IR 05000324/1989038
| ML19332C054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1989 |
| From: | Belisle G, Szczepaniec A, Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332C051 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-89-38, 50-325-89-38, NUDOCS 8911220250 | |
| Download: ML19332C054 (6) | |
Text
=
<
,
,
,
,
...
'
j'
'ij:
y
-
+
.
F
- p it;p UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
>
-
.-
.,
'
.- p.
..
REGION il-g.
g-101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
,,
&
ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323
. *4 g-
.
-
.....
Report Nos.: 50-325/89-38 and 50-324/89-38
[
Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company
.P. O. Box 1551'
Raleigh,. NC _ : 27602-Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62-l Facility Name: Brunswick I and 2 Inspection Conducted:- October 16-20, 1989 Inspector:
-w T
N/H /ff '
-
~ P. A Taylor
~ '
(
Date 51gited M!/J!If j
(A hc
!
'
A. J. 5zcze aff c D "
- Date.51gned.
'
Approved by:=
4 eshy W
//!/
f G. A.'Belisle,Ttrief Date 51gnted
,
. Test Programs Section l
Engineering Branch-J Division of Reactor Safety j
SUMMARY
. Scope: 1 This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas. of evaluating
.' Diagnostic: Evaluation Team (DET) report '(dated August 2,1989) findings for
enforcement actions.
j Results:-
j In:the-areas inspected, two violations (VIO) and two inspector followup items (IFI) were identified.
'
VIO Modification procedure 82-219 contained incorrect limit switch
-
settings 1for Jamesbury motor operated valves installed in the nuclear
service water system (paragraph 2.b).
j
~VIO' Inadequate nuclear-service water system test controls do not provide
-
standardized test conditions and permit repeatability of test data for ~ evoluating nuclear service water pump performance (paragraph 2.d).
'
!
l.
K
'
.
1..
.
,
~
,,,
,
-.
-
,
'
,
..
,
- -.
,
,
1
IFI No corporate. guidance for ISI/IST program development and
>
-
no provisions for incorporating lessons-learned between sites (paragraph 2.c).
IFI Weaknesses exist in the maintenance program to assure post
-
,
modification testing is being performed following work on safety-relatedequipment(paragraph 2.f).
L k-
!
l L
!
t
-
-
..
,
.. - -, - -
,
..
_.
'
.
'
- -
.:
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
'
Licensee Employees
-*K. Enzor, Manager Regulatory Compliance
- J.-Harness, Plant General Manager i
R.-Helme, Manager,. Technical Support
C.-Johnson, Engineering Supervisor, Technical Support
- R. Poulk, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance
- R. Starkey, Manager. Brunsiwck Nuclear Project
- R. Warden, Manager, Maintenance
- A. Watson, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation h. Wheeler,. Foreman, Instrumentation and Control
- L. Wheatly,-Supervisor, Inservice Inspection / Inservice Testing (ISI/IST) Programs-Other licensee employees. contacted during this inspection included
. engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
LNRC Resident Inspectors
- W. Levis D. Nelson
- Attended exit interview 2.
Review of Selected Diagnostic Evaluation Team Findings (73756, 92701)
a.
Background The DET report issued August 2,1989, requested that. the licensee-determine actions necessary to address specific findings identified in section 2 of the report. The licensee response to the DET report, dated September 27, 1989, provided corrective actions planned and completion dates for each of the DET findings.
The inspectors reviewed the DET findings listed below to determine if they violated regulatory requirements.
The inspectors also assessed the adequacy of the licensee's corrective actions.
The DET report assigned item and-paragraph numbers.
These numbers are given with each paragraph to assist in correlating the information between documents,
,
b.
Significant Weaknesses in Motor-0perated Valve (M0V) Maintenancd)
Program Implementation 2.1.3(10);3.3.5 (
)
The DET witnessed the performance of torque and limit switch settings on service water MOVs.
The MOVs tested indicated improper switch settings. The incorrect torque switch settings were determined to be
.
_ _
_
...
.-
-
.
_.
_- __ _ _ _
__
_
_ _
'
.c
-
.
caused by a relaxation of belleville spring pack washers and corrosion.
>
The incorrect limit-switch settings in some cases were due to a -
change out of service water system valves from Fisher to Jamesbury.
J The design change package, plant modification 82-219 prescribed an l-M0V closing limit switch setting of 4 percent Lfor (Jamesbury) valves i
.ISW-18, ISW-102, ISW-118 and 2SW-111. The Jamesbury valve technical manual specified a closing limit switch setting of 1 percent.
This area is identified as violation 325, 324/89-38-01,. Failure to-Correctly' Translate. Specifications into' Plant Procedures -.or.
Instructions.
This violation was :further reviewed as described below.
The licensee's response to this item (CP&L letter dated Septembe'r 27, 1989) was reviewed and found to be satisfactory.
Corrective action concerning the-M0V closing limit switch settings for the Jamesbury valves installed in the service water system was implemented in accordance with~ Engineering Evaluation Report (EER).89-0160.
In addition ENP-43, Q-List Motor-0perated - Valve Settings, the controlling ' document for Q-list MOV switch settings, has been -
revised.
c.
No Corporate Guidance for ISI/IST Program Development and No
,
Provisions for Incorporating Lessons Learned Between CP&L. Sites.
2.1.4(5);3.4.1.4 The DET report identified the above concern as a weaknesses in the
. ISI/IST program.
The. licensee is developing formal guidelines to
lines of communication and enhancements for-address implementation.
