IR 05000416/1990007

Insp Rept 50-416/90-07 on 900416-20.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Settlement of Category 1 Structures,Flood Protection,Testing of Main Steam Safety Valves & Snubber Surveillance

ML20042G547
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	05/02/1990
From:	Belisle G, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20042G546	List: IR 05000416/1990007 ML20042G545
References
50-416-90-07, 50-416-90-7, NUDOCS 9005150061
Download: ML20042G547 (6)

Text

P ql

'

,

'

'

"IL

'

+

..

,

,

. '

'

.

An'Rio UNITE] STATES b

'

og'o' ~'~

.

<

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

"

' [

,g REGION ll.

--

' j-101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.

.*t

,_

'E

, &

ATLANTA,050HGl A 30323

M'3

%...../

g

Report No.

'50-416/90-07'

,.

-Licensee:

System Energy Resources, Inc.

Jackson, MS 39205

,u J

<

Docket No,;- 50-416 License No.:

NPF-29

Facility Name:. Grand Gulf Inspection Conducted:

April 16-20, 1990

.

L,.r-d f1 9d-Inspector:

.(

J. J. Lenahan W

/

Dste Signed

.

Accompanying Personnel:

G. Begchi, Chief, Structural Engineering Branch, NRR

- !'

'

'

(April 16, 17 only)

L. Kintner, Project. Manager, NRR ( April 16-19)

i R. Pichumani, Geotechnical' Engineer, NRR

<

-- (April 16, 17 only)

i 3.

' Approved by:

C//

//6

,

.'

.G.:A.'Belisle, Ch'1ef Date/ Signed

[

Test Programs Section-Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety j

a-SUMMARY

,. :

y Scope:

,

(

This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the aread of settlement-

-f

,

U of -category 1 structures, flood protection, testing of the main steam safety

.t relief valves, and snubber surveillance.

.!

n

?

Results:

.[

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

The snubber surveillance program was rated as a strength. Surveillance records

,

indicate review of results was timely, thorough and technically sound. The

!

licensee's program for testing of safety rel.i e f valves exceeds' NRC p

requirements. A weakness was identified in settlement programs regarding the

~

!

H use of survey' equipment and field procedures which do not comply with industry

~

standards specified in.the licensee's procedures, i

-

i 9005150061 900509 PDR. ADOCK 05000416 O

PDC

.t

!

t

q

,

-

s

.

,

+

'

REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees D. Austin, Civil Engineer W. Cottle, Vice President, Nuclear Operations

,

M. Crawford, Manager, Nuclear Licensing

!

• L. Daughtery, Compliance Supervisor D. Franklin, ISI Engineer

• C. Hutchinson, General Manager

~

A. Malone, ISI Engineer _

W. Mashburn, Principal Civil Engineer D. Pace, Manager, Nuclear Design

• J.. Roberts, Manager, Plant System Engineering J. Sutterfield, Engineer Assistant Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included four

.,

engineers.

NRC Resident Inspector

• J. Mathis

• Attended exit interview

>

2.

SettlementofCategory1 Structures-(61701)

The inspector, accompanied by Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

' personnel, toured the site and examined settlement points and ground' water observation wells.

NRC personnel examined the expansion -joints between various structures and the ' Category 1 structures for indication of settlement cracking and/or differential settlement between the structures.

No. problems or indications of settlement were identified.

The NRC-staff discussed the settlement and ground water monitoring programs _with

licensee engineers, and the minor discrepancies noted for settlement data recorded in November 1988 and May 1989.

The NRR request for additional information dated April 2, 1990, Subje'ct:

Settlement Monitoring of Category 1 Building (TAC No. 75802) was also discussed with licensee engineers.

The NRC staff reviewed allowable and measured differential settlement calculations and the effect on piping four inches and greater

-

in diameter.

Review of the ratio of actual to allowable differential

>

settlement disclosed that piping in penetrations 27 and DP-44A were at 80 oercent of their allowable -limits.

