ML20059M862

Intervenor Exhibit I-MFP-35,consisting of Rept, Self- Evaluation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Dtd Jul 1993

ML20059M862
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	08/24/1993
From:	PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
References
OLA-2-I-MFP-035, OLA-2-I-MFP-35, NUDOCS 9311190392
Download: ML20059M862 (13)

Text

- - _ __ _ _ --

i 0-2 5l323- OL/)-2 1%FP- 3 5 y y f., $ , e.au

~,

non n u m u n m . m , M;.y- 1 l e, 9-gliska .,opf'F0- W l .. ?.MLELesAEa1vLEL S c m c.2=

.o3 gr g3 95 g l . __

nmn /_

I j ,. / ...an i kWGihHk. .. Mbn , j:Pdyr.. ...

I ~f n c~ %l

.. .h- ..

~

? ttu * ,Y'y

i. 7; )

'YLd f.fL.} f  % fj pC J ;!j 'x N is

, m4.. m.,-

Self-Evaluation of l l

Diablo Canyon Power Plant l

i i

July 1993 l

RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTibN .

The persons and organizations that are furnished copies of this report should not deliver or transfer this report to any third person, or make this report or its contents public.

P ACIFIC GAS AND El FCTRIC COMPANY 9311190392 930824 g _

J

{DR ADOCK 050002 5 j f 1 p

b

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report .5 m MAINTENANCE (MA) 1 7

PERFORMANCE ORIECTIVE

Plant supervision to ensure effective implementation and contml of plant activities. Managers

} and supervisors routinely observe maintenance activities to identify and correct pmblems and to __

ensure adherence to station policies and procedures. His includes adminictrative controls that are -

{ effectively implemented in the conduct of maintaamaca activities. Pre and post-job briefings are

effectively used.

FINDING:

(MA.1-1) _me supervisors are not perfonning to managanent expectations. ne .

following areas of responsibility were noted to be indications of deficient or

. ineffective supervision.

1. De volume of fmdings, during the observation period, of personnel safety violations is an -

indicator supervisors are not "in the field" involved in the maintenance. (Reference -

finding OA.5-1)

2. Supervisors are not looking at housekeeping, storage of materials, and general cleanliness of the plant. (Reference finding MA.2-1)

3. Contaminatinn control practices are still not in compliance with station polices. Workers are not being held accountable in this area. (Reference fmding RP.8-1)-

4. During work on a pump the procedure and the vendor manual were in conflict. De -

foreman indicated that a vendor manual should take yss+:e over a produre and the I

work continued. '

5. Some supervisors are not getting out in the plant and looking to see how work is being conducted. During the three-week observation period the team noted very little supervisor presence in the field. Of the approximately fifty maintanance observations, over 75 % -

have no mention of forernan involvement in the field. In most cases the foreman was only seen at the job site if he was called by the workers. Almost no upper management pereem.cl were noted "out in the field" Related items found during observations were procedure and/or station policy non-compliance in areas of work daannantatian, .

procedural adherence. (Reference finding MA.6-1) .

6. When supervisors are in the field, they do' not always lead by example, and they do not always correct safety. violations when they see them.

a. A foreman and two engineers 'did not take steps to keep a' worker safe when it was brought to their attention the worter was in violation of station policy regarding .

safe working dia== on or around energized 12kv. equipment. His was during repair work on the cubicle bottle shutter mechanism.

l uma_1-1.foy 97/18/93

r i

l --

' 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report -

s MAINTENANCE (MA) 'I

?

b.

During a hazardous material spill a supervisor that was directing the work, in the I area of the spill, was working in his street clothes with no safety equipment with the fully equipped response team. l

c. ^

During flooring hammering in the hot shop, the area was posted as a hearing protection requimd area. Six workers and one foreman wem in the area. Only i two of the workers had hearing protection. The foreman did not take any steps to comply with or enforce the postings.

{

I

d. During work on the main feed pump a worker was riot wearing his hard hat. One foreman and two engineers were present and did not correct the unsafe work practice.

i

c. It was noted that supervisors are sending their crews to quarterly seminars but are i not regularly attending the claesae themselves._ This does not set a good example _

J and is required training for all maintenance supervisor training (MST) graduates.

7. -j Most tailboards are not being conducted in a detailed manner. They are insufficient and '

inconsistent both within and between departments.

J

a. The maintenance crew foremen are not meeting the "WANO" commitment I regarding review of safety items in tailboanis. 1 1

b. During the observation period over thirty items were noted to be deficient with the crew morning tailboards. The tailboards were inconsistent in all departments.

