05000366/LER-1983-040, Updated LER 83-040/03X-1:on 830709 & 14,control Rod Drive Low Pressure or High Level Alarm Received for HCV 2C11-26-31 & 02-29.Caused by Leaking EP-111 Nitrogen Charging Valves. Valves Replaced & HCVs Returned to Svc

Updated LER 83-040/03X-1:on 830709 & 14,control Rod Drive Low Pressure or High Level Alarm Received for HCV 2C11-26-31 & 02-29.Caused by Leaking EP-111 Nitrogen Charging Valves. Valves Replaced & HCVs Returned to Svc

ML20087E114
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	03/12/1984
From:	Nix H, Tipps S GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
GM-84-56, LER-83-040-03X, LER-83-40-3X, NUDOCS 8403160031
Download: ML20087E114 (8)

LER-2083-040, Updated LER 83-040/03X-1:on 830709 & 14,control Rod Drive Low Pressure or High Level Alarm Received for HCV 2C11-26-31 & 02-29.Caused by Leaking EP-111 Nitrogen Charging Valves. Valves Replaced & HCVs Returned to Svc

Event date:
Report date:
3662083040R00 - NRC Website

text

__ _ - _ _ . _ _ _

NRC FORM 386 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION

. i- 1.lCENSEE EVENT REPORT UPDATE REPORT --

g i .

PREVIOUS REPORT DATE 07/28/83 lh

, , CONTROL BLOCK: l - l l l l l (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION) s 6 o i 7 8 l9 C lLICENSEE A l ECODE l I l H l 2 l@150 l0 L8l-CENSE 14 l0 l0 NUMBER l0 l0 l0 l- l025 l0 26l@4LICENSE l1l1l1l1l@lTYPE 30 l

67 CAT $8 l@

CON'T o t S$R] l L gl 0 l 5 l 0 l 0 l 0 l 3 l 6 l 6 @l 0 l 7 l 2 l8 l 8 l 3 l@l 0 l 3 l 1l 2 l 8 l 4 l@

7 8 60 61 DOCKET NUMBER 88 69 EVENT DATE 74 75 REPORT DATE 80 EVENT DESCRIPTION AND PAOBABLE CONSEQUENCES h o 2 l On 07/09/63 and 07/14/83 , the CRD LOW PRESSURE OR dIGH LEVEL alarm was l lo lal l received for HCU's 2C11-25-31 and 02-19 respectively. The HCU's were l o 4 l declared inoperable per Tech. Specs. section 3.1.3.5 ACTION a. Then, l lo l5l ; on 07/20/83 and 07/22/83, it was discovered that the HCU's had been l o e ! incorrectly returned to service following corrective actions. The- l 4 l0 l7l 1 health and safety of the public were not affected by these events. These l 1ola I l events are repetitive as last reported on LER 50-366/1982-093. l E CO E $ 8C E COMPONENT CODE SUSCOD'E S E 7

o 9 8 9 l R lB l@ {Q {Q l Vl Al Ll Vl El xl@ W@ y @

to 11 12 \3 18 19 20

,, SEQUENTIAL OCCURRENCE REPORT REVISION LER fVENT YEAR REPORT NO. CODE TYPE N O.

@ ,ajg/RO  ; I 813l l--J l 01 41 01 1/1 10131 L x_1 L--I L1_J

_ 21 22 23 24 26 27 2 M 30 31 32 N AC O P NT ME HOURS S8 i FOR B. SU Li MANUF CTURER

[Aj@[Z_j@

33 34 lZ_j@

35 (Z_j@

36 l0 l0 l0 l0 l 37

[Yj@ [Nj@ [N_j@ lCl4l8l7j@ l 40 41 42 43 44 47 CA'3SE DESCRIPTION AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 27

, o l The cause of both of the first two events has been attributed to leaking l 3 i l EF-111 nitrogen charging valves. The EP-111 nitrogen charging valves l l

, , g were replaced and the HCU's were returned to service. The root cause of l

, 3 l the lacorrect return has been determined to be procedural-inadequacy. l 3 , g Refer to the narrative report for details. l 7 8 9 80 ST S  % POWER OTHER STATUS IS O Y DISCOVERY DESCRIPTION i s W @ l0l0l0l@lHA l-[A_j@l Operator Observation l A TIVITY CO TENT AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY LOCATION OF RELEASE i e [ Z_j RELEASE @D OF RELEASELZJ@l NA I I MA l PERSONNEL EXPOS ES NUMBE R TYPE DESCRIPTION i ; 1010101@lZj@l .

