IR 05000321/1986010
| ML20203N708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1986 |
| From: | Jape F, Poertner K, Schnebli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203N702 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-86-10, NUDOCS 8605060018 | |
| Download: ML20203N708 (7) | |
Text
_--
,
6 '
.,
r
+
, _., *
.
^
a M4 UNITED STATES n
I; /
- 'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'_; [. '
REGION 11 n
',.
C' g E
,j 101 MARIETTA STREET.N,W.
Afl.ANTA, GEORGI A 30323
,
.-
%...*/
Report No.: 50-321/86-10 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302
\\.
Ddeket No.: 50-321 License No.:
DPR-57 Facility Name: Hatch 1 Inspection C;nducted: April 1-4, 1986 Inspectors:
R k
V/.gf/86 Da'tf$[gned G. Schnebli
k'
'll2ll86 K. Poertner D/te/ Signed Approved by:
b F. Jape, Section Chief Date Signed
" 7 Engineering Branch
- ._
Division of Reactor Safety
^
SUMMARY
' '
Scope: This special, unannounced inspection entailed 48 inspector-hours on site in a review of maintenance programs and practices.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
r
.
t i
,t
{~
-
8605060018 860423
-
PDR ADOCK 05000321 G
'
'
,
.
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- S. Chestnut, Nuclear Licensing Engineer
- P. Fornel, Manager of Quality Assurance R. Glisson, Maintenance Engineering Supervisor
- T. Green, Deputy General Manager
- J. Kane, Corporate Maintenance and Modification Specialist T. King, Maintenance Foreman C. Miles. Quality Concerns Coordinator, Retired
- H. Nix, General Manager
- T. Powers, Manager of Engineering
.
- T. Seitz. Manager of Maintenance
'B. Thigpen, Quality Assurance Specialist Other licensee employees contacted included ' engineers, technicians,
+
operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations H. Wise, Manager, Special Services - Babcock and Wilcox
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarizea on April 4, 1986, with those persons indicated in paiagraph 1 above. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on "revious Enforcement Mctters
,
This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
5.
Review of the Maintenance Program and Practices (62702)
This inspection was conducted and an interim review of the licensee's actions in the area of concerns regarding valve maintenance controls and practices at the Hatch facility. Prior documentation concerning this issue
-
,
'
.__ __
,
.
.
.
.
is contained in Inspection Report No. 50-321/86-08, 50-366/86-09, and NRC letter to Georgia Power Company (GPC) dated March 14, 1986.
Based on the concerns raised GPC has taken the following actions:
'
a.
All valve maintenance on safety-related valves was stopped until a special corporate valve maintenance team was established to look into the issues.
Maintenance was not to be performed on safety-related valves until approved by the special team. All the special controls, procedures, and personnel were only applicable to the following categories of work on safety related valves.
(1) Work on val,ve internals.
,-
(2) Work on pressure retaining components.
(3) Work on valve packing, b.
A special team designated as the Safety-Related Valve Maintenance Review Group was established to control and review all maintenance previously performed and to be performed on safety-related valves during tha current outage.
The team was composed of GPC corporate valve / maintenance personnel, GPC corporate licensing personnel, and contract personnel from Babcock and Wilcox (B&W).
c.
Special Administrative instructions were established to integrate the requirements of additional review and inspection as designated by the
-
Safety-Related Valve Maintenance Review Group with existing plant administrative controls applicable to the maintenance of safety-related valves.
d.
Special administrative instructions were implemented to define the criteria for review of Maintenance Work Order (MWO) work packages associated with the safety-related valve maintenance review group.
e.
Contract Quality Control (QC) personnel were hired to provide 100
'
percent independent QC coverage for each valve worked. The duration of this extended coverage would depend on the findings of the review
- group.
'
f.
Engineers were brought to the site from Southern Company Services (SCS)
to follow all work accomplished on safety-related valves, g.