(Reference the finding on tailboards OA.3-1.)  !

t c.

Some maintenance tailboanis are not covering work in enough detail to reduce confusion in the field, insure the safgy of the workers, and give the foreman a "

ogood feeling that he knows what his people are about to do. This was especially '

evident while observing routine preventative maintenance. (Reference finding MA.3-1 for wort delays and inefficiencies.)

d. i Some supervisors are not communicating priorities of the work to be performed during tailboards. In a few cases it was noted that the foreman did not {

i communicate the priority of tech. spec. action maintariance or the~ maintenance verification test run. In one case the foreman did not inform the crew they were '

working a job in a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> tech. spec. action RECOMMENDATIONS:

Enable supervisors to meet management's expectations of excallaa~. ,

4 ma_1-1. fop 87/18/93 Page2

• , - --- ., , ,.-n,e., , ., .u- . . . e.,+-v..s- s, y,,,, 3 g A y y-- i y-w .-m-m 9mi

f 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report .

l

! MAINTENANCE (MA)

. t-i PERFORMANCE ORIECTIVE:

i l Facilities and equipment effectively support perfonnance of maintenance activities. Work

{  ;

j areas are maintained in a clean and onierly condition. The materiel condition of the plant j supports safe and reliable operation. _ .

t

- "1,

FINDING 1 i (MA.2-1) Deficient housekeeping practices and ineffective implementation of the - I j housekeeping program have neulted in numerous observed conditions of' degraded material condition and homenkaaping discrepancies.

i

{ l.

During a walk down of the plant, the self-evaluation team identified 159 housekeepi

, and 210 material condition discrepancies. Examples of these discrepancies include; 4

j a.

Tools, rags and cigarette butts on floors in both the Ibrbine and Auxiliary buildings.

b.

l A cart with air monitoring equipment was left unsecured sin the unit 1 ' afety <

injection pump room.

1 l

c.  !

! UnlahalM and inadequately labeled containers in work areas and storage lockers in the plant.

l

{

a d.

! Unsecured and unattended ladders were found lesnmg agamst plant equipme and outside ladder storage areas. Many ladder storage ata: were found -)

j without their posted inventory.

! e. l

There were 25 intrances ofinsulation which was missing, damaged or removed.  !

i f.

There were 20 missing pipe caps from piping vents and drains.

g.  ;

{ - Thert :::re 44 steam, water, or oil leaks in the .mbine building, only 11 of '

which wereitientified by A/R's.

! h.

'Ihere were 31 instances of rust and corrosion on plant structures and -

components identified, with only 7 A/R's written.

j 2.

! Programs for management of plant housekeeping (AD4.DC2, Plant Housekeep j Areas, and AP C-70, Routine Plant Ta==+ ions by NPG MaseA) have not been 5

effective in maintaining plant clannlinans.

a.

! Housekeeping logs are not being updated weekly IAW the AD4.DC2. In A only 25 % of area owners turned in a copy of their hou%ing log to j housekeeping supervisor. In May there were approximataly 50% of the .

required logs turned in. Similar findings were n===8M in QE Q0008086.

! b.

Random polling of approximately one third of area owners showed that for the'.

4 most part they were delegating their responsibility of weekly area walk down to

! persons on their crews. AD4.DC2 makes no provision for Ma-= ting of .

responsibilities.

j. ma_2-1.for 3 07/18/93 i

, _ , . , . . , . . , _ _ . , . . , .._..-.,__,r.,,, ..,,_.7.-. ,,,,y. .,. , ,J.,. ,, ,,, ..,,,,.;._, .m_,,, _ ...m _, . , . . ~ , . ...m_-.....u.____

, 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report

,O MAINTENANCE (MA) c.

A review of the log of plant management inspection forms indicated that less than half of the plant managers and directors are documenting their monthly. ,

walk downs IAW AP C-70. '

3.

Quality control surveillance repon 93-0019 for May concluded that plant material conditions remain low and minor honcakning discrepancies remain high. Eight A/R's were generated as a result of the May surveillance report.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Areas that, if improved, could strengthen the overall plant housekeeping program are:

1.

Clarity duties, responsibilities, reporting, and accountability of housekeeping area owners and program supervisor.

2. Clearly defined areas for the owners.

l l 3.