The inspector examined Specification No.:

SERI-C-395.0, Civil Specification for Foundation Settlement Monitoring.

This specification provides requirements for-the settlement monitoring program for Category 1

n-W

-

,

,

,

,

.

l structures per the licensee's commitments. contained in FSAR Section 2.5.4.13.1.

The inspector noted that the specification required the settlement surveys to be performed in accordance with first order.

leveling.

The inspector examined the licensee's survey equipment used to perform the settlement surveys, and noted. that it did not meet the requirements for first order leveling.

The inspector also examined the i

settlement survey data for surveys performed since November 1988.

The inspector noted that the accuracy of the surveys appeared to be in accordance with first order leveling requirements.

However, the inspector expressed concerns regarding use of survey. equipment and survey field procedures which did not conform with first order leveling requirements.

The inspector discussed the need to use a-geodetic level and precision

!

rods, and first order level procedures recommended in the General l

Specification of Geodetic Control Survey published by the U. S. Department l

of Commerce, National Oceanic. and Atmospheric Administration.

Licensee

!

engineers agreed to review their field procedures and equipment needs to g

comply with first order leveling-requirements.

The NRC staff discussed the need to closely monitor the piping at penetration numbers 27 and DP-44A, since the differential settlement was e

'

close to the allowable limits at these points.

NRC personnel also discussed to need to monitor building movement at expansion joints.

The

.

concern here is that differential settlement of structures could result in-

slight tilting of some structures which could reduce the required seismic

.!

gap below allowable limits.

Performance of direct measurements at these

+

points will provide more accurate data to evaluate the performance of the j

structure and identify potential problems which would result in compression

of the-seismic gap.

i Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

3.

Flood Protection (61701)

Technical Specification 3/4.7.10 specifies surveillance requirements for-examining the drainage ditch south of the plant and assuring that the l

culvert under the south access road remains open to permit discharge of rainfall runoff from the plant area, and preclude the possibility of l

flooding. of Category 1 structures and equipment.

The inspector examined Surveillance Procedure 06-TE-1000-V-001, Culvert No. 1 Embankment,

'

L Stability-Inspection / Survey, and drawing numbers NPE-C-6027, Plan, Culvert No. 1, Elevation Set Points for Surveying. These documents implement-the i

surveillance ' requirements of TS 3/4.7.10.

The inspector, accompanied by j

'

licensee engineers, examined the culvert and drainage ditch, and noted that these features are in good condition and would not restrict discharge of rainfall runoff from the site.

4.

Snubber Surveillance Program (70370)

,

The inspector examined procedures and quality records pertaining to the snubber surveillance program.

Acceptance criteria utilized by the inspector appear in Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4.

Procedures

,

g

-

.

.,

.

.

examined were Surveillance Procedure 06-ME-1000-V-0001, Snubbers Visual l

Inspection, and Surveillance Procedure 06-ME-1000-R-0002, Snubber

Functional Test.

Review of these procedures disclosed that they were technically adequate, and contained inspection and surveillance require-ments specified in the TS.

q The inspector reviewed quality records documenting visual inspection of f

inaccessible and accessible mechanical and hydraulic snubbers performed in

!

March 1989.

No visually inoperable snubbers were identified.

Based on these visual inspection results, the period for performing the next visual inspection is 18 months per Section 4.7.4.c of TS 3.4.7-10.

The inspector also examined results of functional testing performed on hydraulic and mechanical snubbers in March 1989. The licensee has divided snubbers into.three groups; hydraulic, mechanical snubbers installed in i

high temperature areas, and-the remaining mechanical.

The licensee tests ten percent'of the 76 hydraulic snubbers, all 3 of the snubbers installed

!

in high temperature areas, and 37 of the remaining mechanical snubbers.-

l These testing / sampling plans are in accordance with TS 4.6.4.e.

