IR 05000321/1979008
| ML19263E641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1979 |
| From: | Dance H, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263E622 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-08, 50-321-79-8, 50-366-79-10, NUDOCS 7906200552 | |
| Download: ML19263E641 (4) | |
Text
-
..
'
,
- g* R80 9'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
,
o REGION 11
$
101 M ARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%,...../
Report Nos.:
50-321/79-8 and 51-366/79-10 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name: Hatch, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Plant E. I. Hatch near Baxley, Georgia Inspector:
/
/
A
[
_7/f/>s R.F. Rogers,ResidentI{spectqf '
Date Signed Approved by:
[-
c-ta /[
3/f/79 H. C. Dance, Section Chie RQ)lS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on December 16-19, 1978, January 1-3, January 29 - February 9, 1979.
Areas Inspected This inspection involved 40 inspector-hours onsite of Unit 1 Plant Operations, Unit 2 Startup Testing, Technical Specification Compliance, Reportable Occur-rences, and Reportability of Occurrences.
Results Of the 5 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 4 areas; 2 apparent items of noncompliance were found in 1 area (Infraction - Failure to report HPCI and RCIC inoperable, paragraph 5);
(Infrsction - Failure to report recirculation flow coastdown test results, paragraph 6).
2287 043 U0620gg5,-
-... _..
.
.
-
'
-.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- H. Nix, Assistant Plant Manager R. Nix, Superintendent of Maintenance S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations T. Greene, Superintendent of Engineering Services C. Bellflower, QA Site Supervisor W. Rogers, Health Physicist / Radiochemist Others included Technicians, Operators, Mechanic, Security Force Members, and Office Personnel.
- Attended management interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. One new unresolved item was identified during this inspection involving licensee control of reactor startups paragraph 7.
4.
Management Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 19, 1978, January 3, February 2, and February 9,1979, with those persons indicated by an asterisk in Paragraph I above. The two notices of violation and one unresolved item were identified to licensee personnel on February 9, 1979.
5.
HPCI and RCIC Operability During Ncvember 1978, the HPCI system was repeatedly inoperable due to failure to satisfactorily start automatically.
Initial problems with systems similar to HPCI are not abnormal during startup testing programs.
The system could still be started and operated manually.
Technical Specification 3.5.1 allows HPCI to be inoperable for 14 days provided RCIC is operable.
2287 044
,
.
'
.
.
,
-2-However, on several occasions, in early November, the RCIC system was out of service for various reasons when HPCI could only be started manually.
This was brought to the stations attention by on-site QA personnel. Station management and later the plant review board (PRB)
erred in deciding that ability to start the pump manually constituted an operable pump.
This vas in conflict with the definition of operability in Technical Specification 3ection 1.20 in that if the HPCI system could not auto-start successfully, it was not capable of performing its specified function.
NRC assumes no initial operator action on ECCS system actuation.
Therefore, to operate the unit with both HPCI and RCIC inoperable was in conflict with Technical Specification 3.5.1 and was identified by the onsite QA organization; therefore, no citation was written. The failure to report the occurrence within 30 days of the event is in noncompliance with Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.9.C and is an Infraction (366/79-10-01). The failure of corporate / station management to address this question of HPCI operability in a timely manner precipitated this citation.
6.
Recirculation Flow Coastdown On November 23, 1978, the licensee performed a turbine trip test from 75% power (HNP-2-10627). Trip of the turbine at this power level also trips the Recirculation Pump Trip (RPT) breakers to minimize tne severity of this transient on MCPR limits.
One of the acceptance criteria for this test was that the recorded flow remain greater than a limiting curve for 3.0 seconds following the trip.
The results indicated that "A" loop flow crossed the curve at 2.7 seconds and "B" loop at 2.2 seconds.
GE was informed of the problem but not NRC. GE initially informed the station that power escalation was allow-able and the plant was taken to 95-100% power. On February 7,1979, GE inforned the station that power escalation was inappropriate and power was immediately reduced to 50%. The licensee then submitted an immediate report to the NRC indicating that they had improperly escalated in power contrary to their own startup testing requirements. The inspector then informed them that failure to report this item when it occurred was non-compliant with Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.8.i. and constituted an infraction (366/79-10-02).
7.
Uncontrolled Criticality On January 31, 1979, while approaching criticality with a moderator temperature of 199.5* F and a xenon inventory, an IRM hi-hi scram was received as a result of a criticality with a period of approximately 1 second. The scram occurred at notch 26 of rod 42-15, which was the 39th rod to be withdrawn.
It was the fifth rod in group 3.
Rod 42-15 had 2287 045
.
.
__.
_
-
-
.
.
-3-been continuously shimmed from notch 18 to the scram point. Base count rate prior to the scram was 600 cps in the source range. The startup was being conducted by a trainee under the supervision of a licensed operator.
The current plant startup procedures do not provide for either the calculation of an estimated critical position (ECP) or a shim and wait sequence to allow for suberitical multiplication to occur.
Operator training programs may not adequately address these types of startups and prevention of uncontrolled criticalities.
The licensee's program for prevention of future problems of this type is unresolved (366/79-10-03).
8.
Test Program Review and Evaluation (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed the HNP-2-10000 series test sequencing document to determine the status of startup testing on Unit 2 on a daily basis.
The startu-test engineers log, control room log, and shift supervisors log were also reviewed daily.
The inspector observed control room operations to ascertain that operation actions were in conformance with regulatory requirements, technical specifications and administrative procedures.
9.
Witness of Power Ascension Testing (Unit 2)
The inspector witnessed on a sampling basis the overall conduct of the power ascension test program.
Tests selected included transient and steady state evolutions.
The inspector determined that the proper revision was in use, that operators were familiar with procedural requirements, test limitations and precautions, and that minimum operator manning requirements were satisfied. Procedural prerequisites were verified as being met and that properly calibrated test equipment was used. The inspector independently evaluated that stated acceptance criteria were met and test exceptions were documented.
10.
Technical Specification Compliance During this reporting interval, the inspector verified compliance with selected surveillance tests. These verifications were accomplished by direct observation of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, and review of completed logs and records. The licensee's compliance with selected LCO action statements were reviewed on selected occurrences as they happened.
11. Plant Tours The inspector conducted plant tours periodically during the inspection interval to verify that monitoring equipment was recording as required, equipment was properly tagged, operations personnel were aware of plant conditions, and that plant housekeeping efforts were adequate.
2287 046
...
... -
.
.
.-