IR 05000440/1988010

Insp Repts 50-440/88-10 & 50-441/88-05 on 880523-0610.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Implementation of Generic Ltr 83-28 in Areas of Equipment Classification,Vendor Interface & post-maint Testing

ML20195G970
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/22/1988
From:	Gardner R, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195G932	List: IR 05000440/1988010 ML20195G927
References
50-440-88-10, 50-441-88-05, 50-441-88-5, GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8806280183
Download: ML20195G970 (6)

Text

-

,

.'

. ..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

,

Reports No. 50-440/88010(DRS);50-441/88005(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 License No. NPF-58; Construction Permit No. CPPR-149 Licensee: Cleveland t:lectric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection Conducted: May,2- through June 10, 1988 Inspector: J. H. Neis er ,

'

h 3/Datt L% hU Ronald N. Gardner, Chief W

(' M /} N Approved By:

Plant Systems Section Da te Inspection Summary Inspection on May 23 through June 10, 1988 (Reports No. 50-440/88010(DRS);

No. 50-441/88005(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine announced inspection of the licensee's implementation of Generic Letter 83-28 in the areas of equipment classification, vendor interface, post maintenance testing and reactor trip system reliability. Extended construction delay inspection of Unit Closed TI 2515/64R1 and TI 2515/95 (25564) (25595) (92050).

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie .

l l

)

8806280183 880622 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 DCD 2

S

.

. ..

D E

e DETAILS Persons Contacted Principle Licensee Employees

• Riley, Director, Quality Assurance

• M. Lyster, General Manager, Perry Plant

[ *M. Cohen, Maintenance Manager L

• C. Shuster, Director, Nuclear Engineering

• G. Dunn, Supervisor, Compliance

• R. Luse, Supervisor, Training

• D. Takacs, Manager, MMQS

• B. Walwrath, Manager EPSS

• J. Lausberg, Supervisor, OSPU

• P. Begany, Superintendent, Unit 2 M. Manley, Supervisor, Unit 2 E. Parker, Supervisor, Quality Inspection

• E. Buzzelli, Manager, Licensing and Compliance

• R. Stratman, Manager, RDAS

• A. Silakoski, Manager, RDAS E. Larned, Maintenance Engineer M. Szabo, Planning W. Brownlee, System Engineer F. Von Ahn, System Engineer T. Calkins, Lead Surveillance Coordinator

_

D. Graneto, Maintenailce T. Boss, Audit Supervisor B. Scheidman, Compliance Engineer D. Jones, Compliance Engineer J. Wright, I&C Supervisor W. McKibben, I&C Supervisor

• Denotes those persons attending exit intervie . TI 2515/64R1 (Closed) Equipment Classification The inspector selected six ccmponents in the reactor protection system and nine components in the low pressure core spray system for examination during this inspection. The components selected were:

Reactor Protection System Low Pressuie Core Spray (LPCS}

Scram Pilot Valve Solenoid LPCS Pump #1 Scram Discharge Valve LPCS Pump Motor Back-up Scram Valve Valve M0-F001

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

T

.

.

Reactor Protection System Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) -

Manual Scram Switch Valve M0-F005 t

Hydraulic Control Unit Check Valve F006 24 VOC Power Supply Flow Transmitter FT-N003 Circuit Breaker EH-1111 Flow Element FE-N002 f

Pressure Transmitter PT-N052 For the selected components the inspector performed the following reviews, examinations or inspections:

(1) The inspector reviewed the Perry Q-List and the licensee's procedures controlling the classification of plant structures, systems, components and activities. The Q-List in conjunction with the Perry Equipment Masterfile System and the Maintenance Infomation System are used in the work order process to assure the correct classification of activities affecting safety-related structures, systems and components. In addition, the inspector reviewed work orders, modifications, tests and maintenance procedures and inspection and surveillance reports. All the documents reviewed were properly classifie (2) To determine the level of plant management oversight,.

the inspector reviewed procedures promulgated by the plant management, quality assurance and nuclear engineering departments. The procedures controlled classification of structures, systems, and :omponents, maintenance activities, inspection and testing of safety-related items, quality -

assurance audits and surveillance (3) The inspector reviewed surveillance procedures, calibration -

procedures, maintenance procedures and instructions, functional  :

test procedures and storage procedures to verify that the licensee has issued adequate procedures and instructions for the performance of safety-related activitie (4) The inspector reviewed the licensee's program and implementing procedures for the training and indoctrination of technicians, craft workers, staff engineers, planners and supervisors, whose duties include safety-related activitie Training records indicated that the above personnel were being trained according I to applicable procedure (5) The inspector reviewed nine audit reports and 21 surveillance reports documenting Quality Assurance audits and surveillances involving safety-related activities. The quality assurance organization maintains a schedule of planned audits and surveillances for safety-related activities at the plan _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - .______-_--

-

.

.

s

.

