IR 05000441/1987001

Insp Rept 50-441/87-01 on 870112-16.Violation Noted:Parmly Road Laydown Yard Exhibited Several Areas Not in Conformance W/Program,Such As,Plastic End Caps Not Installed on High End of Spool,Piping Not Up on Cribbing or Dunnage

ML20211L941
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/17/1987
From:	Keating D, Knop R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211L627	List: IR 05000441/1987001 ML20211L621 ML20211L649
References
50-441-87-01, 50-441-87-1, NUDOCS 8702270183
Download: ML20211L941 (5)

Text

.

.'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-441/87001(DRP)

Docket No. 50-441 License No. CPPR-149 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Inspection Conducted: January 12 through 16, 1987

!* Na gj 87 Inspector: D. E. Keating Date Approved By:

$C Awy R. C. Knop, Chief g,7A: 7 Reactor Projects Section IB Date Inspection Summary Inspection on January 12 through 16, 1987 (Report No. 50-440/87001(DRP))

Areas Inspecte_d: Routino safety inspection by a regional inspector of the applicant's action concerning maintenance of items in Unit 2 on extended construction dela Results: In the area inspected, one violation was identified. Except for We one violation, the licensee had the long term maintenance program in place and adequately controlled and in operatio Q22[000k ,

.

.'

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI)

• C M. Shuster, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department

• V. K. Higaki, General Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department

• E. Parker, Unit Supervisor, Nuclear Quality Assurance Department

• E. G. Sterle Contracts Manager Nuclear Construction Services Section

• L. A. Kilpack, Supervisor, Project Maintenance Activity

• D. R. Gordon, Coordinator, Project Maintenance Activity

• B. S. Ferrell, Licensing Engineer, Perry Plant Technical Department

• D. C. Jones, Licensing Engineer, Perry Plant Technical Department

• Denotes those attending the exit meeting. Other licensee personnel were routinely contacted during the course of this inspectio . Licensee Perfonnance On Extended Construction Delay (92050) The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the licensee's Project Maintenance Activity (PMA) Program for Extended Construction Delay as it applies to Unit The PMA program covers all maintenance, preservation, and long-term storage associated with Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Unit 2, including Unit 2 items located within the Unit 1 protected are The inspector reviewed the PMA program against the following documents in order to determine the adequacy of the programmatic aspects as the Assurance (QA)yrelatedtoregulatoryandcorporateQuality requirements:

10 CFR 50 Appendix B - Quality Assurance (Q.A.) Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants

USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.38 - Quality Assurance for Packaging, Shipping Receiving, Storage and Handling of Items for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plant *

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2.2 - Packing, Shipping, Receiving, Storage, and Handling of Items for Nuclear Power Plant *

ANSI N45.2.3 - Housekeeping During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plant * ANSI N45.2.6 - Qualification of Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel for Nuclear Power Plant _____________ ______ _ _

.

.

.

, Corporate Nuclear Quality Assurance Progra *

CQA-21-1008 - Construction Quality Assurance - Preparation, and Maintenance of Surveillance / Inspection Plan Project Administration (PA) - 0203 - Policy, Procedures, and Instruction System *

PA-0701 - Material Transfer Authorization (MTA) Action *

PA-1502 - Control of Nonconformance '

PA-1505 - Deficiencies Contro *

PA-1602 - Action Request The inspector determined that the PMA program as written adequately meet the requirements of the documents reviewe The inspector walked down Unit 2 safety-related systems to verify that the program requirements were being implemented as outlined in the PMA program. During this walkdown the inspector selected the following equipment in order to review the associated surveillance /

inspection reports (SIR), and Field Storage Maintenance Requirements (FSMR):

ReactorCoreIsolationCooling(RCIC) Pump-2E51-C002

6" Check valve - 2E12F0046C

Water Leg Pump - 2E51C003

Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pump barrel, discharge head, and motor - 2E120002A, 0, & C

RCIC Pump Turbine - 2E510002

10"RCICLimitorqueMotorOperatedValve(MOV)-2E51F0063

22" Limitorque MOV - 2033F0067A

ReactorPressureVessel(RPV) Head-Unit 2 - 2013-0003

24" Limitorque MOV - 2H17F0035

RPV Head Strongback Carrousel - 2F13E009

Hydraulic Power Unit - 20330003A & B Thedocumentsreviewedweresurveillance/insaectionreports(SIR),

and Field Storage Maintenance Requirements ( SMR). The SIR's and FSMR's were reviewed by the inspector to assure that the i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ __ ._

..

'

.

,'

maintenance requirements as specified by the PMA program and by the manufacturer's maintenance manuals were being met at the proper intervals such as weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc. The SIR's and FSMR's indicated that the visual and physical maintenance requirements had been performed at the proper intervals. These maintenance requirements were monitored by surveillances/ inspection reports and Q.A. audits. The program was able to identify discrepancies and procedural violations as evidenced by nonconform-ance reports (NR), action requests (AR), and corrective action requests (CAR) that were written to document these conditions and to recommend the necessary corrective action to be taken. These documents indicated that the recommended corrective actions had been performed. A review of the appropriate procedures, by the inspector, revealed that the latest revision to these procedures was in place and being use The inspector reviewed training records of assigned maintenanu personnel. These consisted of reading lists and formal classroom training to the procedures and in accordance with ANSI N45. The inspector toured the on-site laydown area containing Unit 2 structural steel, concrete reinforcing steel, and pre-cast concrete duct banks and beams. Also toured was the off-site (Parmly Road)

large bore piping laydown area. The inspector noted during the tour of the on-site laydown area that the safety related items were identified and segregated, however, attention should be given to certain areas where the signs needed to be re-set and segregation ropes needed to be re-strun Theinspectortouredtheoff-site (ParmlyRoad)largeborepiping laydown are The conditions observed did not reflect the require-ments specified in the PMA program manual, Section !!!, Category 44 for Periodic Inspection or Maintenance for Piping Spool (Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel). Piping, both safety related and non-safety related, was on generally degraded cribbing. In some cases there was no cribbing at all. Safety related pipe was not cIcarly segregated from non-safety related pipe. Code bands on ASME Code piping were badly rusting. However, the licensee is revising the PMA program manual to specifically state how traceability is maintained through the code bands and fabrication sheets of the spool pieces as established by the original piping contractor, Pullman Power Product In addition, the PMA program requires that the piping be cribbed above ground and oriented to allow free draining and air circulation with the high end of the spool to be covered to prevent rain and weather attack, in most cases the high ends were not covered, on manifold piping some nozzles were covered and some were not. In some cases, the lower free end of the spool pieces were actually embedded in the soil. It was also noted that there was no control of the protective coverings. Several were laying on the ground, exposed to the elements. There was no protective coating evident on the raised face portion of the flanges of spool pieces. No clear designation was evident between material to be retained and material designated as scra _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

,

E. '

.

These activities did not reflect the requirements of the PMA program in that the licensee had provided only minimal implementation of the PMA program. These conditions have been documented in SIR-PMA 864 dated January 16, 1987. These conditions are considered a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI!! in that the licensee failed to control the maintenance activities as required by regulation and its site maintenance procedures and progra One violation was identified. No other violations or deviations were identifie . ExitInterviews(30703)

The inspector met with applicant representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) throughout the inspection period and at the conclusion of the inspection on January 16, 1987. The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection activities. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The applicant did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar The applicant acknowledged the inspection finding !

i I

l

,

5 ,

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