People involved need to provide the plant with a wdriable program that works.

l l

L P

ma_2-1.foy 07/18/93 I Page2 l

L-__--___-__-_-_ . .. - - . . _

. - - - - . . _ - , -._ . _ ~- _ __ __

l l 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report: -

~

l MAINTENANCE (MA) j -:

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

1 Control of maintenance work suppons the completion of tasks in a safe, timely, and efficient I manner. Contml of work is accomplished thmugh the effective use of a priority' system,

scheduling, interdepartmental coordination. Work is controlled by effective and efficient work __

{ instmetions, procedures, and drawings.

I FINDING:

l (MA.3-1) Some work control process delays and inemciencies remit from inadequate i work control documents, poor department and interdepartmental coordination, and insumcient forw=nnn preparation.

1. Crews did not stan work on time when foreman was absent. This was noted three times, once in each of the maintenance departments. Twice it was over 30 minutes before the crew or general foreman took action. . In the thini case the crew started without a foreman or tailboard. Action was not taken to replace the foreman or assign L a reporting foreman.

2. It was noted that little prgmation'was done, based on the work schedule for upcoming jobs. Most parts are not verified to be properly staged prior to staning work, or-clearing of plant equipment.

a. Oil in lube oil storage room was not verified before clearing equipment and entering a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> technical specification action for work on aux. feed pump.

b. Some work orders are signed by foreman with little or no review. In one case; the foreman completed a tailboard with the craftsmen on a work order and did ;

not know the scope of the wort 'Ihis was later questioned by the craft after he had read the work order.

c. Most foreman are not prepared for the morning tailboard. Reference ." finding" on tailboards (OA.3-1).

3. Interdepartmaat=1 ccuid:si:on is poor.

a. A maintenance engineer was unaware of an egaining maintenance task that required direct suppon during work on a new 12kv vacuum breaker.-

b. Some department personnel are not showing up in a timely manner for cmss discipline pre-job briefings prior to a containmant entry.

c. In some cases cocid:st'an of maintananca verification testing (MVT) between-depa.m.ents was noted to be difficult to orchestrate. One case was Fan B-107..

ms_,3-1.foy 97/18/93

~

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report s

MAINTENANCE'(MA)

F PM. The MVT was pushed back due to departments suuting work on the same ,

equipment at different times during the shift. Testing was delayed % shift. '

d.

Rescheduling of training and vacations impacts a departments ability to supp ~

interdepartmentally scheduled work and testing. His was noted as one'of the

" key" problems with the work and schedule delays, during an interview with the -

maintenance schedulen and their direct supervisor.  !

i

e. a During work on a temperature indicator the work order was passed between I&C and Electrical Maint-ace via the work pinnning center (WPC). The WPC made a second trouble shooting work order, that was not needed, for the-same problem. Hisjob wound up back with I&C after one foreman decided to i call the other and work together on the problem. De main generator temperature indicator was out of service for over six months while packages -

were being swapped. ~

f.

A cardox test was scheduled and operations could not ' support the test. ' The system engineer asked that the test be rescheduled. _The following week operations could support the system engineer arxi he called the maintenance ,

foreman to support the test. He found that the supporting work order had been taken to complete the week before, even though no work was performed to ,

credit for completion. De test had to be deferred a second time to allow work planning center time to create a new worc order. ,

4.

Inaccura::, confusing, or unavailable work controlling documems contribute

a. .

Reference findings for inaccurate or insufficient procedures and work' pac (MA.6-1).

, ., * ~" ,

b. t During work on a DCN the work had to stop when worken discovered tha might not have the latest field change against their DCN. _ The foreman was abl to obtain the current FC and incorporate it into the work package, c.

Workers in the field with a DCN for the other unit during heat trace work.

d.

Loop test referenced manufacturers manual.. Manual was checked out o and the person who checked it out could not find it. Craft had to go the ,i Document Control and look up the master copy. '

e.

A spot check in the Electrical Maintenance Document Control room found persons not using out cards when removing drawing.

mm)-1.foy l 07/18/93 Page 2 1i 3 .___

- . - . . . - - " - - ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " '~~ ~ ~

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluadon Report .

MAINTENANCE (MA) -

t

f. Maintenance craft wem not able to read the controlled vendor drawings. Craft used uncontrolled version to verify information.

RECOMMENDATIONS: . . - - . . . - .

Involve craft in the msolution of work delay problems.

