IR 05000338/1993005

Insp Repts 50-338/93-05 & 50-339/93-05 on 930111-15.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Control of Heavy Loads in Containment & Crane Insps to Be Performed During SG Replacement Project

ML20128G728
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	02/05/1993
From:	Burnett P, Crlenjak R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128G665	List: IR 05000338/1993005 ML20128G662
References
50-338-93-05, 50-338-93-5, 50-339-93-05, 50-339-93-5, NUDOCS 9302160089
Download: ML20128G728 (5)

Text

- _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _

cO N I UNITED ST ATE S 8y Q[g NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMissl0N o REbtoN il

,E 101 MAnlETTA STRE ET. '# AT L ANT A.OEoROi A 30323

'$

4.....  :

Report Nos'.: 50-338/93-05 and 50 339/93-05 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company  :

5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060  :

Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50 339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NPF 7 !

Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2

'

' Inspection Conducted: January 11-15, 1993 Inspector: , ?he [d M"/*/ 3 I

ft P. T. Burnett _D ae t (Signed Approved by: Twi///7M W l' f' D

\ it. V. Crlenjak, Chief / Date Signed

\0perational Programs Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

.

+

SUMMARY Scope:

This routine, announced inspection addressed control-of heavy loads in __

containment and crane inspections to be performed during the steam generator replacement project.: Nuclear instrumentation system surveillance activities were also reviewe Results; Implementation of the heavy loads program ar,d'recent inspections of the. Unit l'

poler crane were satisfactory, but procedural guidance for contract crane inspectors could be improved (paragraph.2). -

j

.Special inspections for heavy lifts to be conducted during the steam generator .

replacement project have been scheduled at the appropriate times. Howeverg-the. amount'of time scheduled for the-inspections was insufficient. :The'

inspector questioned the safety _of conducting inspections while.the crane was -

in-use for.other activities (paragraph 3). ,

-The nuclear instrumentation surveillances reviewed were ' conducted with-acceptable periodicity and satisfactory results. .The inspectoriquestioned the:

benefits of increased surveillance of functions that appeared unvarying lsince this. required-extensive activity within the instrumentation rack ~

(paragraph 4).- 1 No violations or' deviations were identifie

PDR ADOCK 05000330

G- = pop .

e e- 9- wa- w ,r- w+e ,-

__-_ __-__-_-___ __- __

.

..

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted licensee Employees R. Deane, Mointenance Engineer

• H. Gettler, Manager, Steam Generator Replacement Project

• G. Kane, Station Manager

• J. Leberstein, Licensing Engineer

• Matthews, Superintendent, Maintenance A. Parker, Supervisor, Maintenance Engineering P Quarles, Supervisor, Quality Assurance

• B. Shives, Acting Assistant Station Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing

• J. Smith, Manager Quality Assurance

• J. Stall, Acting Assistant Station Manager, Operations and Maintenance Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personne NRC Resident inspectors M. S. Lesser, Senior Resident Inspector

• D. R. Taylor Resident inspector

• Attended exit interview on January 15, 199 . Control of Heavy Loads (61701, 37701)

The following completed procedures of the heavy loads program were reviewed: MPM-1301-01-(Revision 1), Polar Crane Inspection, was performed for-the current Unit 1 outage during January 6-8, 1993. Excessive wear on the bridge brake shoes was identified, along with the failure of one bridge braking system to maintain hydraulic pressure._ All other .

aspects of this mechanical inspection were satisfactory. The brake shoes were replaced before the crane was released for service. The initial release limited the crane to 50 ton loads pending repair of the hydraulic system. The SNSOC approved the restricted use of the crane on January 8, 1993. During the week of Janaury _11, 1993, the hydraulic system repairs were completed, and the load restriction was remove The MPM procedure had only one set of tables for-hook measurements- for-comparison with baseline values, it' appeared that separate baseline-tables would be required for each unit in that all four main hooks are

-

different. However, the licensee's QA records indicated that Unit 1, hooks 1 and 2, are identical to Unit =2,' hooks 1 and 2, respectivel Hooks 1 and 2 differed in baseline. measurements. This is surprising,.

since the' measurements are recorded to one-thousandths of an inch. In practice, all heavy loads are' attached to the pin hole in the hoo _ _ _ . ._

. . .-

Report Details 2 1he base line dimension for all four hooks was a hole diameter of 5.515 inches, when measured both horizontally and vertically. The most recent inspection did not reveal any significant increase in diameter, EPM 0402-01 (Revision 0), Inspection and Testing of Polar Crane, was performed on January 7, 1993. All steps were completed with satisfac-tory result The two procedures discussed above satisfy the requirements of ANSI B30.2-1976. flowever, the licensee had an additional inspection performed by a vendor certified by the 00L to perform crane inspec-tions required by 29 CFR 1910.179. The report issued by the contrac-tor included a list of problems and a completed check list. The check list did not provide acceptance criteria for a component or functio Discussions with the two contractor employees, who performed the compliance inspection, revealed them to be experienced, knowledgeable, and competent. However, had detailed procedural guidance been provid-ed them by the licensee, documentation of the inspection performed would have been improved and would have supported the. licensee's adherence to commitments made in response to GL 81-07. In addition, performance of the licensee's procedures by such experienced personnel would have provided a superior review of those procedure MPM 1304.1 (Revision 1), Inspection and Repair of Reactor Vessel Component and Reactor Coolant Pump lifting Devices, was in progress during this inspection. Removal of the Unit-l reactor _ vessel head was not scheduled until January 15, 199 . Polar Crane Use During the Steam Generator Replacement Program (37701)

