IR 05000324/1990001
| ML20006E509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1990 |
| From: | Jape F, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E508 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-90-01, 50-324-90-1, 50-325-90-01, 50-325-90-1, NUDOCS 9002230398 | |
| Download: ML20006E509 (13) | |
Text
-
_
-
-,
t L.
>
,_
I
A Ftg#o,
,
UNITEjk STATES
.s L
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
- -
'
f g --
h -
REGION il i
,
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
l g
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,..... / '
I
'
!;
Report Nos.: 50-325/90-01 and 50-324/90-01
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company j
P. O. Box 1551
Raleigh, NC 27602
>
Docket Nos.:
50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.:
. Facility Name:
Brunswick I and 2
!
-
'
Inspection Conducted:
January 8-12, 1990 b @J
--
CS/7 /EO
. Inspector:
na F.. Jape v
'
g[
Date Signed
,
Team Members:
K. Poertner R. Wright C. Smith i
Approved,by:
AT-70 T. A.Peebled, Chief Date Signed Operations Branch
!
Division of Reactor Safety
o
SUMMARY
.!
,
L Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted-in the area of followup for i
. Diagnostic Evaluation Team findings.
l
.
Results:
,
L n
In the. area inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
An
l evaluation of the IAP status was performed to assess the licensee's progress i-for correcting deficiencies identified in the DET report.
The licensee has L
'more than was scheduled to be completed at' the time of the inspection.
completed 11.5 percent of the Level 1, IAP items.
This value is 6.5 percent
Changes.made to the target dates for completion of Level 1, IAP items were as
,
follows.
Scheduled completion dates for.14 items were improved and the l
targeted completion dates for eight items were extended.
The Level 2, IAP consists of 272 items and describes to a greater level of detail corrective
,
actions required to complete Level 1, IAP items.
A total of 68 items were
scheduled to be completed by November 30, 1989. 'The actual number completed was '76 items or 28 percent of the total.
Implementation of the licensee's IAP appears to be adequate and is essentially on schedule.
Ok $0 h O
,
.
.
.
..
.
.
.-,.
- _ _.
.
..
3..
FL,,,
,,
3 m..
.e-
,
,, cw n-
,-
,
-
,
4 M y ;,; "
-
'
j
,
AOw,'
-:a > ;
i
u pg ' :a: '
-
.
)
,
.'
-
2-i s.
c.:
l/ dj
', f{
';
,,
,
i
ss
";
yy
_
i
'
,
,
s lg. f-
..
.
.
.
.
.
]
e,
,..
,...
.-
m'Am. Corrective f actionsi related ~ to ' the unresolved and inspe, ctor followup ' items -
')
~
- reviewed during :this inspection appear to be adequate.
Lack of completion of'
.
$ 'i (all. actions required for resolution.o_f 'the : identified deficiencies has-i
<
gg,
- resulted in'somelitemt remaining open.
j pii f
,
+.
. *'-- -
'
.,
,
.
'
<
.1
,
r; t
..,
.n j
i
?
't
.4
..
'
,.g
.c
't
.
$
H<
'4.m
>
e p-xWf
-7 4-(
i l'=
y p.
'
- - -e.
i
{fs
?
s
~
L I
'{-
t
,
t t;}a b-l I.;
.
.
,>
p,...
.
_, ' '-
,t -
$ j. -
.,..
i
,,
b a
D e
h
'.i',.-Y fj?*
".. !
s.
.
p
__
h
..
.
.
.
f s
r REPORT DETAILS
'
+
,
i~
l 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
.
!
- C, Blackmon, Manager Operations S. Callis, Licensing On-site Representative i
- W. Dorman, Manager Quality Assurance
- J. Harness, General Manager - Brunswick Nuclear Plant i
- J. Holder, Manager, Outage Management and Modifications L
- L. Jones, Manager QA/QC
'
- . M. Jones, Manager, On-site Nuclear Safety
- D Moore, Unit Manager - Nuclear Engireering Design
- J. Moyer, Technical Assistant to Plant General Manager
- R. Poulk, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance
'
- W. Simpson, Manager, Control and Administration
.
'
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included
engineers, and administrative personnel.