Valve repair teams were established to perform work on safety related valves.
Each team consisted of a SCS engineer, a contract QC inspector, and valve technicians, as required. The teams were assigned an individual valve to repair or inspect. All work performed and the as-found conditions were documented.
SCS engineers were assigned to
the teams so that in the event of problems, engineering input was
'readily available.
'
i
-
,
.
W
_
. ~ _ _
_.
.
.
.
.
h.
Contract engineers from B&W were brought in to perform a review of all MW0s that accomplished work on safety-related valves during the current outage. Approximately 126 MW0s had been reviewed at the close of this inspection.
i.
The recently retired Quality Concerns Coordinator was brought back in under contract to interview Crane and GPC maintenance personnel who performed work on safety-related valves during this outage.
J.
GPC sent certified letters to contract personnel no longer employed at the site who had performed work on safety-related valves this outage for which they had a forwarding address.' The purpose of the letters was to determine if these personnel had any concerns in the valve maintenance area.
At the close of this inspection GPC had yet to receive a response.
k.
Of the seven valves over which concerns had been raised due to main-tenance practices (1E11-F028A, F028B, TRV, F025A, F025B, F004A, and 1E21-F012B), GPC has reopened and inspected four of the valves (1E11-F028A, F025A, F004A, and E21-F0128).
The valves were dis-assembled, inspected and findings documented in accordance with the special controls discussed above.
1.
Contract valve repair personnel have been given additional training in GPC procedures and administrative controls.
m.
GPC review and inspection of the concerns in the maintenance program
,
was not complete at the close of this inspection. When the review is completed, GPC will present their findings to the NRC at a meeting in the Region II office.
The preliminary findings discussed with the inspectors indicated there were no major hardware problems and that most of their findings were in the administrative and paperwork areas.
The preliminary findings identified to the inspectors through the close of this inspection included the following:
(1) Problems identified as a result of concerns in the valve main-tenance area documented by a deficiency report (DR).
OR 1-86-295, IE;1-F001A valve.
Installed stem of valve did not match vendor design drawing.
MWO 1-85-7120.
DR 1-86-419, IE11-F004A valve. Upon review of MWO 1-85-7120 it was determined tnat the traceability of the wedge currently installed is questionable, in that it was not shipped per 55 MC-MTL-002-05.
OR 1-86-434, IE11-F004 valve. Purchase Order (P0) ordered a motor for the Limitorque operator however, a different motor was supplied.
,v---~v-
'
.
.
- DR 1-86-503, IE11-F025A and 1E21-F0128 relief valves.
Stainless steel internals of Lonergran relief valves required Class. "B" cleanliness per referenced procedures. Class "C" was used in MWO's 1-85-5252 and 1-85-3019.
- DR 1-86-504, Crane Valve Services. The contract between GPC and Crane Valve Services stated that all personnel supplied
-
for valve maintenance would meet ANSI N18.1-1971 repairman requirements.
An audit of Crane Company personnel quali-fications conducted by GPC indicated that three did not meet the requirements.
A 10 CFR 21 report was submitted to Region II by Crane Company on March 31, 1986.
DR 1-86-516, IB21-F022A valve. The r:oair of FW4 (base metal
repair) was performed in accordance with MWO 1-86-0567.
Repair instructions written by the cognizant engineer..were outside the scope of 51 SP-MWI-567-1, but did not receive the same level of review and approval as the parent instruction.
- DR 1-86-517, 1821-F0022A valve.
A fixture / jig was used without procedural control to perform a preliminary LLRT on the MSIV.
The fixture was used in lieu of repacking and completing reassembly.
MWO 1-85-7062.
- DR 1-86-518, IE21-F010A valve.
On MWO 1-86-2389 the seat ring of the valve was lapped with the valve disc and not with a lapping tool as required by section 7.7.3.1 of procedure 52CM-MME-011-05.
DR 1-86-530, 1G31-F001 valve.
