IR 05000321/1990012

Insp Repts 50-321/90-12 & 50-366/90-12 on 900416-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas inspected:18 Month Tech Spec Surveillance,Generic Ltr 89-13 & Svc Water Sys Problems Affecting safety-related Equipment

ML20043A985
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	05/09/1990
From:	Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20043A984	List: IR 05000321/1990012 ML20043A983
References
50-321-90-12, 50-366-90-12, GL-89-13, NUDOCS 9005240003
Download: ML20043A985 (5)

Text

.-.

.

.

.

..

p* At !g*

' UNITE] STATES-8*

NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION

--'['

'n >

REGION 11 g

l[

101 MARIETT A STHEET.N.W.

'

'*

' ATLANTA,GEORCI A 30323

'

i

%*es+*/

-

,,

Report.Nos.:

50-321/90-12 and 50-366/90-12

!

Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box.1295 Birmingham, AL 35201

[

Oocket Nos'.:

50-321 and 50-366-License Nos.:.DPR-57 and NPF-5

)

' Facility:Name:

Hatch 1 and 2-Inspection'Conducte - ' April 16-20, 1990

'

.

Inspector:

If /wMd 5~[f/90

),AiTapo Date Signed:

-

Approved by:

/

Aeh /J I

~M/

'

,

C'N' Belisle;s~ection Chieff "

'Dategi'gned 5eftioi)

Test Programs-

' Engineering. Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY-Scope:

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the. areas of 18 month Technical Specification surveillance; Generic ' Letter 89-13,. Service Water

System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment; and licensee.' action on

~

-

previous inspe:: tion findings.

Results:

in the areas inspected, violations or deviations 'were not identified.

.

\\

t

'

p 1 4C-i.

O

' ' '

,

• .

'

.

REPORT DETAILS r

i

'

1.

' Persons' Contacted Licensee Employees

{

i J. Duncan, Senior Engineer Service Water

• P. Fornel, Manager Maintenance

• G. Goode, Manager Technical Support H. Mirzakham, Senior Engineer Diesel Generator

'j

• C, Moore, Assistant General Manager Plant. Support

• H. Nix, General Manager Plant Hatch

• L. Summer, Assistant General Manager Plant Operations D. Swann, Inservice Inspection / Inservice Testing. Engineer

• S. Tipps, Manager Nuclear Safety and Compliance i

Other licensee employees contacted during -this inspection' included engineers, and administrative personnel.

NRC Resident Inspectors

'

l

• J. Menning

• Attended exit interview

'

2.

Complex Surveillance (61701)

a.

Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG)

The inspector reviewed the-following Unit -1-18 month Technical Specification surveillances associated with the onsite. power. sources:

!

SP.42SV-R43-22-1S; 025-1S; 028-1S, Rev.'0, EDG-1A, 18 -1C Logic

-

Testing i

SP-42SV-R43-021-1S; 024-1S;. 027-15, Rev, 0, EDG-1A,18,1C Loss

-

t of Coolant Accident / Loss of Site Power Testing (LOCA/LOSP)-

These procedures were reviewed to ' verify that the technical content

'

is consistent with Unit 1 Technical Specification 4.9. A.7. and FSAR

_i

.Section 8.4,- Standby AC Power _ Supply. The test procedures'were.also

'

reviewed to verify that plant administrative controls had been

'

incorporated into the test procedures regarding test prerequisites,

,

temporary modifications (jumpers), independent verification, initial.

,

conditions, test equipment calibrations, and acceptance criteria. -In

'

addition, the inspector held discussions with licensee engineers and reviewed control yire diagrams (DWG.H-13401,13599,13416.13420) to L

,

.:

.

,

verify. the adequacy of the test methods to functional test the EDG logic systems and the tests used - to determine operability and response of the EDG to LOCA/LOSP initiation. These reviews indicated

.that the surveillance procedures sections were well organized and test steps provided an adequate level of. detail to meet test objectives.

Surveillance procedure 42SV-P43-021-1S (EDG-1A),-024-15 (EDG 1B), and-027-15 (EDG:1C), section 7.5, requires recording the elapsed time for the. time delay relay actuat' ion device immediatelyJprior to 'the EDG restart-following the tripping and shutdown'of the= engine in the emergency mode.

In. reviewing the ' control wiring diagrams the specified time is 1001 10' seconds. This allowable range needs;to be added to.section 7.5 for each of the above procedures. A revision to these procedures.is in progress and the licensee agreed to ' add-allowable ranges for the timing devices to section 7'.5.

b.

Plant Service Water. System f

Generic Letter (GL) 89-13, Service Water System Problems Affecting-Safety-Related Equipment, was issued July 18, 1989.

This document recommended five actions or equally effective actions the licensee i

should consider to ensure that service water systems are in

'

compliance and maintained -in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria. 44, 45, 46-and Appendix B,-

l Criterion XI, The action items identified in GL 89-13 are:

(1)

!