!
NRC Resident Inspectors
,
- W. Ruland, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
l
'
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 325,324/89-34-07, Review statistical techniques used for root cause analysis of field revisions and technical adequacy of corrective actions for PM 88-019 and PM 83-143.
The scope of plant modification PM-88-019, Revision 0, involved changing the feeder cable for valve 1-E41-F001 from #10 AWG to #6 AWG; changing the motor pinion gear and worm shaft clutch gear; and bypassing the resistor in the motor starter.
For valves 1-E41-F006 and 2-E41-F006, the scope of the hardware change was limited to bypassing the motor starting resistor to improve the motor starting torque.
The DET report documented deficiencies with PM-88-019 which included (1) installation instructions which did not specify the' hardware to be used to connect jumpers to the p
resistor terminals and (2) anomalies in the associated DB0 88-08 related to differences between the calculated values of required motor torque and available motor torque.
The inspectors reviewed PM 88-019, Revision 0, and subsequent changes made by Revisions 1,2 and 3 to verify the technical adequacy of the plant modification.
The inspectors determined that field Revision 1 added a bill of material which specified via standard material list numbers the
- hardware required for installation of the plant modification.
,
b
)
'
.
- ,
".
.
..
'
<
,
!
Discussions with personnel from the licensee's technical staff indicated
that PM 88-019 was installed as an interim corrective measure for MOV
L motor failure caused by thermal binding.
Corrective actions planned, and
F
^
compensatory measures implemented by the licensee were reported to-the NRC in CP&L letters, serial number: BSEP/88-0724 and serial number:
BSEP/88-0732.
Additional reports were made to the NRC in LER 1-88-017
dated July 29, 1989, and LER 1-88-017 supplement dated September 7, 1989.
l
!
PM 88-019, Revision 2, expanded the plant modification scope to include I
bypassing the starting resistor for valve-2-E41-F001.
Based on review of
OBD 88-08 the inspectors verified discrepancies with the calculated values
!
of the required motor torque and the available motor torque for valves i
1-E41-F006 and 2-E41-F006.- CP&L letter serial number:
BSEP/88-0724 to f
the NRC described the interim corrective actions completed by installation i
of PM 88-019.
It also proposed replacement of the existing valve motor for valve 1-E41-F006 with a qualified motor having a torque output of 150
!
ft-lbs.
This would ensure adequate available motor torque under all design
'
conditions.
The inspectors determined that this corrective action was
,
implemented for valves 1-E41-F006 and 2-E41-F006 via preparation and
installation of plant modifications PM 88-025 and PM 88-026 respectively.
l The inspectors reviewed calculations contained in the above plant modification packages and verified that there was adequate design margin
"
between the available motor torque and the required motor torque.
The calculated value for valve 1-E41-F006 was 116 f t-lbs available motor torque versus 103.44 ft-lbs required motor torque; and for valve i
2-E41-F006 the calculated value were 126.9 f t-lbs available motor torque
,
versus 103.44 ft-lbs required motor torque.
The DET identified deficiencies with PM 83-143 which involved the absence
of a standard design guide for performing instrument loop accuracy calculations.
The inspectors determined that the scheduled date of September 30, 1989, for issue of this guide was not met by the licensee.
The inspectors determined however, that efforts are ongoing concerning devolpment of the standard design guide which is scheduled to be issued sometime in 1990.
Additional deficiencies, related to the number of field revisions.
.
associated with plant modifications, were identified by the DET.
The
licensee in their response to the DET report stated that a statistical evaluation of field revisions was performed to characterize the type of changes and their relative frequencies included in the field revisions.
The inspectors determined that the sampling procedure ' used by the licensee was based on guidelines contained in MIL STD-10SD, Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes.
This effort involved review of 12 plant modification packages with 219 randomly selected
-
individual change documents.
The evaluation concluded that nine percent of field revision documents were found to contain design errors.
No examples of design errors were found which could result in an unreviewed
safety question.
Licensee management stated that an ongoing effort to review field revisions for root causes was being developed.
This effort has already started with a 100 percent sample review of field revisions
,
related to plant modifications installed during the present Unit 2 outag m +- e
.
t
>...
