05000321/LER-1995-001, :on 950110,personnel Error Resulted in Missed TS Surveillance.Operations Shift Supervisor Was Counseled on Importance of Paying Attention to Detail
| ML20078N354 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1995 |
| From: | Beckham J, Tipps S GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| HL-4775, LER-95-001, LER-95-1, NUDOCS 9502150289 | |
| Download: ML20078N354 (5) | |
| Event date: | |
|---|---|
| Report date: | |
| 3211995001R00 - NRC Website | |
text
Georgq Power company 40 inverness Center Parkway Post Off.ce Box 1295 o
Birmingham. Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877 7279 Georgia Power J. T. Beckham, Jr.
V
- P ' ';' '
'I'"'
ite sout% m tM:t1: sg.trm p
February 6,1995 Docket No. 50-321 HL-4775 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 Licensee Event Report Personnel Error Results in Missed Technical Specifications Surveillance Gentlemen:
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73(aX2Xi), Georgia Power Company is submitting the enclosed Licensee Event Report (LER) concerning a personnel error which resulted in a missed Technical Specification surveillance.
Sincerely, Pbh 0 -
J. T. Beckham, r.
OCV/et Enclosure: LER 50-321/1995-001 cc: Georzia Power Comycmv Mr. H. L. Sumner, General Manager - Nuclear Plant i
NORMS i
i U.S. Nuclear Remdatory Commission. Washington. D.C.
Mr. K. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch 1
LLS. Nuclear Rendatory Commission. Region H i
Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. B. L. Holbrook, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch I. '[ ' 2 i h
9502150289 950206
/
DR ADOCK 05000321
{
PDR i
l NRC POf8d 306 U.6, NUCLEAR KEGULATORU COMMi&&lON APPROVED Oses NO. 41804104 (5C2)
EKPtRES: Sf31JD6 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE TO EOMPLY wrTH THIS HFORMAT10N COLLEC180N REQUEST $0 0 HRS FORWARD S
UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
M yron REgDi 7ECOR$ '"uANEiiENT BR (MNBB7714).
US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
WASHNOTON. DC 20565 0001. AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31500104). OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON. DC 20503 f ACILITY NAME (1)
DOCKET NUARSER (2)
- W
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 l5l0l0l0l3l2l1 1
OF 4
TITLE (4)
Personnel Error Results in Missed Technical Specifications Surveillance EVENT DATE (S)
LER NUMBER (6)
REPORY DATE (7)
OTHER F ACILifiES INVOLVED (8)
MONTH DAY YEAR YEAR efgp
' #gy MONTH DAY YEAR F ACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER (S) 0151010101 I I F ACILJTY NAME Oli 110 91s 915 01011 010 012 016 915 0151010101 I I THtS REPORT in SUBMTTED PUR&UANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CPR ? ;lCheca one er more of pie bsoweig (11) op,,,7,g esODE (9) j 20 402(b) 20 4064c)
SO Thag2Xw) 73 71(c)
POWER 20 416(aX1)6) 50 36(c)(1) 507*sR2)M 73 71(c)
LEVEL (10)
}lQlQ 20 e64x1)W M 3mcK2)
M 73mK2Xe)
ONER (Spech si AMeef boeur 20 406(aM1Mm)
{
50 7AaM2Xi) 50 73aK2)(wn)(A) and a font ARC Form J66N FN ba g;@C; y
' * * * * " ' " ~ '
'o'**"*""'
- ' * * " ' " ~ " " >
/ ' ? / kWjp;M '
20 405(ag1)(v)
SO 7ha)(2)(su)
$0 ThaK2)(u)
LICEN&EE CONT ACT POR THIS LER (12) esAanE TELEPHONE NUMBER (mceuse sees code)
Steven B. Tipps, Nuclear Safety & Compliance Manager, Hatch
{^] 316I7l-l7l8l5l1 CO LETE O E u.. EwH Cgro,,,o, AILuRE oE.CRioED - m. REP.T ii.,
CAUSE
SYSTEM COMPONENT MANUFACTURER RFP ABL E
(
CAUSE
SYS'EM COMPONENT MANUFACTURER R POR ABLE
,,G" l
II I I I I J
I I II I I i 1
I III I I I T
I I
III I
I SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EAPECTED(14)
EAPECTED MONTH DAY VLAR SUBusS ON VES fir yee compesM DPECTED SUBMSSEW 04 TO g
NO DATE (15) l l
l cosmAC,(tm,M, - e,
,3. ~
,,e,i 1.)