During SGRP, the Unit 1 polar. crane will not be_ operated under the restrictions of GL 81-07 and NUREG-0612, Control of Heavy Loads in Nuclear Power Plants. Once all fuel is removed from containment and Unit 1 is- !

isolated from any systems shared with Unit 2, loao-path restrictions will be removed, and the polar crane will be used for six over-rated-load lift The maximum load to be lifted during SGRP is calculated to be 262.5 tons. The nameplate rating of the bridge is 250 tons. The project has conformed to B30.2-1990 to justify the overload lift and has scheduled the inspections that B30 2 1990 requires before and'after such lift These supplementary inspections will be limited to the bridge, which is the only portion of the crane that exceeds its design rating during the

-

heavy lift During an earlier inspection, the inspector-noted that the required pre-and post-lift crane inspections had not been scheduled-(IFI 50-338/92-25 01).

The required bridge inspections are now scheduled and the_ job-orders written and a) proved. For all but the first inspection, only 0.1'hr is allotted to tie actual inspection activity. In response to the-inspec-tor's questions, project management stated that all necessary time would be devoted to the required inspections. One member of the project staff

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

,

, , .. >

d Report Details 3 speculated that the 0.1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> was only the critical path time for stopping <

t1e crane to pick of the inspectors. This inspector expressed the concern that it is dangerous to try to perfor= inspections while the crane is in ,

use for other purposes and not under the direct control of the persons  !

performing the inspections. The licensee appeared to accept that concer ' Calibration of Nuclear Instruments  ;

The following surveillance procedures completed for Unit 2 were reviewed:

I PT-24 (Revision 13), Calorimetric Heat Balance (Hand Calculation),

was required only once in 1992 when the computer was out of servic The results were acceptabl i PT-24.1 (Revision 4), Calorimetric Heat Balance (Computer Calcula-tion), was performed with the required daily frequency for the period selected for review, October 5 - 31, 199 .

Acceptable results were }

obtained in all cases reviewe PT-27 (Revision 12), RCS Finw and Loop AT Measurement, is required to be performed every 18 months and after maintenance, it was per-formed three times in 199 The RTD bypass loops are to be removed from Unit I during the current  :

outage and from Unit 2 in the next outage. Direct immersion thermo-  ;

wells will be used instead. The inspector discussed with the licensee some of the problems enceuntered by other licensees following bypass-loop removal. Hot leg streaming effects combined with the low leakage core has caused AT to vary slowly throughout the cycle. Some licens-eos have found it necessary to determine the indicated full-power AT quarterly rather than every 18 months. The uncertainties in measure-ment of RCS flow by equating primary- side and secondary side-heat balances have increase PT-30.2.1 (Revision 18),' NIS Power Range Channel 1 (N-41) Channel Functional Test, does more than required for a functional test' of the high flux trip setpoin In addition, the low flux trip setpoint is checked even with_the reactor operating above the setroint-with P10 active. Other functions checked include the P8 and PIO interlocks and the positive and negative rate.-trip The inspector reviewed a year of surveillance. results. During that-time, P8, P10,-and the positive and negative _ rate trip'setpoints did not change significantly and were well within the bands of acceptable values, if only the high-fiux trip were checked, an-additional current source t would have to-input-to the channel, but no standard cabling would have-to be disconnected, With the extended surveillance activities being performed,- additional time is spent working in racks, with additional-manipulation, disconnection, and reconnection of cables; ' The benefits -

, . . . .

SE j r

. . . . -  :

!

- Report Details 4 ,

of the increased surveillance do not ap) ear to justify the increased _ t out of service time of the instrument ciannels or_ the risks attendant '

to increased activities within the instrument rack ' Followup of Previous inspection Activities (92701)

(Closed) Ifl 50-388/92 25 01: Inspections of the Unit 1-polar crane preceding and following overload lifts have not been scheduled, nor the inspection agency identifie A contract for the inspections has been issued, and the inspections have -

'

been scheduled (see paragrcph 3). Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on January 15, 1993, with ;

those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas

'

inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed.abov ,

Proprietary information was not reviewed during this inspection. Dissen ing comments were not received from the license . Acronyms and initialisms

'

ANSI American National Standards Institute DOL U. S. Department of Labor-EPH electrical preventive maintenance procedure GL generic letter issued by the NRC If! ins)ector followup item MPM mec1anical preventive maintenance procedure NIS nuclear _ instrumentation system  ;

PT periodic test RCS- reactor coolant system RTD resistance temperature device s SGRP steam generator replacement project SNSOC station nuclear safety _and operating' committee a

i s

%

D I

s

.

-T - %-' W- =-g y- g- q ivy-i-yie- 1 p- w-byw- -

,iw+y w wy-*t- ) - g