IR 05000321/1986009
| ML20203N758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1986 |
| From: | Bearden W, Holmesray P, Ignatonis A, Ingnatonis A, Nejfelt G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203N746 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-86-09, 50-321-86-9, 50-366-86-09, 50-366-86-9, NUDOCS 8605060043 | |
| Download: ML20203N758 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.... ..... . . , , . , - - - - - ' ' ~,
- ;,.t t
's > . h 4 <
' .. ~ > UNITE 3 SYAT ES
'i . ma at4
q " . . jo, s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 'n REClON ll ' , yj j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N W.
- ATL ANTA. GEORGI A 30323 g
?%.... +? ' + Report Numbers: 50-321/86-09 AND 50-366/86-09 Lic'ensee: Georgia Power Company P.O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Numbers: 50-321 and 50-366 License Numbers: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2 Inspection Dates: February 22 - March 21, 1986 Inspectgrs: [[- Q [2tm9IT, A9-/fd Peter HolmesfRay,SporResidentInspector Date Sighed /!M h5 M A.
e-a15d1[o / yGregoryM.NgJfelt,Rpi~de'ntInspector Date Signed 0 A,R, awe, IlfMl<ft William C. Bqtieden, Regide~nt Inspector Datt Sign ~d e / [AA [f/, Approved by: h, c M,7, / g A.J. Ignatonis, Sectfon Chief, Dhte Signed Division of Reactor' Projects }, , SUMKtRY Scepe: This routine inspection entailed 184 resident inspection hours at the site in the areas of Operation'l' Safety Verification, Maintenance Observation.
a PlantModificationandSurveillanceObst.rvation.EngineeringSafetyFeature(ESF) System Walkdown, Reportable Occurrences, Operating Reactor Events, inspector Followup, IJnresolved Items, and Refueling Operations.
Results-One ' violation was identifir:d - failuhe to return Core Spray (CS) jockey pump to servicet ' , l' ., '. .< g.
, s 5605060043 B60422 PDR ADOCK 05000321 G PDR ..,... .. ... .. . . . .
, r .. , REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. C. Nix, Site General Manager
- T. Greene, Deputy Site General Manager
- H. L. Sunner, Operations Manager
- T. Seitz, Maintenance Manager
- T. R. Powers, Engineering Manager
- R. W. Zavadoski, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager
- P. E. Fornel, Site Quality Assurance (0A) Manager
' E. F. Aldridge, Plant Material Superintendent
- S. B. Tipps, Superintendent of Regulatory Compliance H. T. Wilkes, Plant Material Supervisor
- D. J. Elder, Senior QA Field Representative
- C. R. Goodman, Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
! Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview (30703) The inspection scope and findings were sumarized on March 25, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. One violation, one unresolved iter *, and one inspector followup item described below were identified during this inspection and discussion in detail during the exit meeting.
The licensee acknowledged the findings and took no exceptions.
During the l reporting period frequent discussions were held with the General Manager ' and/or his assistants concerning inspection findings. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
(0 pen) Violation 50-366/86-09-01, Failure to return Unit ? core spray (CS) jockey pump into service (Paragraph 4).
(0 pen) Unresolved item 50-321,366/86-09-02, Concerns related to the control of onsite lubricants and chemicals (Paranraph 5).
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 50-321,366/86-09-03, Clarification for requiring use of maintenance work order for controlling the addition of oil to equipment with low oil levels (Paragraph 5).
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702) Not inspected.
l l
- An Unresolved Item is a matter about which nnre information is required to
' determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviation.
- - - - - - . - - - -
--m .y.
- ~ . .
4.
Operational Safety Verification -(71707) The inspectors kept themselves informed un a daily basis of the overall plant status and any significant safety 9atters related to plant operations.
Daily discussions were held with plant management and various members of the plant operating staff.
The inspectors made frequent visits to the control room.
Observations included instrument readings, setpoints and recordings, status of operating systems, tags and clearances on equipment, controls and switches, annunciator alarms, adherence to limiting conditions for opera-tion, ' temporary alterations in effect, daily journals and data sheet entries, control room manning, and access controls.
This inspection activity included numerous informal discussions with operators and their supervisors.
Weekly, when on site, selected ESF systems were confirmed operable. The confimation was made by verifying the following: accessible valve flow path alignment, power supply breaker and fuse status, instru-mentation, major component leakage, lubrication, cooling, and general condition.
General plant tours were conducted on at least a biweekly basis. Portions of the Control Building, Turbir.e Building, Reactor Building and outside areas were visited.
Observations included safety related tagout verifica-tions, shift turnover, sampling progran, housekeeping and general plant conditions, fire protection equipment, control of activities in progress, radiation protection controls, physical security, problem identification systems, and containment isolation.
Within the areas inspected, one violation was identified.
On February 25, i 1986, the Resident Inspector found the Unit 2 Core Spray (CS) 2E21-C002A jockey pump in a turned off condition.
The change of equipment status for this jockey pump from its "AUT0/RUN" position in procedure, ' i 3450-E21-001-2, Revision 0, was not documented in the Plant Operator Logs,
as required by procedure 31G0-0PS-007-05, Revision 0.