,
g
,
L
l
-
,
!
i
'
CP&L's interoffice memorandum from J. M. Brown, dated November 29, 1989, Subject:
Field Revision Review / Approval and Operability Check ~ Sheet Sign-off, Revision 3, describes the process and assigns responsibility
'
for review of field revisions.
Additional administrative controls will
!
be developed to formalize the process which will continue through the
.
Unit 1 outage (June 23. to December 7,1990).
Corrective actions, s
,
I involving development and. issue of the standard design guide for performing instrument loop accuracy calculations, and development of administrative controls for the 100 percent review of field revisions, r
'~
are still ongoing.
This unresolved item will - remain open pending.
completion of the above corrective actions by the licensee and review by the NRC for technical adequacy.
c (Closed) URI 325,324,/89-34-06, Review NCR's 88-55 and 88-56 for actions to improve written 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.
These NCR's were issued in November 1988 and were discussed in NRC
' Inspection Report-325,324/88-40.
Corrective actions to these NCRs included the requirement that safety evaluations be performed by qualified technical reviewers, and training be provided to qualified technical reviewers and supervisory personnel on safety evaluations and the concerns identified in NCR's 55 and 56.
In addition to these corrective actions a procedure has been developed to standardize the CP&L safety evaluation process and incorporate the guidance of Nuclear Safety Analysis Center (NSAC)
125, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety
-
Evaluations.. The corporate procedure is in draf t form and scheduled to be issued prior to January 31, 1990.
Training on the new program is scheduled to commence in the mid-March time frame.
With respect to 50.59 evaluations performed in the past, the licensee does not have a formalized program to review these evaluations, however, as part of the Design Basis Documentation program the licensee plans to review all modifications and Engineering Evaluation' Requests (EER's) to determine the effect of the modifications and EER's on the design basis of the systems.
This item is closed, however, follow-up on the implementation and effectiveness of improvements made to 10 CFR 50.59 reviews will be tracked by IFI 325,324/89-34-25.
A~
(0 pen) URI 325,324/89-34-05, Evaluate adequacy of the licensee's actions to investigate system design integrity issues for systems other than HPCI and service water including adequacy of pre-operational tests.
This item is tracked by the licensee as IAP item number 07, confirm t
design basis for key Brunswick systems.
This item consists of completion of the system design criteria turnover project, completion of the piping design turnover project, and evaluation of the results of the service water modification review, the service water SSFI findings, the HPCI SSFI findings, and the SLC SSFI findings to identify and document any further actions required.
l
.
Ov
,
'.
,.
,
,
..
.
!
1
-
,
The licensee's Design Basis Documentation (DBD) program is scheduled for completion by December 31, 1991, and includes the development of system design basis documents for 66 systems.
The project includes the turnover
,
- '
of all design basis information from United Engineers and Constructors
'
(UE&C) and General Electric for the affected systems.
The program also
.
includes the review of all modifications and EER's performed on the systems
!
to determine if they affected the systems design basis.
t
,
L As of this inspection 38 DBD packages have been turned over to CP&L, 30 of these packages have received a CP&L owners review, and five of the packages have had a plant modification review.
!
E The licensee's piping design turnover project is scheduled for completion
!
i-by December 31, 1990, and per discussions with the lic.ensee is approximately 25 percent complete.
This project consists of two phases.
Phase I was completed in 1987 and involved identification of the UE&C pipe stress and pipe support calculations of record, packaging to place these
'
records in a useable form, transmittal of the calculations to CP&L,
-
transfer of piping and pipe support design responsibility to CP&L, and
generation of pipe stress isometric drawings as required to match the
'
UE&C calculations.
Phase II involves selected walkdowns to define the as-built configuration of the plant, updating calculations to reflect the as-built configuration, enhancement of calculations to resolve identified problems, updating drawings to reflect the as-built configuration and a
>'
snubber reduction program.
The licensee's review of the service water modification review and the
SSFI's completed to date has not commenced yet because the service water SSFI has just been completed and the report has not been issued.
This
activity is scheduled for completion by June 30, 1990.
- The inspector determined that the licensee presently does not have a i
formalized program to review the adequacy of the pre-operational tests performed prior to startup of the units.