On 1/10/95, Unit I was in the Run mode at a power level of 2436 CMWT (100% rated thermal power). At that time, personnel determined that a surveillance required by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications had been missed in May 1994. Specifically, the insenice test of Residual Heat Removal system pumps 1El1-C002B and IEl1-C002D, required by Unit 1 Technical Specifications section 4.6.K.1, had not been performed between 1/7/94 and 6/21/94. The surveillance is required to be performed once every three months; therefore, it should have been perfonned no later than 5/3/94 (three months from 1/7/94 plus the 25% grace period allowed by the Technical Specifications). The surveillance task sheet for the insenice test had been erroneously signed off as complete on 3/29/94 and the surveillance tracking system computer data base updated accordingly. Thus, the surveillance was not listed by the computer in April 1994 as potentially overdue and was not scheduled to be i
performed again until June 1994. Consequently, the insenice test on pumps lEl1-C002B and IEll-C002D was not performed by 5/3/94; it was performed successfully on 6/21/94.
The cause of this event was personnel error. The Operations Shift Supenisor, believing the inservice test had been performed, (in addition to the operability test which was actually run) signed a surveillance task sheet indicating the test had been completed. Both tests are contained in the same procedure. The Shift Supervisor was counseled regarding his error and its consequences.
NRC Porm see (6-e2)
l appaowso no se mac come anna u.a. - =am neoutarony(
=
'"oa^'a'nos""c"ou'"ncE*= "a'm"oussr EoY EnWano w u LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
M G^a0 g**
reg Esma von TEXT CONTINUATION pgo_uta;ony commiesoN Ocy as c OFFICE OF MANaQEMENT AND BUDGET,WAeHNOTON. DC 20005.
i PaCRJTY MaAE (1) 00CILET amanamma ggy ggt ammmmmm l0) pa0E (4) esagus g
j at vaan Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 I
Il 0l5l0l0l013l2l1 9l5 -10 l0 l1 l-l 0 l 0 l2 of l4 ruie-
- - m m
me.
,unc, m m i
PLANT AND SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
General Electric - Boiling Water Reactor Energy Industry Identification System codes are identified in the text as (EIIS Code XX).
i
DESCRIPTION OF EVENT
On 1/10/95, Unit I was in the Run mode at a power level of 2436 CMWT (100% rated thermal power). At that time, plant Operations personnel, after unsuccessfully searching for data to fill a gap in inservice test results for two pumps, determined that a surveillance required by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications had been missed in May 1994. Specifically, the inservice test of Residual Heat Removal (RHR, EIIS Code BO) system pumps lEl1-C002B and IEl1-C002D, required by Unit 1 Technical Specifications section 4.6.K.1 to be performed once every three months, had not been performed at the required frequency.
The inservice test on RHR system pumps lEl1-C002B and IEl1-C002D had been performed on 1/7/94 and therefore should have been performed no later than 5/3/94. This date is three months from 1/7/94 plus the 25% grace period allowed by the Technical Specifications. The surveillance task sheet for the inservice test had been erroneously signed-off as complete on 3/29/94. However, l
only a pump operability test was performed on 3/29/94. The operability test does not collect all the i
data required by the inservice test. Additionally, different data analysis is required for the inservice l
test. Thus, the task sheet for the inservice test should not have been signed-off as complete.
The surveillance tracking system computer data base was updated with the incorrect information regarding inservice test performance for RHR system pumps lEl1-C002B and 1El1-C002D. This resulted in the surveillance not being listed by the tracking system computer as potentially overdue in April 1994. Additionally, based upon the incorrect performance date of 3/29/94, the inservice test was not scheduled by the computer to be performed again until June 1994. Consequently, the inservice test on RHR system pumps lEl1-C002B and IEl1-C002D was not performed by 5/3/94 as required by the Technical Specifications. It was performed successfully on 6/21/94.
CAUSE OF EVENT
The cause of this event was personnel error. The Unit 1 Operations Shift Supervisor, believing the inservice test had been performed, erroneously signed-off as complete the surveillance task sheet for j
the inservice test of RHR system pumps lEl1-C002B and 1El1-C002D on 3/29/94 when, in fact, the inservice test had not been performed. Only the pump operability test was performed on 3/29/94.