The Unit ? Shift Supervisor detemined that this jockey pump was turned off on February 22, 1986; and oil was added to the pump on February 24, 1986. The operability of the CS system was not degraded, because two jockey pumps were in the "RUN" rosition.
The failure to log and maintain the CS jockey pump in a ' configuration prescribed by plant procedures constitutes a violation (50-366/86-09-01).
5.
MaintenanceObservation(62703) During the report period, the inspectors observed selected maintenance , ' activities.
The observations included a review of the work documents for adequacy, adherence to procedure, proper tagouts, adherence to technical , i specifications, radiological controls, observation of all or part of the actual work and/or retesting in progress, specified retest requirements, and adherence to the appropriate quality controls.
As a result the following ' Unresolved Item (URI) and Inspector Followup Item (IFI) have been j identified.
I - - - - -
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - ... ' . -
I-The resident inspector identified the following items concerning the control of lubricants and chemicals: (1) the " Lubrication Guide" referenced in proce-dure, 51-GM-MNT-017-05, Revision 0, was found not to be a controlled document, as required by Administrative Control Procedure, 20AC-ADM-003-05, Revision 0; (2) the " Equipment Lubrication Sheets" were not maintained in Warehouse #6 for new lubricants brot.ght into 'ts Lubricant Storage Room, as required by 51GM-MNT-017-05, Revision 0; and Q) two 55-gallon drums of cleaning fluid, which were transported inside tne protective area on March 21, 1986, were not recognized by the licensee to be contaminated with other chemicals, until the inspector questioned the contents and samples taken by the licensee.
Collectively, these three items, concerning the control of lubricants and chemicals, were identified as an URI pending furttir inspector review (50-321,366/86-09-02).
The use of " Lubrication Data Sheet,' in accordance with, 51GM-MNT-017-05, Revision 0, was considered sufficient by the licensee for controlling the
addition of oil to equipment found with a low oil level. However, the l Maintenance Program Procedure, 50AC-MNT-001-05, Revision 4, Section 8.1 stated, "MW0s [ Maintenance Work Orders) are required for all plant related corrective maintenance...." The addition of oil to equipment found with a low oil level can be interpreted, as corrective maintenance rather than as preventative maintenance.
The clarification of the Maintenance Department Procedure, 50AC-MNT-001-05, for controlling the addition of oil to equipment found low with oil was identified as an IFl (50-321,366/86-09-03).
! A Corporate Valve Team is in place at Plant Hatch to review the adequacy of valve maintenance, during the current Unit 1 outage.
The resident inspec-l tors are monitoring the progress of this team.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l ' 6, Plant Modification and Strveillance Testing Observations (37700 & 61726) The inspectors observed the performance of selected surveillances and plant modification Design Change Requests (DCRs).
The observation included a review of the procedure and/or DCR for technical adequacy, conformance to Technical Specifications, verification of test instrument calibration, observation of all or part of the actual surveillances, removal from service and return to service of the system or components affected, and review of the data for acceptability based upon the acceptance criteria.
No violations or deviations were identified.
! 7.
ESFSystemWalkdown(71710) ! l The inspectors routinely conducted partial walkdowns of ESF systems. Valve and breaker / switch lineups and equipment conditions were randomly verified both locally and in the control room.
During the inspection period, the inspectors conducted a complete walkdown in the accessible areas of the , -. -.. . . . m ... - -. - . ... . -. - . . . . .
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ,
....
Unit 2 Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) Trai n.f B". The system lineups were verified to be in accordance with licensie requirements for operability, and the equipment material conditions were found to be satisfactory.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Reportable Occurrences (90712 & 92700) The following Licensee Event Reports (LERs) were reviewed for potential generic impact, to detect trends, and to determine whether corrective actions appeared appropriate.
Events which were reported immediately were also reviewed as they occurred to determine that Technical Specifications were being met and the public health and safety were of utmost considera-tion.
Unit 1: 86-005, 86-008, and 86-009.
Unit 2: 85-020 Rev. 1; 85-035, Rev. 1; and 86-004.
9.
Refueling (60710) During this reporting interval, the inspectors verified by observation, interviews and procedure review that the Unit 1 refueling was being conducted in accordance with regulations. Areas inspected included adequacy of ~ procedures, movement of fuel into the reactor vessel, fuel sipping, Technical Specification compliance, and refueling floor housekeeping.
On February 26, 1986, the scram discharge volume thermal level switch, IC11-N060A, was found valved out with a clearance by the licensee.
As a result, the minimum number of two operable channels per trip system, prior to reloading fuel into the reactor vessel, was not me+., as required by Technical Specifications 3.1, Table 3.1-1.
Upon identification of the scram switch valve position, the licensee took prompt corrective action to restore the valve to its position.
The additional check to verify cll outstanding clearances prior to reloading fuel, although not required by plant proce-dures, failed to detect this discrepancy. To encourage and support licensee initiative for self-identification and correction of problems, this item is not cited as a violation, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C.
Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
. T , o + " - }}