IR 05000321/1978033
| ML19263B305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1978 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Dance H, Price D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263B301 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-78-33, 50-366-78-41, NUDOCS 7901180014 | |
| Download: ML19263B305 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. r
a atCg UNITED sT ATEs [[p 'c, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION / k REGION H ,., ? i 101 M ARIE TT A sTRE E T. N W I '-'
f ATL ANT A GE ORGI A 30303 o %... s j ... Report Nos.
50-321/ 78-33 and 50-36t>/78-41 Docket Nos.
50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.
DPR-57 and NPF-5 Licensee: Georgia Power Company E. 1. Hatch P. O. box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Facility Name: E. 1. Hatch 1 and 2 Inspection at: Plant site, Baxley, Georgia Inspection conducted: October 3-6, 1978 Inspectors: F. S. Cantrell D. S. Price R. J. Vogt-Lowell I r r- - e' l' ] e Approved by: , s H. C. Dance, Chief D.a t e Reactor Projects Section No. 1 9eactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary inspection on October 3-6, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-321/78-33 and 50-36bW8-41') Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection to review LER's, Plant Operations, Technical Specification Compliance, Off-Gas System, Reactor Pressure Vessel internal vibrations, and operational f unctional chet ks.
The inspection involved 80 inspector-hours on site by 3 NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 4 areas.
One item of noncompliance was identified on Unit 2 continued operation without the written approval of the operations supervisor (366/78-41-01) (De t.ii l s 111, naragraph 6) and one item of noncompliance was identified on Uut 1 involving failure to initiate a precedure revision request (321/78-33-01).
7901180OW[f
RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41-4-and 50-321/78-33 Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-fied.
7.
Safety Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings and Limiting Conditions for Operations - Unit 1 Records of operation of portions of the following systems were reviewed for a period of one month (or longer) to determine Techni-cal Specification Compliance: a.
Standby Liquid Control Concentration & Temperature (8/13-9/13/78) b.
Safety Relief Valve - Temperature (9/1-9/31/78) c.
Reactor Coolant System - Conductivity and Chlorides (8/13-9/13/78) d.
Torus Volume and Temperature (9/1-9/30/78) corrective action was taken (water added) when one recorder indicated the level was below the administrating limits September 24, 1978 (148"+1") on; however, technical specification limits (148+2") were not exceeded.
Drywell Vacuum Breakers Closed (2/78-8/78) e.
f.
Containment Temperature - No limit specified by Technical Specifications (Licensee has committed to developing procedure to determine average temperature for Unit 1.
This will be routinely reviewed during a subsequent plant operations review).
g.
Diesel generator availability and special surveillance test - conducted to demonstrate operability (January - September 1978) Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Snubber Surveillance (LER 321/78-57 and 321/78-68) As a result of snubber surveillance being completed late ( LER 321/78-57), GPC set up an inf ormal program to inf orm the surveillance coordinator of defective snubbers as they are identified so tha'. the surveillance frequency can be adjusted to meet Technical Speci-fication requirements.
LER 321/78-68 reports a defective snubber.
The coordinator was not aware of this defective snubber; therefore, he had not entered the defect into the syst em, or adjusted the su rveillance irequency.
A GPC representative stated that the program and method of keeping track of failures would be documented.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, this was identi-fied as an unresolved item (321/78-33-02).
RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41-5-and 50-321/78-33 9.
Generic Problem that Prevents Diesel Generator Pestart TLER 321/7877') While reviewing diesel generator control logic on September 20, 1978, a potential problem was identified in which a diesel generator could not be restarted during a loss of site power, or loss of coolant accident (LER 321/78-77). The problem requires several concurrence failures, and is not considered an immediate threat to public health and safety, A design change has been proposed that would correct the condition, and a GPC representative stated that after appropriate review and approval, the design change would be implemented. This problem has been referred to IE:HQ for evaluation and appropriate followup with other licensees.
No items of noncom-pliance were identified; however, implementation of the corrective action is considered an unresolved item (UR1 321/78-33-04).
10.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reported by the Licensee The following licensee event reports were reviewed in office for potential generic problems, to detect trends, to determine whether the information included in the report meets NRC reporting require-ments, and to consider whether the corrective action discussed in the report appears appropriate.
Licensee action with respect to select reports was reviewed to verify that the events were reviewed and evaluated by the licensee, and that safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting conditions for operations were not exceeded.
The inspector examined selected Plant Nuclear Safety Committee minutes, incident reports, logs, and records, and inspected equipment and interviewed selected personnel.
