IR 05000321/1989011

Insp Repts 50-321/89-11 & 50-366/89-11 on 890619-23. Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Actions Re Previous Insp Findings & NRC Bulletins

ML20246Q275
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	07/10/1989
From:	Conlon T, Merriweather N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246Q255	List: IR 05000321/1989011 ML20246Q251
References
50-321-89-11, 50-366-89-11, IEIN-84-65, NUDOCS 8907210049
Download: ML20246Q275 (6)

Text

- - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ _

, UNITED STATES

.

• /,

gob Rf Cg*'o

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

['

y s

- [nj REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET, ,

• ,

"'f ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

\, ...../

Report Nos.: 50-321/89-11 and 50-366/89-11 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 19-23, 1989 Inspector r

~ /w/t Merriweather-f rN/ M6V 7'/O Date Signed 5 Approved by O f , 81// / Y "/G SY T. E. C6nlon,~ S'ection Chief Date Signed'

Plant Systems Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted to follow up on licensee's actions in regard to previous inspection findings and NRC Eulletin Results:

In the areas inspected, one licensee identified violation was note The violation involves an inadequate fuse replacement program for fuses other than Appendix R safe shutdown fuses. This problem is generic to both units and was also discovered at the licensee's Vogtle site. The failure to have an adequate fuse control program appears to be a weakness in the plant's maintenance progra Similar concerns regarding the licensee's fuse control program were identified earlier in NRC Inspection Report 321,366/86-38. In response to that inspection, the licensee committed to implement procedures to control safe shutdown Appendix R fuses. The corrective action was not extended to cover all safety-related and important to safety fuses at that time. If the licensee had been more aggressive in response to the initial concern, it appears these latter problems may have been discovered and corrected earlie So the conclusion reached is that the licensee's past performance in this area has not been adequat m PDP ADOCK 05000321 Q PDC

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - _ - - _ -

_

'

. . l

. ,

.

i

!

1'

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Fmployees ,

• L. G. Adams, Nuclear Security Superintendent'

• J. D. Davis, Manager, General Support  !

• P. E. Fornel, Manager, Maintenance

• 0. M. Fraser, QA Site Manager

• G. A. Goode, Manager, Engineering

• J. Hammonds, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Supervisor

• W. B. Kiskley, Acting Manager, HP/ Chemistry

• J. C. Lewis, Operations Manager

• C. T. Moore, Assistant General Manager

• P. A. Roberts, Superintendent, Speci.al Projects

• L. Sumner, Assistant General Manager

• S. Tipps, Nuclear Safety and Compliance Supervisor I

• E. Z. Wahab Engineering Superintendent Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personne NRC Resident Inspectors

• J. Menning, Senior Resident Inspector

• R. A. Musser, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in Paragraph . Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)

(Closed) IFI 50-366/86-38-01, Licensee to Develop Procedures to Control i Change-out and Replacement of Safe Shutdown / Appendix R Fuse During the Appendix R inspection, the inspector noted that "there did not i appear to be any program in place to ensure that Appendix R safe shutdown ;

fuses would be replaced with the same type should replacement be l required." In response to this - concern, the licensee committed to ;

initiate procedures for fuse control during installation and maintenanc In a follow-up inspection (Report No. 321, 366/87-22), the inspector reviewed the licensee's Corrective Maintenance Procedure for Unit 1 1 identified in the report as 52CM-MEL-002-IS, Replacement Control of Safe Shutdown Appendix R Fuses. The Unit 2 item remained open pending 4

l

-_______ _ <

_ - _ - - - _ _ _ - _ - __

<

. .

-

.