The licensee stated that, as part of the review of the SSFI's performed to date, problems with pre-operational. tests may be identified and they will be addressed when the review is completed.
This unresolved item will remain open pending completion of the licensee's actions to implement IAP item number D7 and review by the NRC. for technical adequacy.
(0 pen) IFI-325,324/89-34-01, follow-up on DC motor-operated valve reviews.
I The licensee has revised Design Guide DG-V.69, Electrical Evaluation of DC Powered Motor-0perated Valves, to require evaluation of the motor overload heaters in the calculation of available motor torque.
The licensee has obtained the resistance values for all motor overload heaters and has incorporated the values into the design guide.
The licensee's position is that the added resistance will have an overall nominal effect on the final output torque value and is bounded by other design conservatisms.
The inspector was unable to review the Unit 2 calculations for the DC motors installed because they had not been completed at the time of this inspection, u
-.
.
.
-
,
_
-
z l
'
.
.
'
r
.
..
.
.
D
!
.
]
>
This item will remain open pending review of the Unit 2 DC motor calculations and review of the Unit 1 calculations and EER 88-0340 which is presently scheduled to be completed by July 31, 1990.
]
(0 pen) IFI 325,324/89-34-18, Follow-up on improved sampling plan for QA
.
surveillance of technical specification requirements (IAP Item DI-d).
The inspector ascertained that the licensee has developed and reviewed a
procedure for verifying, by sampling, that the TS surveillance requirement intervals are being met.
This plan is based on having
greater than 95 percent successful completion of the surveillance
,
requirements.
The inspector made a limited examination of the j
- methodology outlined in the procedural.
Discussions conducted with QA personnel disclosed they were just beginning to implement the new TS sampling procedure and the first trial run should expose existing problems.
Closure of this item'is targeted for March 31, 1990, at which time a Regional follow-up inspection will examine the results of the procedure implementation.
(0 pen) IFI 325,324/89-34-37, Follow-up on implementation and effectivenss ofindependentperformanceassessmentsinIAPitemE-5(Reference 2.1.5.3)
The Region's published licensee completion date of December 31, 1989, for IAP Item E-5 is in error and should be changed to December 31, 1990. The licensee's response to the NRC DET Report clearly indicates that further actions will be defined and scheduled subsequent to initial recommendations that were due December 31, 1989. The licensee's Level 2 IAP defines these further actions (subtasks) and specifies completion dates for the subtasks.
Subtask E-5a. to select members to serve on a NOPQT which has been tasked with making recommendations to a steering committee that will significantly elevate the quality of the companys' oversite programs and
- identify programmatic issues for-management attention and action before they become major problems has been accomplished.
The NOPQT has conducted six meetings since its inception.
The inspector conducted discussions with the N0PQT chairman and the BNP representative and examined the N0PQT meeting minutes. Team expectations and milestones have been established.
The team has examined present CP&L evaluation / oversight processes identifying strengths and shortcomings.
The team is also examining " leading edge techniques and best industry practices" that may be incorporated into CP&L's program.
The Level 2 IAP completion target dates appear to be on schedule and the next Region follow-up inspection of this item is scheduled July 16-20, 1990.
3.
Commercial Grade Procurement at BNP (38703)
a.
BNP CGI Program Chronology The inspector conducted discussions with the Manager of Administrative Finance and Stores, the Manager of Engineering Procurement, a Procurement Project Engineer and with knowledgeable QA personnel and examined procedures / records to become familiar with the licensee's CGI procurement program implementatio [
E I
,
m
..
..
.
,.
Discussions with the above mentioned personnel concluded that BNP recognized that procurement in general was an engineering function and required engineering involvement.
Reportedly, CGI procurement requisitions during -the 1981-1987 time frame required and received engineering evaluation for acceptance of proper technical and QA requirements.
This f ront end procurement emphasis was simply documented by an engineer's signature on the purchase requistion and not supported by a documented evaluation.
The engineering procurement group reportedly had no procedures / instructions that outlined responsibilities or methodology to be employed, no formalized procedural training, nor were any records of personnel training kept during this time frame.