NA l PERSONNE L INJURIES '-

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 7

ia 8.9 10l010l@l 11 12 NA l 80 LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO FACILITY ,. o TYPE DESCRIPTION -

160031 840312

> 9 Lz_J@l "A M anocx osooo366 1 7 8 s iG s PDR _. 80 ISSUE DESCRIP'lON

• hl

~

2 o NA' 7 8 9 ~ l 68 l l l l l l l l l lJl'l'l $

69' 80 5 -

S B. TIPPs- (912)367-7851 NAME OF PRE' PARER 1 PHONE: _{

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

NARRATIVE REPORT FOR LER 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1 UPDATE REPORT - PREVIOUS REPORT DATE 07/28/83 LICENSEE-  : GEORGIA POWER COMPANY FACILITY NAME  : EDWIN I. HATCH DOCKET NUMBER  : 50 -366 Tech. Specs. section(s) which requires report:

, 1. This 30 day LER is required by Tech. Specs. section 6.9.1.9.b due to the event's showing - that the unit was not meeting the requirements of-Tech. Specs. section 3.1.3.5.

. 2. This 30 day LERfis required by Tech. Specs. section 6.9.1.9.b

! due to the event's showing that the unit was not meeting the.

requirements of Tech. Specs, section 3.1.3.5.

3. This 30 day LER-is required by Tech. Specs. section 6.9.1.9.c i

due - to the event's showing that the unit was not meeting the requirements of Tech. Specs. section 3.1.3.5.

4. This 30 day LER_is required by Tech. Specs. section 6.9.1.9.c f

.due to the event's _ showing that the unit. was not meeting - the requirements of Tech. Specs. section 3.l.3.5.

I Plant conditions at the time of the event (s)-

1. This event occurred on 07/09/83, with-the reactor mode switch in 4

the.startup and hot standby ' position and reactor power at 8 MWT (approximately 0% power).

2. This event occurred on 07/14/83, with~the reactor mode switch'in the run position and reactor power at 635 MWT. (approximately 26%

j power).

3. This event occurred on 07/20/83, with the reactor mode switch in the run position and reactor . power at 901 MWT (approximately

37 % power).

i l.

~ 4. This' event- occurred 'on 07/22/83 with the reactor mode switch-in' the run position ' and reac tor. _ power. at 112 59. ' MWT- (approximately 52 % power)..

l Dntailed-description 1of-the event (s):

1.~0n 07/09/83 at .approximately -1400 h'ours , E the~ CRD LOW PRESSURE.OR:

HIGH LEVEL -alarm ~ was ' received 'in -the control room for ' HCU T2C11-26-31. Shift -personne1D discovered'. that'-

this' CRD <

l- taccumulator had_ low.' nitrogen _ pressure. :This made- this .HCU inoperable which - is .a Failure - to: satisfy the requireme nts : Lof-Tech.1 Specs, section 3.1.3.5.- :(refer.to Deviation Report number:

2-83-146).

P 1 1 2 , .- , - , . . , , , ,e  :-~-=--.. -. , , - - - - .

. . . . ~ .. . . - - .

u .

5 t

-> Narrative Report for LER 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1 I

~Page-Two. '

2. On 07/14/83, the CRD LOW PRESSURE OR HIGH LEVEL alarm was received' in the control room for HCU 2C11-02-19. Shift-perconnel investigated and.found that the EP-111 value (nitrogen charging value) was leaking This made this HCU inoperable which is-a failure' to satisfy the requirements of lech. Specs.

section 3.1.3.5. (refer to Deviation Report number 2-83-156).

3. On 07/20/33, plant- personnel (during investigation for the purpose of writing event number 2), discovered that the functional test required after .the corrective ' action had not 4,

been performed prior to returning HCU 2C11-02-19 to an operable status. (refer to. Deviation Report number 2-83-166). Following is the sequence _of events:

a. The EP-111 value :(nitrogen charging valve) for the HCU was replaced-on 07/14/83.

i

b. The HCU was returned to operable. status on' 07/14/83.

c. The unit started up-on 07/18/83, following a' scram (refer to [

LER number- 50-366/1983-042),

d. The . discovery that the functional- test had not been performed.was made on 07/20/83.

Thus, :this HCU was considered. operable. while it was still

i. "administrutively" inoperable; the - associated - control rod was

-withdrawn -on 07/14/83. This .is a failure to satisfy the-requirements of Tech. Specs. section 3.1.'3.5.