.

development of a procedure and implementation'of certain DCRs. Since that time, a Procedure for Control of Unit.2 Safe Shutdown Appendix R fuses'

became effective on March 15, 198 The Procedure 'was identified as 52CM-MEL-002-2S, Replacement' Control of Safe - Shutdown Appendix R Fuse The procedure addressed only thel replacement of those. fusesTincluded. on Attachments -1, ' 2, and 3. :These attachments identify Fuse Data fro DCRs86-099, 86-100 and '86-101, respectively. The procedure was later revised; and the revision was' effective on' Aegust 12, 198 .It incorporated Attachment.4 which added safe shutdown Appendix R fuses ~ from DCR 87-H2D-18 ' Both procedures hve since been' superseded. by~ Procedure. 52CM-MEL-005-0S,-

Fuse Replacement. This procedure applies : to both units and:is- used in conjunction' with a new document called the ' Master Fuse List which is controlled by Engineering Service Procedure No. 42EN-ENG-015-0S, Control of the Master Fuse Lis The implementation of these procedures is part of the licensee's corrective action in response to a recent QA Audit finding that discovered that there were no controls in place, outside of Appendix R related fuses, to ensure that fuses with correct ratings and characteristics are installed in the plant. The report identified that drawings and installed fuses do not always agree', not all fuses are shown on' drawings,, fuses installed in similar circuits are different, and pane!s were found with missing fuse In response to the Audit finding (89-MNT-1/9), the licensee has reverified that all Appendix R safe shutdown fuses were identical to fuses called for in 52CM-MEL-002-1S/2S. A schedule has been developed to review all control ' room fuses and all safety-related and important to safety

'

(Appendix R) fuses outside the control room. _ This action will be performed in phases 1 and 2, respectivel Phase I will evaluate the design drawings and as-found condition of. fuses-in the Main Control Room, Appendix R Safe Shutdown (Plant Wide) and - 3 Drywell penetrations. A schedule for completion of Phase 2 has a target date'of November' 20, 1989, and a due date of November 27, 198 The walkdowns'have identified two Appendix R safe shutdown. fuses on Unit-1 that differed from procedure 52CM-MEL-002-IS. These fuses were identified as FF-F12 in panel 1H11-654 and AA-F4 in panel 1H11-P613. The problems were documented on Deficiency Cards 1-89-665 and -664, respectively. Both were evaluated as not constituting an operability concern .or violating previously analyzed Appendix R coordination' studies. . This was documented in a letter from Southern Company Services to the licensee. dated February 15, 1980, and was later supplemented with an additional response to address' Appendix R, as stated by. a licensee representative. The program is Tet up such that all discrepancies will be properly evaluate The above concerns appear to be an apparent violation of .10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteria III and Examples of the violation would be (1)

failure to follow plans (procedures / drawings)' regarding installation of

_ - - - -- _ _- _

i l

. .

l

-

.

the proper type and size of fuse, and (2). failure to develop adequate drawings or procedures identifying the proper size and type of fuse required to meet the design basis. Since this violation was licensee identified, it was evaluated against 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V.G. for application of discretionary enforcement. This violation was judged to meet all the requirements for discretionary enforcement; therefore, no violation will be cite This is identified as NCV 89-11-01, Failure to follow procedures / drawing As far as the previous open item on Appendix R safe shutdown fuses -the licensee has incorporated ~ the old list of Appendix R safe shutdown fuses from procedures 52CM-MEL-002/1S-2S into the Master Fuse List. The list will be expanded after completion of phase 2 with all Appendix R fusa The two Appendix R fuses found on Unit I not in accordance with the Unit'

fuse replacement procedure were replaced with the correct typ Additionally, the licensee intends on replacing all evaluated fuses to ensure that quality fuses with appropriate documentation are installed in-safety Slated applications in the plan This corrective action will ensure that the fuses are controlled and are the right type and siz Based on the above, the open item is considered close Information Notice 84-65, entitled Underrated Fuses..., identified a safety concern regarding the use of 250 V AC fuses in 250-V DC circu,it The licensee evaluated this concern for plant Hatch by performing a visual !