1 i

l 1

l l

l i

I 1

l i

I 1 l l

l l

l 1

l l

l l

1 1

ma_3-1.foy 07/18/93

. page 3

[- , 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report is -

MAINTENANCE (MA)

}T 1

j PERFORMANCE ORIECTIVE: '

i Maintenance pmcedures and other work-related documents are clear, technically accurate, and j

consistently used to ensure that maintenance is performed safely and efficiently. When pmcedural pmblems are encountered, craftsmen and other maintenance personnel identify and ~~

l 1

provide timely feedback to correct the problems.

k

FINDING

i (MA.6-1) Some Work Orders contain conflicting or inadequate directions and incorrect .

l supporting hard copy inforsnation, which results in work not being performed i correctly, contributes to procedural non-compliances, and could lead to unsafe i  :

actions. Feedback is not always pmvided to the Work Phnning to identify work I l order and procedural deficiencies. i 4

j 1. While perfonning preventative maintenance (PM) on a supply fan the ranchinists were j ,l confused as to what method they were to use in ch-Mag the belt tension, ne work order (W/O) directed the machinist to perform the belt tension in-tion in accordance

];

• R with procedure MP M-23.4 which involves the use of a belt tension gauge, but the.. >j W/O contained a NOTE after the W/O step which directed the machinist to use their.

j f" hands to check the belt tension. De machinist checked the belt tension by as directed j, j by the W/O. It appeared satisfactory. When questioned by the Observer, the belt was j

checked with a gauge and found out of tolerance. Additionally, an A/R tag was found i

j indicating that the belts had been maintansaca would have been required.

=='a= ling. Had the belts not been reh~+~t, repeat f i

J

[

2.

A supply fan PM W/O contained.a step directing the machinist to drain and clean the

~I j

j condenser, which the machinist signed off. When asked when be completed the step, i

since the co='===r was filled and pressurized with water, he indicated that he misread -

t ,

the W/O and thought is was referring to the condenser pan to be drained. De - >

machinist asked his foreman about the step in the W/O and the foreman indicated that j the step should not have been in the Work Order.

j 3.

The work plan to Lube and Inspect the hrbine OwW could not be perfonned as ,<

j written. Work Order instructed that four parts be lubricated with Chevron AW -

l Machina Oil 100. However, the split coupling, had a grease zerk fitting. Investigation l j j 1

indicated that this error in the W/O has existed since 1989 without correction.. j Additionally, the tappet and ball, could not be filled correctly until the trip mechanisms'. ~

'were activated which was not mentioned in the Work Order. '

l

4. _

De Radiation Work Permit (RWP) assigned to a work order to perform an oil sample PM on the charging pump was an outage permit RWP which was no longer valid. . He l:

t. Senior RP tech signed the worker on the correct RWP for this work. <

l

!I dl

. ;1j 1 i

.9 l nas_61.for j 07/18/93 ii i

! I

. , , . , , . , , . , , - - - - -,n,_,. ,, ,

. . . - - , . - ~ . . , . _ . - + ~n + - - ~ ~ --~ ~ ~ - ,~ '- ~~

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report $

MAINTENANCE (MA) 1 5.

The work package for performing a Imop Test contained incorrect drawings. The foreman caught the error and rectified the pmblem. Also, the work package did n contain them.

generated a copy of the work order, which delayed die start of thejob while the pl 6.

When performing a fan PM, the maintenance worter was going to skip a step in t work based on information from a fellow worker, who indicated that the fan could not be accessed. The Observer assisted the worker in obtaining access and the worker completed the PM. The work package did not have adequate instructions on how to access tL !an, this coupled with the feedback from the fellow worter would have l

resulted in maintenance not being performed. The worker identified the weakness in the work order, however he did not use the "HOW DID WE DO" form to get the information to the WPC.

RECOMMFNDATION:

i 1.

Utilization of the "HOW DID WE DO" form can be an effective means to provi feedhm+ to the WPC to correct Work Order problems.

2.

Form an Employee Continuous Improvement group to address strengthening implementation and feeAhrk mechanism of the "HOW DID WE DO" form.

ma_61. fop M n s/93 Page 2

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report

,- MAINTENANCE (MA)

PERFORMANCE ORTECTIVE- i Maintenance procedures and other work-related documents are consiste  !

maintenance is performed safely and efficiently. Vender manuals, in are properly controlled, reviewed, and appmved. ~-

i I

FINDINGt M A.6-2 Good procedure and work instruction adherence practices and adeq '

control examples:

observed of vender documents are not always practiced. The following ar 1.

While trouble shooting rad monitor the craft wem using an uncontrolled vend instruction manual leftover from previous work. Technicians had tr expected readings. 'Ihey were able to obtain a contmiled copy of the vender m They discovered they were taking the madings from the wrong capacitor. Th controlled copy of the manual was blurred and unreadable. The technicians th continued work with tL: uncontrolled copy of the manual.

2.