Verification requirements for receipt inspectors (i.e. those specified inspection attributes to provide reasonable assurance that the purchased material, equipment or services conform to the procurement documents and would perform their intended safety function) were minimal during this period.
Characteristic verification and acceptance criteria were lef t up to the inspector and consequently rarely consisted of more than inspection of part number, dimensions, physical damage, 000, and possibly material type.
However, BNP has extremely limited on-site testing capability, the tools and instruments used were reportedly not controlled / calibrated, and C0Cs were not substantiated via a survey and, therefore, were of little value.
The above mentioned procurement engineering procedural concerns were addressed by the licensee in October 1987.
Engineering Procedures ENP-42.2, Purchase Requisition and Data Base Review; ENP-42.3, Material Engineering Evaluation Procedure; and ENP-604, Responsible Procurement
Engineer Training, were developed to identify and document the procurement engineering group responsiblities and work practices and to provide assurance that RPE personnel were qualified to perform their functions.
ENP-42.3 specifies that the RPE is responsible for performing and documenting an engineering evaluation used to review and justify the technical and QA requirements to be invoked on purchase requistions for safety-related items.
If the item can be procured as a CGI, the RPE is required to document this decision, based on the intended safety-related application, identify any CCs that should be verified, and specify how the
,
verification 'should be performed.
Although the subject procedure addresses CGI CCs and verification of these CCs at receipt inspection j
actual verification practice continued to be minimal as discussed above
and was not believed to have been changed until January 1, 1990.
j
- Corporate Management's NPPWG issued their corporate policy and guidelines (which essentially endorsed EPRI NP-5652) for CGI nuclear procurements in safety-related applications around October 1989.
The following site-specific Procurement and Material Control i
Procedures have incorporated the NPPWG guidelines:
- PMC 15.2, Purchase Requistion and Data Base Review
PMC 15.3, Material Engineering Evaluation Procedure PMC 15.8, Development of CGI Verification Plans
_.
L i
'
.
'
.
,
!
.
L
,
Any BNP CGI for safety-related applications procured on or after
,
January 1,1990, is to be evaluated, procured and verified by the above
,
procedures.
!
b.
Acceptability of Q-List CGIs Procured Prior to January 1, 1990
^
BNP has developed a recommended plan which the licensee feels will provide reasonable assurance that previously procured Q-list CG!s
.
,
installed in the plant or currently existing in the warehouse are
'
!
acceptable and will perform as intended.
This plan, discussed below and in a BNP memorandum to R.
B.
Starkey Jr. f rom W. W. Simpson dated i
January 11, 1990, is as follows:
,
Parts Previously Procured and Installed Suspect Vendors - A review of available documentation (e.g.
IEN's, IEB's, etc.) will be conducted to identify vendors previously associated with supplying fradulent/ counterfeit i
material.
Parts previously procured from these vendors, if any, will be re-evaluated using current CP&L guidelines for dedication of commercial grade material.
This will include safety application evaluation, critical characteristic determination and evaluation using the accepted techniques for dedication of commercial grade items.
Problem items will be
handled per approved plant procedures for corrective action.
"
Other Vendors - For vendors where there is no reason to suspect that the material installed is inadequate, a spot check evaluation of these items will be done.
This spot check will cover a minimum of 200 part numbers for currently installed plant items previously purchased and installed by BNP.
The sample will include a mix of items installed by modification.
Items directly procured as commercial grade as well as items upgraded from stock will be included in the mix.
The evaluation will be conducted in the same manner as suspect vendors above.
If any unacceptable material is detected a plan for expanded sampling will be prepared and submitted for
'
management approval.
,
Parts in Warehouse Storage
.
Suspect Vendors - This material, if any, will be evaluated in
!
the same manner as suspect vendors above.
Other Vendors - By CP&L part number approximately 3400 types of commercial grade items from approximately. 450 vendors are r
currently-in warehouse Q-List storage.
Of this material a minimum of 400 discrete items will be selected and evaluated in the same manner as other vendors above.
Material from at least 50 different vendors will be included in the 400 item sample.
Activity milestones and their scheduled completion dates are given in the plan.
Disregarding any expanded sampling that may be necessary, BNP expects to complete this work by July 15, 199 l
.
