R Sif e pS p
Nh nuM t
O S
iS(
a W
M ll 1I P
r r
5 E
R U
e p
se n
u ec v
G i
oO n
o t
t s
a i
r a
ct n
t o
I F
es rR in a
rek GS de c
ih s v f
n e
r rt o u r
i at ei mn gt cq o gh on f
e w int oi i
n a
er c
d o a p
k uw
,m o
emk e
h f
l i v
v c
s t
o M
ith a e d
e e e r
u f o r
e c zhe nc pp t
el o o wa hpn r
it n iso ea r
t t
v e kd t
r G se coa ed e
ne r
s ol e
r e o oc Sen ac s
iu e c
pu w n
s mn
& p e )e r
d e
e pdb n
s sv a a
t n
z sn sn c
,e sho a
e e ein o ee ir gein ect n
s c r t
i t t o
e ct a ian h nd ae o n a t
r insk e
e n umi fdo r
t p pa pri i
Pcm t ia u
n t
e en nu on r
er a e inmA n cdp Daw io Pt l
ro r e I
p annx a
r O #
e lP( ae e MG o e
i 1
2 3
W s
E I
V R
E g
V a.
c, g
t zo g
r m
O c,,
g a
)
m g
z-e,.
9 g
m,
g S
nm
(.
y c
5 S
sn
- 0. r E
e 1
g 0
C 7
04 6
- 0. e 6 O
c8 g
2a2 E
R s,.,,
g 7
g 9e0 R
g 8
U P
W
,1 g
t_m 8
1 g
G g
g T
I F
S 3+.
43'-
E U
.s c
Q c,y E
,m n **
e
,ym R
,g o
m"
,pi m**8
,ys 4
,g K
0 8
R 1
s.
_ _, i. I 1. i !
O W
e F, _,
,i i $ i A_
l
,8 a8 e
sa nin s
P a t_
o.w i
s N_____I u
tc.
s n
M a
t eso e
sn s
r ae u
a s
E4_
,43 I
'U _
9L u%
=
t
'g _
t.. -
ms
=
t.
a.
y g
es a
o.
v r
_ e _
w u
d >=
r,,,_
v a,_
t n
a a,
c.
f, g
'l
,g m-pg es ne 7
s 5,
8
\\,
8 l
8
/
3 t
. set sse s" _
8 1_
u0 t
4 t 4 et s
u 0
0 rt e
UW uU Mi
,i_
UW Ia s9 a
r 1
e o"_
EM s t O
uO s
n g"
e
.SS S
8 n_
S
(
n, _
o i
f 3
,_s c
S
. e __
t "O =
7v u
n
=
._s a
e u '*
t s
n e
v-i e
i
=
=
t i_
n l
m a 8'
- r r
a n
.t e
e m
. e e
a_
T o_
.s N s
4,,_ M eW _
tW F+I e
s 4ig 4g i l
.