All snubbers tested met the functional test acceptance criteria.

t

!

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

J 5.

Main Steam Safety Relief Valve Setpoint Testing (61701)

!

e-The insp(ector reviewed results of testing of the main steam safety relief

valves SRV) and verified compliance with.TS 4.0.5 which requires that

SRVs be _ setpoint tested in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Code i

during each - refueling outage.

Each refueling outage all 20 SRVs are removed and sent to Wyle Laboratories to be setpoint tested. The licensee q

has a complete set of spare SRVs which are setpoint tested and certified

!

prior to installation in the plant.

The spare set of SRVs are installed i

,

to replace those which had been removed for setpoint testing. -The

}

inspector reviewed the following results of certification tests performed l

on the SRVs installed in the plant during the current cycle:

i Valve Required Set As-Left Set

{

Serial Number Pressure (PSIG)

1%

Pressure 160795 1165 1165 l

160796 1165 1163-

,

160801 1165 1171 l

160802 1165 1167

!

160804 1180 1183 160805 1180 1173

' :

160808 1180 1182

'

160811 1190 1187 160812 1190 1200 160813 1190 1191 160814 1190 1195

1

v

,'

-

r

-

-

,

'

.

!

'

Valve Required Set As-Left Set Serial Number Pressure (PSIG) 11%

Pressure (cont'd)

160815-1165 1166-160818 1165 1162-160825 1180 1175 160827 1180 1185

160829 1190 1187 160831 1190 1188 160836 1165 1157 a

160837 1165 1162

[

160838 1165 Not certified due to seat leakage j

160839 1180 1178 l

160841 1180 1177 160844 1190 1192 l

l

.

The inspector also reviewed the as-found set point test results for the-l SRV3 which had been installed -during the previous cycle.

These valves:

!

were tested in May 1989.

The valves tested were as follows:

Serial Numbers 160798, -803,.-809, -810, -816-817, -819, -820, -821, -822,

-823, -824, -826, -828. -830,.-832, -833, -834, -835, and -840.

Six of these valves had set points outside the plus or minus one percent tolerances. These were as follows:

Percent I

Valve..

Required As-Found Exceed

!

Serial Number Set Pressure ( 1%)

Set Pressure Set Pressure l

160819 1165 1193

+2.4 160820 1165 1178-

+1.1 160822 1165 1191

+2.2

'

.160826-1180 1195-

+1.2 160832 1190 1232

+3.5 160840 1180 1203

+1.9

- ;

The seats were found-to be leaking _ on 12 of the above valves during set point testing.

!

The valve seats were lapped and refurbished and the valves retested and (

certified in January-February 1990.

The -inspector reviewed the General

.

Electric /Wyle Recertification Test reports and maintenance records for these valves and valve numbers 160808, 160814 and 160838 which are i

currently in storage as the spare set pending reinstallation in the unit

during the next outage.

Within the areas inspected, no violation or deviations were identified.

.

d i

.- - -

A

fl

~

~

l V

.

,

'

o

..

.

'

'

. - *

.. '.

.

'

-

6.

Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)

(Closed) Unresolved Item (416/89-13-01): Questional Justification for Not Exercising ' and Stroke Testing Valves Quarterly.

The licensee tests approximately 40 containment isolation valves' during cold shutdown instead of quarterly as specified in the ASME. Code. However, Article IWV-3000 of the Code permits exercising some valves during cold shutdown instead of quarterly if it is not practical to perform the tests on a quarterly

. basis.

Since these valves are located in a high radiation area and it is not practical to test them ' quarterly during power operation, and the NRC

has granted similar relief from quarterly testing requirements at other sites, the inspector concluded that the licensee's inservice testing program for testing these valves conforms with NRC requirements.

7.

Exit Interview

.The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 20, 1990, with those persons indicated.in paragraph 1, The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.

- Proprietary information is not contained.in this report.

Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

,

)

I

-