.-

(6) The corrective action program for safety-related activities is described in the licensee's Quality Assurance Manual and implementing procedures. The inspector's review of corrective action for audit and surveillance findings revealed that corrective action for these findings was timely and adequat (7) Review and evaluation of information concerning malfunctioning of plant equipment is controlled by the license's nonconformance and condition report programs. Procedure P0P-1503 "Evaluation of Operating Experience Reports," requires review and evaluation of malfunctioning equipment reported by manufacturers, vendors, INPO and regulatory agencies. Included in the reviews and evaluations is the determination of the suitability of the equipment to perform its design functio (8) The inspector reviewed two safety-related modifications (Design Change Packages) involving the low pressure core spray system (LPCS). The design change packages, drawings, work orders, inspection reports and procurement documents were correctly identified as to their safety classification No violations or deviations were identified, b. Vendor Interface The inspector reviewed Procedures P0P-602 "Vendor Information Control Program," PA0-609 "Vendor Manuals," NEI-251 "Vender Design Document;," P0P-301 "Design Control Program" and PEG-002, "Plant Engineering Guidelines". These procedures establish and implement control of plant components, vendor contacts and interfaces, and provide assurance that vendor informatiori for safety-related components is current and complete. Vendor manuals for selected components in the reactor protection system and the low pressure core spray system were reviewed for completeness and to determine whether the manuals accurately reflected the installed equipmen Controlled vendor technical manuals were available for each selected component and each manual appeared to be the current revision ;

The inspector did not identify any installed components that had been supplied by vendors who hci gone out of business. Vendors for l the components selected are major suppliers of those components to the nuclear industry. The licensee's procedures for controlling and I replacing equipment and vendor technical information were reviewed and detennined to adequately control situations where the vendor refuses to supply informatio No violations or deviations were identifie !

c. Post Maintenance Testing The inspector selected components from the reactor protection and low pressure core spray systems for review to ascertain whether the licensee was implementing a post maintenance test progra _

_

...s

-

.

For the selected components, the inspector determined that:

(1) Post Maintenance test prncedures and chec'.;1ists have been developed by the plant staff. The ' nspector r'; viewed 1 procedures, completed tests and work orders to verify that .

post maiatenance testing was being accomplished on-the selected i components in accordance with the licensee's commitment :

(2) Criteria and responsibilities for maintenance approval and for designating activities as safety-related or non safety-related ,

have been established in work order initiation procedure '

Criteria for post maintenance testing and inspection are delineated in work order procedcres and quality inspection procedure (3) Methods for performing functional testing following maintenance activities on safety-related components have been developed and are delineated in published plant operations and surveillance procedure (4) The inspector reviewed over 25 completed safety-related maintenance work orders and their supporting documentatio The work orders were appropriately classified, properly approved and the persons who perfonned the activity and inspections or verifications were identified on the work order and supporting documentatio No violations or deviations were identified, d. Reactor Trip Systems Reliability '

At Perry, on-line functional testing of the scram pilot solenoid valves is performed with the reactor systems instrumentation channel ;

i functional tests at the frequency required by the plant technical .

'

specifications. The inspector reviewed test procedures and test results for the following functional tests:  ;

l Reactor Vessel Dome Pressure - High >

Reactor Vessel Water Level - Low Reactor Vessel Water Level - High  ;

i Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Clorure  ;

Main Steam Line Radiation - High '

Drywell Pressure - High ,

Turbine Stop Valve Fast Closure l Scram Discharge Volume High Level Trip <

'

Manual Scram  ;

, Average Power Range Monitor High Flux Trip 1

]

Intermediate Range Monitor Trip j

The procedures appeared to be adequate and the test data sheets indicated that testing was being accomplished at the frequencies

< required by the Technical Specifications.

I j

i 5  !

> 1

. .. .- .- . - - .

.

.,,,.

3. TI 2515/95 (Closed)

The inspector ascertained by review of as-built drawing B-208-023, Sheet A06, Revision H, "Redundant Reactivity Control System," that the licensee has installed a recirculating pump trip that is actuated by either low reactor vessel water level or high reactor vessel dome pressur l 4. Unit 2 Extended Construction Delay (92050) (Closed) Open item (441/87004-01) Painting and caps on high end of pipe spool pieces in the Parmly Road laydown area. The inspector verified by visual inspection that the-pipe spool pieces have been cleaned and painted and that plastic end caps have been installed

,

on each spool piece high end. This item is close The inspector, accompanied by licensee personnel, toured the site construction areas. Included in the tour were the reactor building, auxiliary building, diesel building, control and intermediate building and material storage area The licensee has established a preservation and maintenance program for plant components and material that is administered by a

,

permanently assigned engineering and supervisory staff. A training

and indoctrination program for craft workers performing maintenance and preservation activities has been implemented to assure that

'

assigned personnel have the necessary qualifications for the performance of their assigned task The inspector observed that stored-in-place components have

,

protective covers and that items susceptible to corrosion have been !

1 coated with an engineering approved inhibitor. Each item observed by the inspector had an inspection and maintenance checklist attached. These checklists included inspection, lubrications, cleaning, and equipment rotation instruction )

Quality assurance is performing inspections of each item of

. equipment and material in the storage areas at each scheduled l maintenance. The NRC inspector reviewed inspection and maintenance l procedures, inspection results and completed maintenance work orders 4 involving Unit ~

!

No violations or deviations were identifie i 5. Exit Interview ,

!

, The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Paragraph 1)

at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.

, The inspector elso discussed the '.ikely informational content of the j inspection report Pith regard to documents or processes reviewed by the i

inspector during the it.spection. The licensee did not identify any such

) documents or processes as proprietary, i

, 6 i