'
.
..
.
,
f
!
c.
Licensee Identified BNP CGI Procurement Problems
'
NCR A-87-023 issued July 21, 1987, identified twelve concerns that
,
deal with the procurement process at BNP.
The majority of the
'
concerns deal with the work practices of the procurement engineering group due to the fact that no procedures-existed for the group that
<
outline the responsibilities or review methodology to be employed by
'
the group.
Engineering Procedures ENP-42.2. Purchased Requisition
,
and Data Base Review; ENP-42.3, Material Engineering Evaluation Procedure; and -ENP-604, Responsible Procurement Engineer Training
!
were issued to handle the above concerns; however, QA has not officially closed this NCR as yet apparently due to minor procedural changes / additions that are being considered.
NCR A-88-018 issued June 27, 1988, was. written to identify that BNP dedication and CG procurement program were inadequate for the following reasons:
Certificates of Conformance/ Compliance are used to accept
,
material without verification of the Certificate or dedication of the material.
Material is ordered and accepted by vendor part number or
item description without any material verification / dedication.
BNP performs no special test or inspections, audits of
commercial grade material suppliers, or source verification to
,
verify commercial grade items.
'
Purchase Orders for CGIs do not list all critical
-
characteristics, receipt inspections or acceptance criteria.
Design Seismic, and EQ control are based on a Certificate
of Conformance without any dedication other than part number or item description.
This NCR was placed in suspense on July 25, 1988, pending an evaluation by CQAD management for it's applicability to each CP&L plant.
The subject NCR wss re-issued on March 13, 1989,-to allow these deficiencies to be formally addressed in light of NRC's Generic Letter 89-02 and NUMARC's endorsement of EPRI NP-5652 guidelines.
The licensee's response dated May 2,1989, to the subject NCR agreed that BNP CG procurement program was inadequate in light of regulatory requirements established in 10 CFR 50, Appendix
'-
B, Criteria III, IV, and VII, and the guidance set forth -in EPRI Report NP-5652.
The response proposed both long and short term
-
corrective actions.
Short term actions which are reportedly completed included training on the EPRI Report NP-5652 to the l
Procurement Engineering Group; the utilization of on-site and
,
l corporate testing capabilities, on a case by case basis to verify L
the acceptability of CGIs ordered after June 16, 1989, and the
'
L discontinuance of accepting a C00 as the sole basis for acceptance of CGIs unless it can be substantiate g
'
i.
'.
-
U
..
..
L Long term corrective actions were the development of new procedures and/or revision of existing ones to meet EPRI Report NP-5652 guidelines; and the evaluation of on-hand CG stock for acceptability for use in safety-related applications.
'
<
The subject procedures have been developed and a reconimended plan to assess the acceptablity of Q-List CGIs procured prior to January 1,1990, has been approved as discussed above in paragraphs 3.a. and 3.b. respectively.
4.
Emergency Diesel Generator Engine Driven Jacket Water Pump Failures.
Gould was the original manufacturer of the JWPs that were used on BNP EDGs which were supplied by Nordberg Diesel.
Nordberg Diesel had A. A.
Anderson modify Gould's standard motor driven two bearing pump to an engine driven, one bearing application and trim its impeller diameter from 11-inches to 8.625-inches.
The Nordberg Technical Manual (JWP drawings) provided to the licensee did not identify the above impeller diameter change.
Subsequently, on April 29, 1985, CP&L ordered two replacement pumps via P0 290595AS as "Off-The Shelf Items" directly from Gould.
CP&L received exactly what they ordered from Gould.
Two JWPs with modified shaf ts and special power ends to fit the Nordberg Diesel equipped with 11-inch impellers as detailed on Norberg Drawing. #59490075.
The subject pumps were upgraded to Q-List per
!
EER 85-0175 dated August 29, 1985.
Nordberg Diesel went out of business around late 1985, and reportedly during this time frame extensive quality documentation maintained by the company disappeared.
Cooper Energy Services replaced Nordberg Diesel as BNPs EDG representative but primarily served as a parts supplier to CP&L.
l One of the above mentioned procured replacement JWPs experienced a shaft
failure on March 23, 1989, approximately 18 months after being
.;
installed.
