IR 05000321/1990012
| 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: |
| 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