Both tests are contained in the same procedure. The incorrect inservice test performance i
anc r senaisaa)
___.m..
APPROWEDOAS NO.Meinetes MAC PORM 300A usame m ageuLATORY -_-
ESTIMATED SURDEN PE TO COMPLY wm4 TMS [O
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
,N,k 9
TEXT CONTINUATION
,Nuctcygon _coMMismoN AsNiNoTOgN OFFICE OF MANAGEME9(T AND SU%ET, WASHINGTON. DC 20803 PACILATY NAsst (1)
LER NuesAER ft)
PAGE (3) y l
l 0l5l0l0l0l3l2l1 9l5 l-l1010 l1 l- 0 l 0l3 oF l4 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 rtme-s
- - c% mum information from the task sheet was input into the surveillance tracking system computer; con:Muently, the computer did not identify the inservice test as potentially overdue in April 1994 and the test was not scheduled to be performed again until June 1994.
REPORT ABILITY ANALYSIS AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT This report is required by 10 CFR 50.73 (aX2Xi) because a condition existed which was prohibited by the plant's Technical Specifications. Specifically, the inservice test of RHR system pumps lEl 1-l C002B and IE11-C002D was not performed at the frequency required by Unit 1 Technical Specifications section 4.6.K.I. The inservice test is required to be performed once every three j
months, plus a 25% grace period; however, over five months elapsed between consecutive test j
pe:formances.
The Residual Heat Removal system consists of two independent loops, each containing two pumps.
Survchnces, such as pump operability and inservice tests, are performed periodically as prescribed by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications to ensure the system is capable of performing its design functions: these functions include decay heat removal and low pressure coolant injection. A pump operability test checks pump flow rate and discharge pressure to ensure it can reach design rated flow at a given discharge pressure. An inservice test checks pump flow rate, discharge pressure, and l
vibration and compares its operation to a baseline condition established when the pump was known to be in good working order. The purpose ofinservice testing is to detect pump degradation so j
corrective actions can be taken before the pump degrades below its ability to perform its design function.
In this event, a required inservice test on two of the four RHR system pumps was missed. Inservice tests were performed on pumps lEl1-C002B and lEl1-C002D on 1/7/94 and on 6/21/94, but not in May 1994 as required by the Unit 1 Technical Specifications. An operability test was performed l
successfully on these two pumps on 3/29/94. A review of the test data from the 1/7/94 and 6/21/94 inservice tests shows the performance of the pumps had not degraded during the period between tests. Additionally, the two pumps passed their operability tests on 3/29/94. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the two pumps were fully capable of performing their design functions during the entire period between 1/7/94 and 6/21/94. Furthermore, it may be concluded that the l
pumps were not degrading during this period and that no adverse pump performance trends went l
undetected as a result of this event.
I Based upon the preceding discussion, it is concluded that this event had no adverse impact on nuclear safety. This analysis is applicable to all power levels and operating modes.
I
.c P
.A m
a@C W SAGA U4.=r' m NBOULATORf -_
N OMSa,0.398D49m ESTmeATED DURDEN PER TO COMPLY Wf7H THIS COMME RECARDDC STRAA THE DF LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
EUaEoutAfoY= MYAss.Tc ow*$ ade*
TEXT CONTINUATION asocTo"n Dc E EceYEm*EwfYouNcocT
, - Ts o,
o-T - -.
,A T.An u
5._.-
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 l
l l 015 l010 l0 l3 l2 l1 915 -l 010 l 1 l--l 0 l 0 l4 oF l4
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The Operations Shift Supervisor was counseled on the importance of paying attention to detail, especially regarding the performance of Tech Spec surveillances. Furthermore, the consequences, and potential consequences, of his actions were pointed out, i.e., potentially missing indications of pump degradation, and the need to generate a License Event Report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
No systems other than those mentioned in this report were effected by this event.
No failed components caused or resulted from this event.
Previous similar event; reported in the last two years in which surveillances required by the plant's Technical Specifications were missed due to personnel error were reported in the following Licensee Event Reports:
50-321/1993-003, dated 5/10/93 50-321/1994-004, dated 5/9/94 50-321/1994-015, dated 12/19/94 50-366/1994-006, dated 5/24/94 Corrective actions for the previous events could not have prevented this event because the previous events involved different personnel, different surveillances, and different errors, i.e., the prior errors did not involve personnel erroneously placing a completion date on the surveillance task sheet.
Previous actions addressed the personnel and the errors which caused the particular events. Because these personnel and errors were different, the corrective actions taken could not reasonably be expected to have prevented this individual from making the specific error which led to the missed inservice test on RHR system pumps lEll-C002B and IEll-C002D.
i I
i I
unce.= nenAtoer