The Brunswick intergrated action plan (programIAP) (dated September 27,1989, item D.29), has established a June -30,1990, l
completion date for this item.
The regional effort to followup on
.
this item, as well as the licensee overall improvement program, is l.
being tracked in the Resident Inspector inspection Report L
325,324/89-34, and no IFI number is assigned in this report.
,
d.
Pump Performance Testing and Evaluation 2.1.4(6);3.4.1.4 This item involved inservice testing of the licensee's service water g
(Unit 1) and 24.1-2 (g is accomplished per periodic test (PT) 24.1-1 system pumps.
Testin l
Unit 2), Service Water Pump and Discharge Valve L
L Operability Test. Testing of the pump is required to be accomplished l
in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers L
Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code'.Section XI, Subsection IWP, which L
requires that test be repeatable and capable of detecting pump
degradation.
As discussed in the DET report, it was found that the L
. procedures contained inadequate controls to provide standardized test l
conditions and permit proper pump performance evaluation. Since this
'
item did fail to meet the applicable ASME Code requirements, it is being cited as Violation 325, 324/89-38-02, Failure to Provide Adequate Test Conditions. A review of the licensee's response to the DET item was made and it was found to be satisfactory.
l~
u
-
... - -.
. -.
.
- -
- -.
-...
.-
.
--
.
--..,
.. - -. -
~
__.
.
__
_
_
.
-
-.
-
,
V
,
.
.
.
,
.
s A second issue of this DET report item involved three service water check valves which were not in the licensee's IST program. Although the licensee did not-address this issue in their response, the-issue
was discussed with licensee-personnel.
It was found that the applicable valves are being added to the program.
Scheduled completioni of the program change-is December 21, 1989.
-e.
- Vibration Monitoring 2.1.4(9);3.4.3.1 This item in the DET report discussed the licensee's coordination between preventive maintenance and IST : vibration monitoring test s
groups.
The licensee's response to this item was-satisfactory..
Since IST requirements are currently being met, no further NRC action is required.
The licensee's corrective action completion date is December 31, 1990.
f.
' Post Maintenance Testing 2.1.4(10);-3.4.3.2 Post maintenance testing issues reported-by the DET, as well as the-licensee's response and corrective actions, were reviewed.
The missed testing referred to' in the DET report was licensee identified.
occurrences for - which corrective actions are all completed.
In
-
response to the DET report item, the licensee planned on having their actions completed by October 15, 1989.
Subsequently, the completion date has been extended to December 29, 1989, for the development of PLP-08, Repair / Replacement Program.
This extension was reviewed and plant supervision.
The regional effort to followup on approved by(IAP item - D.4) as well as the licensee's overall
'
this item
- improvement program is being tracked in the Resident Inspector Inspection Report 325, 324/89-34 and no IFI number is assigned in this report.
g.
Service Water System Operability
In response to a general DET concern about the service water system, the' licensee initiated EER 89-0166 to verify acceptable service water flow to. the residual heat removal (RHR) system for worst case containment cooling during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
The
!
EER is in an open status pending completion cf identified action 1:
items, one of which involves reviewing the report's conclusion on the
,
current FSAR -and rcgulatory requirements.
Net positive suction head p
(NPSH) for the RHR system is addressed in Safety Guide / Regulatory l
Guide 1.1.
Apparently the licensee is not specifically committed to L
meeting the requirements of the guide.
However, the licensee did l
address the concerns of the guide in its Design Report 12 which was submitted to the NRC in March 1972.
In the design report, the licensee states that adequate NPSH would not be available to the RHR pumps with a concurrent loss of train, LOCA, and containment failure.
The report then discussed why the licensee believed their design was satisfactory.
In the current EER the licensee obtained similar results, but the licensee further evaluated the system for meeting L
.
.
..
..
.
..
..
.-
fy
^
~^'
,
"p
,;
'
-
- 3,
,
.-
t
'
!
.
,
the safety. guide requirements under varying conditions. The licensee-l a
calculated that with increased service water flow, the requirements
!
of the; guide could be met.
Since the March 1972 design report apparently recognizes the existing conditions, the licensee is considering whet further action should be taken on their part.
The inspector noted that in figure 5.4.7-2 of the FSAR, Residual Heat Removal System (LPCI) Process Diagram, note 2
-
describes three modes for which minimum NPSH may occur. The licensee t
specifically addressed only the worst case ir the current EER.
,
Consideration of the two other modes was discussed with licensee personnel..The licensee scheduled completion date for the EER is-December 15, 1989.
s 3.
Exit Interview
,
The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 20, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspectors _ described the areas inspected and discussed fn detail the inspection results listed
.above.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
' Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
a.
Violation 325, 324/89-38-01, Failure to Correctly Translate -
Specifications into Plant Procedures or Instructions (paragraph 2.b)..
b.
-Violation 325, 324/89-38-02, Failure to Provide Adequate Test Ccnditions (paragraph 2.d).
c.
IFI**, No corporate guidance for ISI/IST program development and no provisionsofincorporatinglessonslearnedbetweensites(para-
,
graph 2.c).
-d.
IFI**, Weakness. exist in the maintenance program to assure PMT is being performed following work on safety related equipment (paragraph 2.f).
- No number is assigned. These items are being tracked in the Resident Inspector Inspection Report 325, 324/89-34.
-.
-
!
l l
!
I
,
-~.-
-n-
,
,. - - - - ~ - -
.,,,
-
,-