IR 05000321/1981003
| ML20126F985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | Bryant J, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126F979 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-03, 50-321-81-3, 50-366-81-03, 50-366-81-3, NUDOCS 8103240819 | |
| Download: ML20126F985 (5) | |
Text
.._
_
__
__
_
f C*G0
./
9'o UNITED STATES
g,
!*'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
g g-a REGION ll o,
/
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 9q %/
e
ATLANTA, G EoRGIA 30303
+.s.*
~
Report Nos. 50-321/81-03 and 50-366/81-03 q
Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: Hatch Facility Docket Nos. 50-3b1and50-366 License Nos. OPR.-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley,.Ge'orgia f
3 10/8/
Inspector:
ed /,-,-
Daf.e Signed-T.A.peebley (1 Aporoved by:
M 3//o/8/
J. C. Seg4nt, Section [higf, Division of-Da'te $4gned
Resicent and Reactor Pfoject Inspection
,
SUMMARY o
Inspection on February 17-20, 1981
,
Areas Inspected
-
This routine announced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the ' area of refueling activities, including surveillance testing and maintenance.
Results In the one area inspected, three violations were.found. (Failure to implement a procedure, paragraph 5.b(2); Failure to retrieve documents, paragraph 5.b.(2);
Failure to accomplish an error analysis, paragraph 5.c.).
l
,
}
.
<
L
.
.
-
.
...
- -
.
- - - -
-
.
..-
-. -
.
.-.
-
-
-
._.
- ~..
~
-..
... -
.-.
.
.
.
,
DETAILS l
r 1.
Persons Contacted'
-
Licensee Employees
"S. Curtis Sr. Senior Technical Advisor
'
" Roger Tracy, Junior Engineer
.,
- C. E. Selflower, QA Site Supervisor
"W. P. Wagner, QAFR
- 0. L. 'McCaniel,, Supt. of Administration I
i i
- B. 'T/ hix, LSdpt. of Ma'intenance
'
'
"C.' R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor j
- H. D. Byrd, ILC Foreman
- C, D. Henry, I&C Foreman
"P. Branch, QC
"C. H. Williams, QC
"C. L. Coggin, SPES
- 0. A. McCusker, QC Supervisor
"J. T. Beckham, Manager of Nuclear. Generation -
"T. V. Greene, Ass't Plant Manager
-
- C. T. Moore, Ass't Plant Manager
,
T. Elton, Engineering r
D. Morgan, Engineering P. Fornel, QAFR
.
,.
Other licensee employees contacted included 3 technicians, C operators, and
12 office personnel.
...
.
_
..
" Attended exit interview
.
NRC Resident Inspector
-
.
- R. F. Rogers i
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summari:ed on February 20, 1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
i
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
,
4.
Unresol.ved_ I.tems
.
..
...
..
.
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
,
I e
l k
!
!'.. m..
..-.
.-.. -
.....
.
...
.
..
...
-...
.
.
5.
Refueling Activities a.
Safeguards Functional Test with Loss of Offsite Power The inspector reviewed the Unit 2 refueling functional tests with the cognizant engineer with specific attention to:
technical content, resolution of discrepancies, procedural adherence, and evaluation of results.
The tests reviewed were HNP-2-3830, HNP-2-3831 and HNP-2-3832.
All aspects of the testing met regulatory requirements.
In addition, after large scale maintenance on the 2C diesel, the licensee re-ran the 24-hour surveillance test.
The monthly diesel operability test' of~ the 7C diesel was observed by the inspector and was adequate.
b.
Reactivity Control Systems (Surveillance Testing and Maintenance)
(1) The inspector verified that the control rod seque'nce input to the Rod Worth Minimfier had been verified to be correct and that the control rod sequen.ing pattern had be.en properly transmitted to the operations group for use prior to the start-up of Unit 2 in accordance with Technical Specification (T.S.) 3.4.1.4.
(2) The inspector reviewed maintenance records of four Local Power Range Monitors (LPRM) wnich had been replaced during the on going refueling of Unit 2.
The Maintenance Request (MR) (2-80-4176)
completed on 12/2/80, did not have the Inventory Material Requests (1MR) or notation on the back of the MR as to parts used or have the QA tags attached as HNP-3 (procedure for implementing MR's)
required.
This item,. together with the example in paragraph 5.b.(3) constitites a violatian (366/81-03-01) for failure to implement a ' procedure.