Surveillance and controls to reduce flow blockage problems as a-

'

result of biofouling, (2) Test programs to verify heat transfer capability for safety-related heat exchanges,- (3) Inspection and maintenance programs, (4) Confirm serv. ice water systems will perform

intended function in accordance with the. licensing basis, (5) Review i

'

maintenance practices, operating and emergency procedures to reduce

!

human errors.

The ' inspector reviewed the licensee's response. to GL 89-13 -dated January 23, 1990, and noted that it was in close agreement with the NRC recommended actions.

The inspector held discussions with licensee management and engineers and also reviewed existing

)

schedules and concluded that this project is.being well planned and

has the support of management. -Full implementation.of the action items for both Units is planned for the Fall of 1991.

Within the area inspected, violations or deviations were not'

identified.

3.

Reportable Occurrences (90712, 92700)

!

a.

(Closed) LER 50-321/88-14: Primary Containment Penetration Local Leak Rate Test Failures

,

_ _ __ -___-.

1-

p

.

L

,-

,

,

i ila On October 3,1988, Unit I was in a refueling-outage. The. results from Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT) Main Steam Isolatior, Valves

[

(MSIV) indicated that two of-these penetrations exceeded their

maximum-leakage criteria. ' Additional.LLRT conducted during the-outage revealed other containment penetrations exceeded their maximum leakage criteria.. The inspector reviewed leak' rate test recordstfor cause determination,. repairs effected and results of - subsequent

,

R retesting; The majority of the failures were attributed to worn ~

'

seating surfaces,- pitting, corrosion of valve internals, packing

leaks, and worn 0-rings. -Repairs included replacing parts, cleaning disc and seating surfaces, repacking valves,. and reconditioning'

-

seating surf aces.

The inspector verified that retests were-perform -

following maintenance and that individual and total ' "as left" leakages were within required' limits.

Action on Previous Inspecting Findings (92701,-92702)

j-1 (Closed) Violation. (50-321, 366/89-19-01):

Failure to Implement Valve-

)

Stroke Time and Reverse Flow Test LCheck -Valves per ASME Section. XI Requirements.

-The-licensee's response-dated November 29, 1989, <was considered: acceptable.to Region II,

!

(

Section XI _ of the ASME Code, Subsection.IWV-3410, requires valve. stroke j

time corrective action' to.be based on current full-stroke-test results

-!

~

being compared with the previous recorded full-stroke - time results.

Valves E21-F001B,..F004B, and-F005B were tested February 28,1989, and -

these results were compared with data taken November 17, 1987, instead of.

-the data taken on November 24, 1987.

The ' licensee attributed this

occurrence to.be due to inadequate procedures.

Procedures L

31G0-INS-001-05, ISI Pump and~ Valve Operability Tests and 95IT-0TM-001-OS,

'I Maintenance Work Order Functional Test' Guideline, were revised to-require

-

-i valve' stroke times to be recorded. in the-(ISI) Inservice Inspection. test data log books. This has not been the practice in the past.

Interviews with Inservice Testing (IST). engineers and -the review of.' current records.

indicated tnat corrective action had been' effective.

Another example in the same violation concerned not reverse flow testing a

check valves E21-F044A/B, E-41-F046, and E51-F021 as required by Section

!

XI of the Code, paragraph IWV-3520 during the 1988 refueling outage for-

'

Unit.1. The licensee determined that these particular' check valves were-removed from IST test procedures (42SV-TET-001-IS) due to the belief that

another test procedure was to be used to test these check valves. The

{

inspector reviewed 42SV-TET-001 and verified that the subject valves have t

been reinstated.

Test records and results indicated that satisfactory -

,

testing had been -conducted during February - March 1990 of the' current-refueling outage.

,

!

i (Closed) Unresolved. Item (321, 366/89-19-02): IST Requirements for Valve Positie Indication Verification

\\

f k

.

.

.

,

.f ; -(,1

.

..

?

-

+

.

.

f

Section XI, Subsection IWV-3300 requires that valves with. remote position-

-!

,

indication be1 observed at least once every two years to. confirm'that gj

~

indication.. accurately reflects _ valve operations. ' The question. raised.atl J

the ; time-~ of the.~ initial cinspection was whether or not the valve position

'

.

' indication at 'thei remote. shutdown: panel should be: included 11n the;IST'

program. J Presently' the. valve remote position indications i are -.being'

.

observed from.the main control room.,

,

.,

- A Code Inquiry and response: dated November?14,,1987,- from the appropriate

-

.ASME committee support the position that-the: remote'locationi(mainLcontrol, i

croom)lfor -valvej position sindicator: observation sisf acceptable-as= this(1s

theLlocation where exercising and stroke timing'of valves is accomplished.'-

The. inspector'had no'further questions.i

~

,

5.

Exit' Interview:

'

The'. inspection' scope-'and results were; summarized on April l 20,~1990', with

those' persons. indicated in' paragraph 1 7 d

Thecinspectori escribed the areas:

. inspected and. discussed '<in deta11T the. inspection results.. Proprietary,.

,

_

.

. information is' not contained in this= report.1Dissentingicomments,were nota received from_the-licensee.

~

.

q r

'

?

I'

s t

<

-

l f

b v

r

..

.

i

!

". j e

5

'

s