1

4. On 07/22/83, plant personnel -(dur ing investigation . for the

. purpose . of. . writing- event . number 1 ) =, . discovered .that the ~

-functional test . required . af ter'. . replacement of: the EP-111 value-had not been performed . until two days af ter: HCU 2C11-26-31 was ~

returned to an operable' status. (rcfer to ~ Deviation . Report l: number 2-83-170). .

i Thus, this, ItCU was--considered operable ~ while:- it : was . s till

" administratively" inoperable : the -associated control' rod ' was.

w

'ithdrawn on;.07/11/%3. This4 is.--a -failure . to sattsfy .the l requirements of Tech.' Specs, section 3.1.3.5.

Consequences of the event (si:

n 1, Plant operation was' not affec$ed by thisJevent.

~

The~ health and'

! . safety of the~public were.not affectedLby-thisfevent.

2. L Plant , operation was " note affectedi by . this. event.

Theihealth and

- safetyfor;the!public were not affected by this. event.

5'. Plant Loperation was: not affected . by~ this - event; .The.he'alth andi <

' safety:of the public-.were:notLaffected by'this event.

14, iPlant' operation was '.not!affected1 by Tthis ; event.

The: health and safety.of the public1werefnot;affected:byjthis~' event.

$ u 4Y g- w- i T-- { p =e t- y*-1F $ e P- 4 'T' ' - g yea N y i

! Narrative Report for LER 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1 Page-Three Status of redundant or backup subsystems and/or systems:

1. There is no redundant or backup - subsystem for this nitrogen accumulator.

2. There is no r5dundant or backup subsystem for this nitrogen accumulator.

3. There is no redundant or backup subsystem for this nitrogen accumulator.

4. There is _ no redundant o r. backup subsystem _ for this nitrogen.

accumulator.

~ Justification for continued operation:

1. Unit 2 was place'd in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> LCO as required by Tech. Specs.

section 3.1.3.5, ACTION a.

2. Unit 2 was placed in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> LCO as' required by Tech. Specs.

section 3.1.3.5, ACTION.a.

3. Unit 2.was placed in an.8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> LCO ' as required by. Tech. Specs.

s e c tio n . 3 .1. 3.~ 5, ACTION a.

4. . No ' justification was required. At the time of discovery the '

functional test.had already been successfully.' performed.

If repetitive, number of previous LER:

1. LER 50-366/1982-093

2. LER 50-366/1982-093 3'. This is a'non-repetitive' event.

4..This is-a~non-repetitive 1 event.

Impact-to o'ther systems and/or Unit:

1.J Thisl event -'did Enot impact 'any other _-systems . L on ' Unit ' L 2- . ; :this-event did not impact Uni *: 1.

2. This event' did 7 no t' iimpa c t I any other systems; on - Unit 12: ;' this

~

Levent_did not11mpact Unit.1.

I 1

4' > t N -

I l

' Narrative Report for LER 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1

. Pcge Four  ;

l l

Impact to other systems and/or Unit (continued):

3. This event _did not impact any other systems on Unit 2 ; this

~ event did not impact Unit 1.

4. This event did not imp &ct any other systems on Unit 2 ; this event did not impact Unit 1.

Cause(s) of the event (s):

1. The cause of this eventL was initially unknown; however, as detailed in " Supplemental Corrective Action:" it was later determined to .be a leaking EP-111 value (nitrogen charging value).

, 2. The _ cause of this event 1 was a leaking EP-111 . valve (nitrogen-charging value).

3. The root cause 'of this event has been determined to be procedural-inadequacy.-

4. The root cause -of this event has been determine'd to be procedural _ inadequacy.

Imediate Corrective Action:

1. .On 07/09/83 at . approximately _1850 hours, .the accumulator was

-recharged with nitrogen and returned to service.-

2. On 07/14/83, the EP-111 -nitrogen charging valve was replaced.

Then, the accumulator was recharged -'with nitrogen and returned to service.

4

3. The required functional test was ' immediately performed. This test showed that- the new- value was '-performing fsatisfactorily, and that the HCU had actually ' been operable _ si n c e' the valve replacement.

4. None was required.

i f

F -

p

- ~,

Narrative Report for LER 50-366/1983-040, .Rev. 1 Page Five Supplemental _ Corrective Action:

1. On 07/12/83,- the EP-111 valve. for -HCU 2C11-26-31 was discovered to be. leaking. {The -EP-111 valve was replaced on 07/13/83.