MWO 1-86-2128 work package
does not contain a stock material issue report for the valve packing which was installed.
DR 1-86-541, 1E51-F028 valve.
Per MWO 1-85-7334 the valve
was reassembled by torquing the bonnet studs to 18 ft lbs.
The correct torque value is 45 ft. lbs. per Velan manual SX15344 (Table 1A) and Velan drawing PI-0068-N-9.
DR 1-86-543, IE11-F030C relief valve.
1" - 150 lb. flange on
inlet of the valve should be rated at 300 lb. per piping
'
classification GBB, pipe specification as shown on P&ID H-16330.
DR 1-86-544, 1821-F019 valve. No material issue sheet or "Q"
i tag attached to MWO 1-85-7710 work package for the packing
[
used.
DR 1-86-545, I and 2 E11-F055A and B relief valves.
The
referenced procedures have not been-revised to change the
test pressure for 1(2) E11-F055A & B to 463122h psig and to i
u t
... -
.
.
.
.
add an explanatory note regarding cold differential set pressures.
These revisions were to be incorporated in accordance with engineering evaluation of DR 2-85-220.
,
(2) The following additional concerns identified were discussed with the licensee.
The licensee indicated that DRs were generated as a result of the problems; however, the inspectors did not obtain copies of the DR's in the course of this inspection.
A new relief valve spring obtained from the supply system for
a Lonergran relief valve (1E11-F025A or 1E21-F0128) was about inch too short. A DR was generated to determine why the vendor supplied the shorter spring.
The licensee indicated that some supply bins in the warehouse contained mixed sizes of Allthread (threaded bar stock) with the same part number. A DR was to be generated to segregate the different sizes.
(3) GPC determined through interviews with maintenance personnel that Permatex was used on valve internals during maintenance. Permatex is on GPC list of material not authorized for nuclear use.
The interviews indicated that its use was strictly as an anti-sie:e/
thread lubricant on the seal ring to valve body threads. GPC is to provide an engineering evaluation concerning the use of Permatex in this application. They are currently in discussion with Walworth, the valve vendor, and General Electric concerning this issue.
As previously stated this was in interim inspection to observe GPC's actions in regard to the concerns raised in the valve maintenance program and to review their preliminary findings.
Final conclusions will be drawn af ter GPC has completed their review and presented their findings to the NRC.
No violations or deviations were identified in the areas inspected.
6.
Management Meeting On April 10, 1986, a management meeting was held between senior management of GPC and Region II management and staff. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the discussions over the concerns raised in the valve main-tenance area. See Inspection Report No. 50-321/86-08 and 50-366/86-08 for a discussion of the previous meeting conducted on March 13, 1986, concerning this issue.
J. T. Beckham, Vice President and General Manager for Nuclear Generation, opened the meeting for GPC in a discussion of the actions taken by GPC since the concerns in the valve maintenance issue was identified. GPC considered that their response was prompt and aggressive, in that, a stop work order i
l l
... -
.-
.-
.
..
was immediately issued by corporate management, the Valve Maintenance Review Team was established, and program development and mobilization to resolve the issue was started.
B.
K.
McLeod, Acting Manager Maintenance / Outage Planning, continued the discussion with an overview of organization, background, and scope of the Valve Maintenance Review Team. Mr. McLeod then summarized their conclusions on this issue by reaffirming that to date their findings indicate there are no major hardware problems.
Mr. Beckham closed the meeting for GPC and an agreement was made between GPC and Region II that prior to Unit I startup the following issues would be resolved:
Determine the actual maintenance performed on valve IE11-F004B in 1981.
- See Unresolved Item 50-321/86-08-03, Determine the acceptability of the use of Permatex as a thread lubricant on the seal ring to valve body threads.
See paragraph 5.m.(3) of this report.
Resolve deficiencies identified as a result of GPC's review of the valve maintenance issue. See paragraph 5.m. of this report for a list of preliminary findings.
... -