LER No. 50/ Report Date Subject
- 78-57 8/1/78 Snubber Surveillance Completed Late
- 78-67 8/25/78 Turbine Control Valve Closed Slow 578-68 8/30/78 Hydraulic Snubber Low in Fluid
- 78-69 9/9/78 Walls of Switchgear Room Not, n o..- Rated
- 78-77 9/25/78 Generic Diesel Generator Restart Problem
. RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-33 II-1 and 50-366/78-41 W - C DETAILS 11 Prepared by: i . [,uu ,.; r,c. 7E D~ S. Price, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: October 3-6, 1978 / C Reviewed by: C 3,
H. C. Dance, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Georgia Power Company - Edwin I. Hatch Units I and 2
- S. Baxly, Operations Supervise R. Nix, Maintenance Supervisor
- D. Smith, Counting Room Supervisor
- B. Thigpen, QA Field Representative B. Barrett, QA Field Representative J. Barnes, Shift Supervisor F. Gorky, Shift Foreman The inspector also interviewed three other licensee employers during the course of the inspection.
They included an HP technician and two associate engineers.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
- 3.
Unresolved Items None 4.
Exit Inte rvi ew See Details I, paragraph RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41-6-and 50-321/78-33 No items of noncompliance or de tions were identified.
The inspector noted that the licens had identified and taken corrective action as appropriate.
- Denotes further review at the sit RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-33 II-2 and 50-366/78-41 5.
Plant Operations - Logs, Records and Housekeeping The inspector reviewed portions of the shift foreman's log, a.
operator's log, standing orders, night orders and jumper log, all for the period July 1, 1978 through October 1, 1978. This inspec-tion was made to ascertain facility operation in conformance with requirements established in Technical Specification and plant operating / quality assurance procedures.
No items of noncom-pliance or deviations were identified.
83 * Plant records indicated a small increase well within limits in stack emissions during the quarter.
This, in conjunction with a shift in isotropic iodine concentrations, caused the licensee to initially identify the problem as a leaking fuel cell in Unit 1.
A licensee representative stated that final determination will not be made until the next refueling outage, tentatively scheduled for Fall 1979.
During the inspection it was noted that the Unit I drywell had continuous high alarms for fission product pa.rticulate activity and fission product iodine activity.
These readings were frequently checked for additional increases. The licensee postulated the cause to be a small steam leak in the dryvell whita was scheduled to be repaired during an outage three days after this inspection.
b.
The inspector walked through various areas of the plant to inspect the general state of cleanliness, housekeeping and existence of fluid leaks.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie. RIl Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41 and 50-321/78-33 111-1 DETAILS !!! Prepared by: h-/6-lf R. J. Vogt-Lowell, Reactor Inspector Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Dates of Inspection: October 3-6 1978 { I7 ( /d ), . -/+ //s '/4- - e Reviewed by: ' R. D. Martin, Chief Date Nuclear Support Section No. 1 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Georgia Power Company a.
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- H.
Nix, Assistant Plant Manager
- T. V. Green, Superintendent, Engineering Services
- S. X. Baxley, Superintendent, Operations
- C.
R. Miles, QA Field Supervisor
- C.
E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- G. E. Spell, QA Field Representative W. B. Thigpen, QA Field Representative H. W. Dyer, Operations Supervisor R. M. Bellamy, Preoperational Test Program Director C. L. Coggin, Startup Test Program Director S. Curtis, Plant Nuclear Engineer b.
douthern Company Services T. Barr, Shift Engineer L. Matthews, Engineer General Electric Comyagv c, R. M. Wyatt, Lead STD & A Engineer
- Indicates those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not applicable to this inspection report perio. . RII Ppt. No. 50-366/78-41 and 50-321/78-33 III-2 3.
Unresolved Items Not applicable to this inspection report period.
4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with M. Manry, Plant Manager, and members of his staff as denoted in paragraph 1 on October 6, 1978.
The inspector summa rized the scope and findings of the int.pection.
Two items of noncompliance pertaining to the proper completion of portions of Appendix H of the Startup Manual for Unit 2 and the failure to implement usage of procedure HNP-9 " Procedure Writing and Control" for Unit I were identified.
5.
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Internals Vibration - Unit 2 The inspector followed up on his initial review of this area as was indicated in paragraph 11.5 of report number 50-366/78-35.
In the Licensee's response to FSAR question number 110.18 a committment was made to submit to the NRC the inspection report on the RPV Internals Vibration testing as described in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.20.
Contrary to this commitment, the timeframe allowed in RG 1.20 for the submittal had elapsed and a report on the RPV Internals Vibration testing conducted during September /Octoler 1977 remained outstanding. This report was then submitted to the NRC Region II office at a time subsequent to the inspection period covered by this report.