examination of some of the control room panel fuse The licensee ]

concluded that, since the fuses were labelled 250 volts, they did not have the problem. From discussions with Engineering staff involved with the fuse evaluation program, the inspector concluded that the plant does not use the type of fuses identified in the Notice in 250 V DC application However, to be certain, the licensee committed to readdress IN 84-65 with a more appropriate response. The inspector found this to be an acceptable way of factoring additional information from the fuse evaluation progra . Follow-up on NRC Bulletin (92703)

,

(Closed) 50-321, 366/88-BU-01, Defects in Westinghouse Circuit Breakers This bulletin provided information on a safety concern regarding the use of Westinghouse Series Type DS circuit breakers and requested that addressees using these breakers in Class IE service perform and document inspection of the welds on the pole shafts and inspection of the alignment in the breaker closing mechanism. The bulletin required licensees using Westinghouse DS-206, DSL-206, DS-416, DSL-416, and DS-420 circuit breakers in Class IE applications, to include long-term inspections in accordance with the Westinghouse technical bulletin, with certain additional requirements as specified in the bulleti GPC responded to the bulletin in a letter dated April 7,1988, from L. T. Gucwa, GPC, to NR The licensee states in this response that "there are no Westinghouse Model 0S-206, DSL-206, DS-416, DSL-416, or DS-420 breakers in Class IE circuits at Plant Hatch." The NRC acknowledged receipt of the licensee's response in a letter dated May 4,1988, from L. Crocker, NRC, to R. P. Mcdonald, GP This letter accepts the licensee's response as being complete and i

- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _

'

.. .

,

considers this matter closed since no DS-206, DSL-206, DS-416, DSL-416, or l DS-420 breakers are used in Class IE circuits at Hatch. Based on the l- above, this item'is considered close . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized ' on June 23, 1989; with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. . TFe.. inspector ' described the areas-inspected and discussed in detail the-inspection results as described in paragraphs '2 and 3 above, including the licensee identified violation on an inadequate fuse program. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee. Proprietary information is not contained in-this repor . In reviewing the above items, the followir.; documents were examined:

. Procedure . No. 52CM-MEL-002-2S, Revision 0, Replacement Control of Safe Shutdown Appendix R Fuses Procedure No. 52CM-MEL-002S, Revision ~1,. Replacement Control of Safe Shutdown Appendix R Fuses Procedure No. 52CM-MEL-005-0S, Revision 0, Fuse Replacement Procedure No. 42EN-ENG-015-0S,. Revision 0, Control of the Master Fuse List Design Change Requests Nos.86-099, 86-100,86-101, and 87-H2D-185 Fuse Replacement Training Handout No. E',-IH-10010-00  !

i Master Fuse List, Revision 0, Dated April 13, 1989 Deficiency Card Nos. 1-89-664/665 and 1-89-2099

! GPC QA Audit of Maintenance (89-MNT-1) dated February 14, 1989 Corrective Action Tracking Form for QA Item 89-MNT-1-9_  !

NRC Report Nos. 50-321,366/86-38 and 50-321,366/87-2 '

Information Notice 84-65, Underrated Fuses Which May Adversely Affect Operation of Essential Electrical Equipment GPC file on the evaluation of IN 84-65 Southern Company Services letter (File No. REA HT-9624) regarding E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Fuse Discrepancies, dated February 15, 1989. Subsequent to the inspection, the letter was revised to address Appendix The results were verbally acknowledged by a licensee representativ _ - .

i

.. . .

. -

5 Site Design Request (SDR) IH89-98-1 j GPC letter to NRC, dated April 7,1988, r:e 'rding NRC Bulletin 88-01 NRC letter to GPC, dated May 4, 1988, regarding their response to NRC Bulletin 88-0 GPC Interoffice Correspondence (File No. X7GC07 'I000), dated March 4, ,

1988, regarding Westinghouse Type DS and DSL circuit breakers l 6. Acronyms and Initialisms DCR Design Change Request GPC Georgia Power Company IFI Inspector Follow-up Item ,

IN Information Notice i NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j QA Quality Assurance -

RTBs Reactor Trip Breakers

!

I

,

l

i s

>