ML20127L814
| ML20127L814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1993 |
| From: | Hodges M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127L818 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, NUDOCS 9301280018 | |
| Download: ML20127L814 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1992082
Text
-
,
J
'
f
~
o
JAN 211993
Docket Nos. 50-277
50-278
Mr. D. M. Smith
Senior Vice President-Nuclear
- E
Philadelphia Electric Company
Nuclear Group Headquarters
Correspondence Control Desk
P. O. Box 195
-
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
s
Dear Mr. Smith:
~
SUBJECT:
MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE (MOV) INSPECTION AT PEACH BOTTOM
ATOMIC POWER STATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO.
50-277/92-82; 50-278/92-82)
'
y
This letter refers to the NRC team inspection conducted on October 19-23 and
5
November 3,1992, at the Peach Bottom Atomic Powe. Station, to evaluate the adequacy of
i
your actions developed in response to NRC Generic Letter 89-10, " Safety-Related
Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance." This Generic Letter and its Supplements
,
provided recommendations to licensees to ensure operability of safety-related MOVs that
i
perform vital functions in protecting public health and safety during postulated design-basis
_
accidents.
L
_
Our inspectors observed that the implementation of your MOV program is progressing
i
towards its scheduled completion by November 30,1994, for Unit 2 and November 30,
1995, for Unit 3 in accordance with the recommendations of Generic Letter 89-10.
3
However, the level of management control necessary to assure the proper disposition of
1
nonconforming conditions was not evident in some areas of the MOV program at Peach
Bottom,
y
_
Our inspectors identified multiple examples of nonconforming conditions in MOVs that were
y
not documented and examples of nonconformance reports that were inadequately
dispositioned involving over-th ust, over-torque, and under-thrust conditions in safety-related
MOVs. In addition, informal communications between site maintenance and nuclear
engineering groups allowed your established mechanism for documenting and maintaining
7
correct MOV switch settings to become out of date and not reliable for valid design-basis
[
information. Several MOVs had questionable switch settings that were not appropriate for
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
j
S:PBMOVIR.PDD
9301280018 930121
ADOCK 05000277
i
G
.PDR
j[
-
-
y
i
a
.-
'
JAN 211993.
.-
Mr. D. M. Smith
2
design-basis conditions. Consequently, several switch settings required resolution prior to
startup of Units 2 and 3. Our review concluded that your organization took appropriate and
prudent measures to .tssure that specific concerns identified during this inspection were
resolved prior to the startup of both units.
Based upon this inspection, it appears that several of your activities were not conducted in
full compliance with NRC requirement 1, as set forth in the Notice of Violation, enclosed
,
herewith as Appendix A.- Spaifically, this Notice of Violation addresses the fact that you
1) did not document nonconforming conditions,2) did not properly disposition existing
nonconforming conditions, and 3) did not take timely corrective actions to evaluate and
resolve nonconforming conditions in MOVs in your Generic Letter 89-10 program. Your
response to this notice should follow the instructions in Appendix A. In your response, we
i
also request that you address the administrative controls within the corrective actions process
at Peach Bottom that were not effective in these cases and your proposed corrective measures
to prevent recurrences. The NRC is concerned about these conditions because multiple
examples may indicate programmatic deficiencies and because the lack of appropriate
,
corrective actions for nonconforming conditions in safety-related plant equipment can
potentially affect public health and safety.
We also request your attention to a concern related to your current GL 89-10 program
schedule which calls for completion of all testing in November 1994 for Unit 2 and
November 1995 for Unit 3. In light of the MOV family groupings proposed in your
program plan, some groups may not be justified after actual dynamic test results are
reviewed. If the test population must be significantly expanded, waiting until the fall of 1993
to start Unit 3 dynamic testing could jeopardize completion within the GL 89-10 schedule.
Although your GL 89-10 program test schedule was based on proposed test groups,
expansion of the test population is likely once actual dynamic test results are reviewed and
evaluated. We expect that your MOV testing will remain ahead of the planned schedule to
- ensure that all required testing is satisfactorily concluded within the scheduled program
completion dates.
The results of this inspection, as detailed in the enclosed report, were discussed during the
exit meeting held at the Peach Bottom Station on October 23,1992. At the exit meeting,
your staff acknowledged the inspection findings that three Unit 2 and two Unit 3 MOVs were
potentially inoperable and agreed to review the areas requiring clarification or improvement
to assure MOV operability before Units 2 and 3 returned to power operations. On
November 3 and 6,' 1992, your staff further clarified several of your intended actions and
commitments prior to Unit 3 startup. -On November 20,1992, the status of your objectives
and commitments were reviewed as summarized in Table I_of the enclosed report. The
overall inspection effort concluded on November 30,1992, in a telephone conference
between Mr. J. Durr of the Region I staff and Mr. D. Miller of PECo.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
S:PBMOVIR.PDD
_ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
JAN 211993
.
Mr. D. M. Smith
3
a
If your understanding of the actions to enhance the MOV program is different than
summarized in Table I, please notify me in writing as soon as possible.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Cridr.al Tcm Cy:
Marvin W. McJgs
Marvin W. Hodges, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2. Inspection Report No. 50-277/92-82; 50-278/92-82
cc w/ encl:
R. N. Charles, Chairman, Nuclear Review Board
D. B. Miller, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. Rainey, Vice President, Nuclear Services Department
G. Cranston, General Manager, Nuclear Engineering Division
C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
K. P. Powers, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
A. A. Fulvio, Regulatory Engineer, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. J. Beck, Jr., Manager, Licensing Section
J. W. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel
J. A. Isabella, Director, Generation Projects Department,
Atlantic Electric
,
B. W. Gorman, Manager, External Affairs
R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations
D. Poulsen, Secretary of Harford County Council
R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition
J. H. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
K. Abraham, PAO (2)
NRC Resident Inspector
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
TMI - Alert (TMIA)
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
S:PBMOVIR.PDD
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
..
,
JAN 211993
.
Mr. D. M. Smith
4
bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences and IFS Forms)
T. Martin, RA
M. Hodges, DRS
E. Wenzinger, DRP
C. Anderson, DRP
DRS/EB SALP Coordinator
V. McCree, OEDO
J. Shea, NRR
T. Scarborough, NRR
A. Gibson, Region II
T. Martin, Region III
S. Collins, Region IV
K. Perldns, Region V
bec w/ Letter and Executive Summary Only (and Enclosure 1 - to be used with an NOV)
C. Hehl, DRP
W. Lanning, DRS
C. Miller, PDI-2, NRR-
T. Kenny, SRI-Limerick
B. Norris, DRP
D. Holody, EO
,
)()0
&' {+ W
I:DRS
RI:DRS
1:DQ
RI:DRS
Drysdale
Eapen
Durr
' Hod
1/ll/93
1/11/ 9 3
1//093
l#l/93
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
S:PBMOVIR.PDD
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_
\\