ML20058H651

Forwards Maint Team Insp Rept 50-440/90-12 on 900917-21 & 1001-05 & Notice of Violation

ML20058H651
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/14/1990
From:	Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
Shared Package
ML20058H653	List: IR 05000440/1990012 ML20058H651 ML20058H655
References
NUDOCS 9011210114
Download: ML20058H651 (4)

See also: IR 05000440/1990012

Text

<

,

.,

'

.

l

.-

.

=

I -v .

L NOV 14 D90  !

!

!

!

Docket No. 50-440 l

i

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Company jl

ATTN: Mr. Michael D. Lyster

'Vice President

Nuclear - Perry

10. Center Road I

Perry, OH 44081  ;

Gentlemen: l

This letter refers to the special maintenance team inspection conducted by

Mr. H. A. Walker and others of this office on September 17 through 21, and

.

October 1 through 5, 1990. During this inspection, we evaluated activities at

the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-58. i

We discussed our inspection findings with you and others of your staff on i

October 12,' 1990.  ;

-

'

The inspection was conducted during the second refueling outage to assess and

evaluate your support for and implementation of maintenance in order to assure .

that plant structures, systems, and components perform reliably on demand. We

evaluated various activities to determine if maintenance was accomplished,

effective, and adequately assessed by your own quality verification process.

,

The enclosed copy of our inspection ~ report identifies specific areas . examined

during the inspection. Within these areas, we selectively examined-procedures

and representative records, made observations, and conducted interviews with

your personnel.

Overall, the inspection team concluded that implementation of the inaintenance

program at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant was satisfacto*" The . material

condition of the-plant was also satisfactory; however *; covements were

needed in both housekeeping and identification of items requiring maintenance.

Section 4.0 of the inspection report provides a synopsis of the effectiveness

of your maintenance program.

The team identified . strengths a well as weaknesses in implementation of the

maintenance programs. The most significant strengths were: (1) management

commitment to maintenance as evidenced by the maintenance staffing and new

maintenance facilities; (2) dedicated and experienced maintenance personnel

as evidenced by good work performance during the inspection; (3) review and

tracking of maintenance performance as evidenced by the tracking of many

maintenance performance indicators; and (4) a reliability centered maintenance I

program.

l

l

9011210114 001114 .>

.

PDR ftDOCK 0500

. a.- y

. _ . .

go\

_

'

.

.

i

The Cleveland Electric 2 NOV 3 4 50

tiluminating Company

The most significant weaknesses were: (1) the failure to have methods in

place to identify poor housekeeping and defective plant equipment as evidenced

by plant conditions observed during the inspection; (2) inadequate planning

for some work (even though the program for maintenance planning appeared to be

good) as exemplified by delays due to poor control in troubleshooting Main

Steam Isolation Valve problems; (3) inadecuate procedures as evidenced by

deficiencies in several I&C procedures; (4) the failure to follow procedures

as evidenced by improper testing of the fire pumps; and (5) the practice of

beginning non-emergency maintenance work in some cases before issuing the

maintenance work order.

During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation

of NRC requirements, as specified in ;he enclosed Notice of Violation. A

written response is required 'n audition, several instances were noted where

alternate methods were used tu expedite work and bypass thorough reviews or

controls. Examples were: use of emergency work authorizations to allow

maintenance work to begin prior to release of the approved maintenance work

order; use of temporary changes such as lifted leads and jumpers rather than

using the modification process; and use of temporary change requests to

revise procedures rather than the normal procedure revision process.

Practices in these areas appeared to differ from those described in your

procedures.- Please address these areas in your response as well, in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations,-a copy of this

letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the

NRC Public Document Room.-

The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

CRIGINAL SIGNED BY T. O. MARTIN

T. O. Martin, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-440/90012(DRS)

See Attached Distribution

Rlli Rlli Rill Rlll Rll i Rill

e pwtA >ph /hO @%

Walke /lc Burgess Lanksbury Schumacher Ring Martin

11/ /90 11/ /90 11/ /90 11/ /90 11/pj/90 ll M /90

-

,

'

o

,

>

'

,

. .

The Cleveland Electric 2 IWV 2 - m

111uminating Company

1

The nost significant weaknesses were: (1) the failure to have methods in

) lace to identify poor housekeeping and defectivo plant equipment as evidenced

)y plant conditions observed during the inspection; (2) inadequate planning

for some work (even though the program for maintenance planning appeared to be

good) as exemplified by delays due to poor control in troubleshooting MSly

problems; (3) procedure inad9quicies as evidenced by deficiencies in several

I&C procedures; (4) the failure to follow procedures as evidenced by improper

testing of the fire pumps; and (5) the use of alternate methods and controls ,

to expedite work as for exampic the practice of beginning non emergency

maintenance work prior to issuing the maintenance work order.

During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation

of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice. A written response

is recuired. in addition, several instances were noted where alternate

methocs were used to expedite work and by) ass thorough reviews or con?.rols.

Examples were: use of emergency work aut1orizations to allow maintenance work

to begin prior to release of the approved maintenance work order; use of

temporary changes such as lifted leads and jumpers rather than using the

modification process; and use of temporary change requests to revise

procedures rather that the normal procedure revision process. Practices in

these areas appeared to differ from those described in procedures. Please

address these areas in your response as well. in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790

of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures, and

your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The res p nses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not

, subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as

required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96 511.

'

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY T. O. MWh*

l

l T. O. Martin, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

i Enclosures:

'

l. Notice of Vic'r ion

2. Inspection Report

No. 50-440/90012(DRS)

See Attached Distribution

Rill Rlil Rlll Rlli Rill RIII

/M n / w M> w

'WalkVr/lc Burgess

%$

Lanksbury

f

Schumacher Ring Martin

11/g/90 11/#4 /90 11/cf/90 11/q /90 11/ /90 11/ /90

_ - _ . ._ _

. t

,

.

' " ' '

• The Cleveland Electric 3 ,

-

111cminating Company ,

.

Distribution ,

cc w/ enclosures:

F. R. Stead, Director, Nuclear

Support Department

R. A. Stratman, General Manager

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

R. A. Newkirk, Manager,

licensing and Compliance Manager

S. F. Kensicki, Director, Perry

R: clear Engineering Dept.

H. Ray Caldwell, General

Superinterdent, Nuclear Operations

DCD/DCB (RIDS)

Licensing fee Management Branch

Resident inspector, Rill

Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

James W. Harris, State of Ohio

Robert E. Owen, Ohio

Department of Health

A. Grandjean, State of Ohio,

Public Utilities Commission

Clinton SRI

CommissionerCurtiss,OCM/JC

Tom Foley, NRR/LPEB

Director / Division of Reactor

Safety RI, Ril, RIV, RV

,

1

I

l