A similar item was brought to the licensee's. attention in our letter dated August 22, 1980.
The response to this infraction stated that a detailed MR training program would be completed by l
November 1, 1980.
The onsite Quality Assurance group verified that this had been accomplished and closed out their item on 11/23/80.
l The procedure for replacement of the LPRM's (HNP-2-6035) did not l
have a step to require that initial settings for new LRPM's be obtainea from the reactor engineer and the instrument.re-set in accordance with current approved calibration procedures.
The licensee changed the procedure and made the correct initial settings for these LPRM's prior to the; unit start-up.
The completed procedures for this MR (2-30-4176), which were used to bench test the LPRM's and to install them, were requested so that a review could be done. They were not retrieved and are an example of non-retrievability of records without undue delay as is reouired by ANSI N45.2.9-1974, per :ommitment to Reguinery Guide
,
3
.
1.88 in the FSAR section 17.2 and Appendix A.
Other examples are-shbwn in caragraphs 5.b.3 and 5.c and together constitute a viol ation' (366/81-03-02).
(3) The inspector reviewed maintenance records' of replacement and
,
repair of control rod reed switch position indicators.
The MR's were noted as being safety-related (Q) and some as not being ~
safety-related (Not-Q). A copy of tne MR's were requested and one (MR-2-80-4023 dated 12/11/80) was found, was marked Q and did not have the QA tags attached. This MR had been reviewed and b e,
,
example of ~ not implementing HMP-8. An attempt was ther, made to review 'a sufficient number ~of the other HM s completed on the
'
control rod reed switch position indicators to ascertain if these examples were an oversight; however, of the eight MR's requested, four required two days or longer to retrieve (MR's 2-80-1541, 2-80-1242, 2-80-1715 and 2-80-3145) and one was not retrieved (2-80-1873).
This is an example ' of. non-retrievability of documents. Only one MR had the required QA tar.- (2-80-2131).
Discussions with corporate management indicates that the problem of document retrievability was being investigated, c.
Primary Containment Leakrate Testing The inspector reviewed the primary. containment periodic type B and type C leakage procedure (HNP-2-3952) for testing. techni.que, ' instrument t
calibration, test result evaluation and T.S. conformance. All aspects
~
of the testing were acceptable, except that of the calibration of the flow. instrument,used for the main steam isolation valve 1.eak rate testing and the evaluation of this data. When this instrument was received' from the calibration vendor,.it was'noted by the licensee that the pressure that the instrument was calibrated at was noted to be 59 psig, wnich was ~ questioned as it should have been 28.8 psig.. The vendor responded that 59 psig was the pressure used. The. licensee-did not question the difference in accuracy which would be caused by using the instrument at 28.8 psig and assumed that there would not be a difference.
When the inspector questioned the basis for no error difference, the licensee contacted the vendt,r and it was determined that a decrease in accuracy would have to be taken into. account. It was agreed that the maximum postulated inaccuracy would not cause the
'
recalculated leakages to be outside the margin allowed and the Technical Specification leakage limits were being met.
This is considered a violation (366/81-03-03) at an error analysis was not done to assure that -the margin to the Technical ' Specification limits was being met with known instrument tolerances per Tachnicial Specification 3/4.6.1.2.e.
-
w The calibration data for the flow meter was requested for review. The l
retrieval of this: document required more than a day. and is considered an example of. document non-ref.rf evability.
.
-
d l.
,
,
,..y,....
.,..,_.
,,_s.,#
,
,
.,
y
.g.~,.,
p
_,,__,4
,,,,
..,,..,.
.
.
.
.
.
..
~.
'
I
.
d.
Reactor Engineering The procedure for Shutdown Margin Demonstration.'.(HNP-2-9401) ~ and' the form completed after criticality were reviewed with no discrepancies found.
. The cor, trol rod scram testing procedure (HNP-2-9402) and.the data on
.
the control rods that had been tested were reviewed..The test evalu-ation was being accomplished, b_ut there was no method'of documenting the evaluation. A formal evaluation and review was requested prior to
~
.the control rods being declared operable. This was completed. Also, a change to.the" procedure Was' requested to assure the continuing evalua-tion and review of the scram times and this was initiated.
.
$
i
e
.
b
?-
t
?
,
...
.. -.
..
.
.,
.
-,
, _. -
. -
-
,