During research for a contmiled copy of a vender manual, a file was disc contained numerous telecons from system engineers to the vender reg changes to the equipment. The telecons contained instructions which h incorporated into the manuals or procedures.

3.

An uncontrolled copy of a pump instruction manual was found to be out '

in the mechanical maintenance shop. A review of all the maintenanc that uucontrolled vender infonnation was available in all three shops 4.

by the nash vacuum pump.Found uncontrolled maintenance i 5.

Craft by-passed a foreman hold point, which was to verify work scope in during routine oil change. ,

6.

Technicians did not sign off work package as they completed work duri preventive maintenance on charging pump.

7 Craftshoot trouble did and notrepair.

sign off completed work order steps during work on radiati 8.

Worker signed off step for draining condenser when work was never routine work on technical support center supply fan.cou maj-2. rop .

l 07/18/93 '

m- -

1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation R: port a 4

MAINTENANCE (MA) i 1

9.

Steps to obtain specific tools and bottles in the work oroer were signed off and never performed during routine oil sample of a chargmg pump. The wrong bottles and equipment were used and resulted in a non-representative oil sample being taken.

10.

A step, in the work order, to hang a red tag was signed off and no red tag was used during routine preventive maintenance of a motor.

11.

Procedural step to review the equipment history is routinely bypassed. Sevemi foreman statai that for mutine tasks the prerequisites of the pmcedures are not required to be performed. One foreman stated he preferred to use the old history hard copy card fi even though they are no longer being kept up.

I 12.

During routine supply fan maintenance the work order step for bearing inspection and

. gressing was signed off and not performed.

13.

Shop cranes require daily inspections and log entries of the inspection. It was found that this is not routinely being completed the first time the crane is used each da 14.

In at least three of thejobs observed the required "FME" postings for performing system breaches were not used. In one case the foreman in charge did not conect the error when it was brought to his attention. 1 l

Im ry charger pm a joumeyman was noted chewing gum in a Zone 4 16.

Craft did not follow steps of the procedure during oil change on charging pumpi resulted in the oil sample not being complete in accordance with the procedure

- 17.

Craft performediteps of the procedure out of sequence during routine refueling w i purification filter change out. Foreman stated it was OK to perform steps out of sequence if r2distion conditions permitted it.

18.

During routine fan pm the procedure required the craft to use a fan belt "V" groove wear gauge. This step was not perfonned by the craft.

RECOMhENDATIONS; Deviations from proce.iures and policies occur predominately during routine work task ,

plant staff should bring the routine task performance up to standards of excellence now for non-routine tasks.

ma_6 2. rop 07/18/93 Page 2

i l

Q

!j. 1993 DCPP Self-Evaluation Report i -

/ MAINTENANCE (MA) i 4

3 1

j PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE:

j Materials management ensures that necessary parts and materials meeting quality and/or design requimnents are available when naariari l

i j

j STRENGTH:

j OdAS.9-1) Through the use of a comprehensive lategrated information system, ,

materials are ordered or =*acicad and are available to support ,

i l- i i maineananen when required.

1 i 1. Bill of Materials exist for appmxisnately 85 % of the compa-.;s acharkdari to l

be developed. This provides work planners a readily available parts listing and

} inYentory status of maintananem jtem.

~ ,

1

) 2. Parts are reserved for Work Orders and are reordered when darnand exceeds j stocking levels. Reserved parts are flagged by the Foreman prior to the job i start date and are delivered to the maintenance shops. Es , ; material  !

I requimnents can be called to the warehouse and will be issued and delivered as l

i n Priority. l 1

3. Daily maintenance fomnan meetings are attentiari by Material Coordinators in :

i an effort to identify plant noods, that require priority pmcessing and --==dhia . .

Additionally, during Plant refheling outages a Material Hit Team is fonned to l

identify and status priority items. All prioiky items are pr-=ad in a " Red j j Package" and can be praramad to an issued purchase order in as little as one

! hour.

j j

4. "Ibe warehouse facility cont-N a material testing lato..uny for commercial i

grade dariientian/vmifi tica. ' Ibis capability alimin=*as the need to send l material off site for testing thus making the material available for'une.

I

5. As a result of a recent organizational changes, all of the tool room personnel are part of Materials Services. Although this change is in it's infancy, benefits have been gained in the following amas:

i i a. IDventory reduction for consurnable/M- "--Sy items as a result of many 1 items stocked in deper -- =1 inventories being returned to the l warehouse, and the maximum = Eng levels analyzed and reduced.

1

! b. Concierent supervision and policies between each of the discipline tool l rooms.

i i=

3 MSM .

i 87/18/93

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