ML20056G799
| ML20056G799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G783 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-93-14, 50-366-93-14, NUDOCS 9309070181 | |
| Download: ML20056G799 (2) | |
Text
r ENCLOSURE 1 l
l Georgia Power Company Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 Hatch Unit I and 2 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 During an NRC inspection conducted on July 26-30, 1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are stated below:
l A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI states in part that, "a test program shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents.... Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test
)
requirements have been satisfied."
l Hatch Administrative Control Procedure 50AC-MNT-008-05, " Motor Operated Valve Maintenance and Testing," in Section 8.3.4.1 requires that l
" dynamic testing confirm that the MOV [ motor-operated valve) can perform j
its design basis functions."
In Section 8.3.4.3.1, the procedure i
requires that, "for dynamic tests performed at less than design basis l
flow / pressure, an evaluation of the MOV's performance at design basis l
flow / pressure (projected)... be made."
In Section 8.6.1.1, the l
procedure requires that " test data and evaluation results... be forwarded to offsite support for reconciliation with MOV design calculations, as needed."
l Contrary to the above, as of July 30, 1993, dynamic tests of MOVs within the scope of Generic Letter 89-10, " Safety-Related Motor-0perated Valve l
Testing and Surveillance," were performed in accordance with test procedures that did not incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits for determining operability prior to returning the tested MOVs back to service, and the test results for these M0Vs were not evaluated i
and documented adequately at the time of this inspection. As a result, the operability determinations for these MOVs remained undocumented.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI states in part that " measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
l l
9309070181 930830 PDR ADOCK 05000321 O
PDR I
Georgia Power Company 2
Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 Hatch Units I and 2 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 j
Contrary to the above, corrective action was not taken in March 1990 to raise the torque switch setting of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Torus Spray Train A Outboard MOV IEll-F028A in response to the results of a l
dynamic test of similar valve RHR Torus Spray Train B Outboard M0V IEll-F028B. Further, an evaluation of the operability of M0V IEll-F028A and the applicable technical specification and reporting requirements, was not performed when dynamic testing of this MOV in October 1991 demonstrated that it might have been inoperable as set before initiation of the test.
i This is, Severity level ly violation (supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Georgia Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the i
l corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or. revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 30th day of August 1993 l
l l
r i-m
'-g9
.i-g
..w-
.y g.pw.
g --
g-e>-vg,3 y
.wgy-