Its replacement, the second JWP procured under the same P0,
!
experienced a similar shaft failure on November 16, 1989, after
-
,
approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of total-operation.
!
Subsequent pump shaft failure analysis performed by A. A. Anderson and licensee contacts with Cooper Energy Services concerning these failures eventually resulted in BNP receiving on December 4,1989, a revision to-the Nordberg Technical Manual drawing indicating the impeller size on these_ pumps should be 8.625 inches.
Af ter review of the chronology and circumstances involved with this JWP procurement the inspectors concluded that there was no-licensee violation in this area from a procurement standpoint.
This decision was based on j
consideration of the significance of the item, the diversity of having two pumps (backup motor driven),- the time frame the pumps were procured, and the opportunity for the licensee to have discovered the impeller
,
design change was made.
[
.
.
m
.
.
.c
..
-
L Our understanding of the situation is that it would not really have l
- mattered in this particular case which way the licensee chose to procure
[
the subject pumps at that time.
A
"Q" or CG procurement from this
i supplier probably would have gotten the same pump due to inadequate vendor technical manual information on hand.
The above JWP failures clearly stress the importance of maintaining close
licensee-vendor interfaces to ensure vendor technical manuals and other vendor design documentation reflect what is truly installed and kept
'
r current.
The residents will pursue the other aspects of this issue where the licensee had opportunities to detect the discrepancy.
5.
Exit Interview i
The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 12, 1990, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting co'nments were not ceceived from the licensee.
- Unresobed item 325,324/89-34-07, Review statistical techniques
used for root cause analysis of field revisions, and technical
'
adequacy of corrective actions for PM 88-019 and PM 88-143.
Unresolved item 325,324/89-34-05, Evaluate adequacy of licensee's actions to investigate system design integrity issues for systems _other than HPCI and service water including adequacy of pre-operational test.
At the exit interview licensee management was informed that the above items were closed.
Inoffice review of these items by NRC senior management has determined that these items will remain open.
The licensee was informed of this change in status via telephone conversation
-
on February 5, 1990.
The following items were identified as remaining open pending completion
'
of specific actions required to resolve the deficiencies.
,
IFI 325,324/89-34-01, follow-up on DC Motor-0perated valve reviews.
IFI 325,324/89-34-18, follow-up on improved sampling plan for QA surveillance of Technical Specification Requirements.
IFI 325,324/89-34-37, Follow-up on implementation and effectiveness of independent performance assessments in IAP item E-5 (Reference 2.1.5.3).
Issues related to procurement activities were also discussed with the licensee.
'
.
$
~}i 4-p
.a
.
-
.
ed
',
. *
.
~-
,,q-
e
,'!
i i
N'
L'
6..
Acronyms and'Initialisms s
,
h AWG American Wire Gage l
BNP Brunswick Nuclear Plant
'
fL BSEP'
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant l
. CC '
' Critical Characteristic (l; j CP&L Carolina Power and Light CG Commercial Grade
.
' Commercial Grade Item
[?,
000.
Certificate of Conformance
CQAD Corporate. Quality Assurance Department'
rs DBD-Design Basis Documentation D;
-DC
~ Direct Current-DET:
Diagnostic Evaluation Team
,
EDG-Emergency Diesel-Generator
'
o'
EER'
Engineering Evaluation Request l
ENP Engineering Nuclear Procedure EPRI Electric Power Research Institute:
'
HPCI High1 Pressure Coolant Injection
!
IAP.
~ Integrated Action Plan JWP'
. Jacket Water Pump
!
LER Licensee. Event: Report MEER Material Engineering Evaluation Report MOV.
Motor Operated Valve NCR-Nonconformance Report NOPQT Nuclear Oversight Project-Quality Team
.
NPPWG-Nuclear Procurement Program Working Group NUMARC Nuclear 'ianagement and Resource Council
'PM Plant Mcdification
.P0 Purchase Order s
RPE Responsible Procurement Engineer SLC Standby' Liquid Control q"
LSSFI Safety System Functional Inspection
<
TS -
Technical.. Speci fication UE&C United Engineers and Constructors i
,
+