This item is considered closed.
6.
Operating Functional Checks - Unit 2 The inspector reviewed Appendix H to the official control room copy of the Startup Manual (SUM) on October 5, 1978, at which time the plant was at approximately 17*4 of rated power. The inspector noted that the following paragraphs under the heading of "Results of 0.F. Checks During Heatup and Rated Temperature and Pressure in Appendix H" were unsigned by the Operations Supervisor as required by the Startup Manual: Paragraph Title K Drywell Temperature and Drysell Cooling M Process Radiation Monitor P Rod Worth Minimizer S TIP System T Operating Procedures U Personnel Training V System and Equipment Pe r f o rmance W Station Access Control and Security X Startup Testing
. . . . RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41 and 50-321/78-33 Ill-3 In particular, page 99 of Revision 3 to the SUM, in its description of the operating functional checks to be done for paragraph V. " Systems and Equipment Performance", during heatup from ambient and 0 psig to rated temperature ar.d pressure, indicates that the Operations Supervisor - Unit 2 shall evaluate the testing to this point and indicate that, in his judgement, the tests are adequate to continue operation and testing at higher power levels.
On October 5, 1978, the inspector discussed this with the Operations Supervisor for Unit 2 who indicated that on Tuesday of that week (October 3, 1978) he had notified the Startup Test Program Director that he needed to meet with him in order to be apprised of the status of testing pertaining to certain portions of the unsigned paragraphs of Appendix H such that these paragraphs could be signed off. At the time of this discussion between the inspector and the Operations Supervisor, said meeting between the latter and Startup Test Program Director had not thus far taken place, yet " operation and testings at higher power levels" had continued. The plant was being operated at a power level of approximately 17% of rated which is beyond midpoint of the next plateau of Operating Functional Checks of Appendix H, mainly the section entitled "Af ter Increase f ro: Rated Temperature and Pressure to 30% Power" The observed continued operation and testing up to 17% power in the absence of the Operations Supe rvi s o r 's concurrence with the portions of Appendix H of the SUM as specified above is an item of noncompliance (50-366/78-41-01).
7.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Review - Unit 1 A.
LER 50-321/78-63 During normal power operation, the Licensee discovered that the factors used to modify APRM trip settings for high peaking f actor had not been calculated consistently with limits set forth in the Technical Specifications.
The problem arose as a result of the process computer's calculational method in which the core is divided into 24 six-inch nodes making a total of 144 inches. As a result of reloading some of the core with 8X8R fuel which is 150 inches long, there is some error introduced, in the conser-vative direction, in the computer's calculation of core average kw/ft.
However, use of this conservative value of average kw/ft results in an unconservative calculation of core maximum peaking factor (CMPF).
To correct for this, the Licensee increases the value of the process computer calculv ed CMPF by a factor of 150/144 prior to comparing it to the Technical Specifications Valu. . . . RII Rpt. No. 50-366/78-41 and 50-321/78-33 111-4 Upon discovery of the need to adjust the process computer calculated value for CMPF so as to be within the intent of the Technical Specifications, the Licensee issued a Standinn Order number 78-20 on August 25, 1978.
This Standing Order alerted operations to the fact that a new value of CMPF, as calculated by the computer, was applicable to 8X8R fuel. However, a procedure revision request form was never initiated to reflect this new value in affected plant procedures, namely HNP-9015, "APR'1 Cali-bration to Core Thermal Power", which had been used subsequent to this CMPF discovery Such procedure revision request form is required by paragraph C.1 of page 2, Revision F to HNP-9, " Procedure Writing and Control" and was then initiated following the inspector's review of the matter.
The failure to init2 ate a Procedure Revision Request Form during usage of HNP-9015 following the establishment of the ad.justment factor for the process computer calculated CMPF is an item of noncompliance (50-321/78-33-01).
B.
LER-50-321/78-65 The inspector discussed the reported violations of the linear heat generation rate (LHGR) with the cognizant licensee engineers.
In reference to the "cause description and corrective actions ~ paragraph of the LER report form transmitted to the NRC by the Licensee, the latter, when questioned by the inspector was unable to quantif y how much margin to the lHGR limit was normally allowed and what new amount would be allowed in the future to preclude recurrence of the events described in the LER. The Superintendent of Plant Engineering Services requested additional time to reevalute the matter in order to more definitely describe the corrective action to be taken.
This item remcins open pending further review during subsequent inspections (50-321/ 78-33-02 ). }}