2. No-supplemental, corrective; action.was1 required.

l- my

,. y

3. '

The following. actions were performed:-

, . , 3 ' c '-.

s. 2

a. Site per nel) reviewed all  :! outstanding Maintenance l Reques ts. to - ensure 'all ' required fun'ctional. te s ting ' ' had been performed ,. ,, ,, , .,r;e -

es s ,

b. A .Standin n,Mder'was O ihdued "tihati rhuired J an LCO ito be i s s u e d ' f o r _~ T e c h . Specs. ' required ' components or systems whenever: . preventive or corrective maintenance. is to.'be-performed.' These ' LCO's . .are to b e . i's s u e d ' r e g a r d l e s s . o f plant conditions'. :This .. s tanding order on'10/10/83 when>HNP-901 was revised as detailed was -laterbelow,

- deleted l

c. Th'e . findings . of the'_ , committice , that was established to investigate: what: : happened and't to. propose corrective actions , determined ' that the. cause of the event appear; to' have, been ; the lack of any 1 mech'anism to " flag"J - the Maintenance :Reques ts .as having . .the capacity; -to violate Technical 1 Specifications 4 = requirements.~ ~ As~ ' a' 1 result of :

the investigation, the " LIMITING ' CONDITIONS, '.FOR '

OPERATIONS .AND CUMUL ATIVE . : DOWNTIME" pro c edure4 ' ( HN P.-901) I was revised'. 'It now ? includes ' initiating- an' LCO when I maintenance is !being performed . on equipment. whose downtime is limited by -Technical (Spe'cifications: even wh_en the equipment isi not required .to1 be' operable ~when the, mainte' nance .-is L begun. l Review' of the._. revised 'se'ctionJ in HNP-901Eby. .the - committee resulted :in ' aiconsensus that-no .l further4 corrective action is require'd..' '

H m

' ' ~

4. The following.. actions were performed:' ,,

[ >

-a . Site. personnel 1r'eviewed .all! ' outs tandingl i Maintenance d .

Requests ? toi ensurekall:. frequire'd ? functional- te' sting' had-

.been; performed,. 1 <

b. 1 A Standitig ? Order wasiissued /that crequired an';LCO. to ibe issued - for -Tech. l Specs. required > components or_; systems F '

whenever f = preventive' Lor i correctivej ; maintenance;.fis to

;be;  ;,

+

~ '

't

-performed. ' These - LCO's tare cto Cbe11s~ sued > regardless of-plant . conditions . j This? ^ standing order w'as laterD deleted ~ l -

onf10/,10/83 ichen :HNP-901? was revised ~ as detaile'd :below; - l1 ,

, 1t + ,

4-m, -

v . .4

~

k . m g

a

, l^

. , 3? ~

K ,

y K '

w <

s

Q , . # , (' " -

a _-

( > - Y * '

~

}l l,

ce

- , -,, q

, m _. .

Narrative Report for LER 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1 Page Six Supplemental Corrective Action C inued:

c. The findings of the committee, that was established to investigate what happened and to propose corrective actions, determined that the cause of the event appears to have been the lack of any mechanism to " flag" the Maintenance Requests as having the capacity to violate Technical Specifications requirements. As a result of the investigation, the " LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND CUMULATIVE DOWNTIME" procedure (HNP-901) was revised. It now includes initiating an LCO when maintenance is being performed on equipment whose downtime is limited by Technical Specifications even when the equipment is not required to be operable when the maintenance is begun. Review of the revised section in HNP-901 by the committee resulted in a consensus that no further corrective action is required.

Scheduled (future) corrective action:

1. No scheduled (future) corrective action is required.

2. No scheduled (future) corrective action is required.

3. No scheduled (future) corrective action is required.

4. No scheduled (future) corrective action is required.

Action to prevent recurrence (if different from corrective actions):

1. N/A

2. N/A

3. N/A

4. N/A

n -

~*

[ ' ** Georgia Power Company y  ;, '# Post Offica 8:x 439 B:x12y. Georgia 31313 Telephone 912 367-7781 912 537-9444

- ' Erlwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant March 12, 1984 GM-84-56 PLANT E. I. HATCH Licensee Event Report Docket No. 50-366 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303' ATTENTION: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Attached is Licensee Event Report' No. 50-366/1983-040, Rev. 1.

This report is required by ' Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications Section 6.9.1.9.b.

H. C. ~ Nix 3

General Manager HCN/SBT/djs-h r xc: R. J. Kelly G. F.' Head J. T. Beckham, Jr.

P.-D.-Rice K. M.-Gillespie 3 S. B. Tipps R. D. Baker-Control Room Document' Control -

Y-

, ~

s I

'arp [, g

}-? r ,e +e +