IR 05000321/1986033
| ML20211J193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1986 |
| From: | Holmesray P, Ignatonis A, Nejfelt G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211J185 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-86-33, 50-366-86-33, NUDOCS 8611110029 | |
| Download: ML20211J193 (7) | |
Text
r
'
.
p targ#'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,8 "
~
p REGION ll
-
j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30323 q
i
- ...+
,
Report Numbers:
50-321/86-33 and 50-366/86-33 Licensee: 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 I and 2 Inspection Dates:
September 21 - October 17, 1986 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia Inspectors:
M O M c; w t i
h/03/M Peter ik1mes-Rd, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed 0. 4 A,&
whs/rl hGregory RE Nejfe'1f, Rssi' dent Inspector Ddte 51cJned Approved by:
8 d..
,, D L,
///4s/r4 A. JrIgr(ptonTs,yief, Project Section 3B Date Si'gn'ed Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope:
This routine inspection was conducted ~ at the site in the areas of Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters, Operational Safety Verification, Maintenance Observation, Plant Modification. and Surveillance Observation, and Reportable Occurrences.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
,
!
8611110029 861104 gDR ADOCK 05000321 PDR
-
o REPORT' DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. C. Nix, Plant Manager H. L. Sumner, Operations Manager
- T. Seitz, Maintenance Manager
- T. R. Powers, Engineering Manager R. W. Zavadoski, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager
- 0. M. Fraser, Site Quality Assurance (QA) Manager (Acting)
C. T. Moore, Training Manager S. B. Tipps, Superintendent of Regulatory Compliance 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 summarized on October 17, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection. The licensee acknowledged the finding and took no exception.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-321,366/86-09-03:
Clarification of Maintenance Procedure for Controlling Oil Addition to Equipment.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)
(Closed) Unresolved Item (URI) 50-321,366/86-09-02 - Control of onsite lubricants and chemicals.
The following concerns were addressed satis-factorily:
-
The " Lubrication Guide" has been upgraded to a controlled document.
A lubrication distribution log required at warehouse #6 by procedure
-
51GM-MNT-017-0S, Revision 0, has been establishe..
Once drums containing fluids have been transported to and checked into
-
the hazardous waste storage building, the fluids will not be allowed back into the protected area. To implement this, a 6' wire -fence.was installed and the area locked. The key for this area is controlled by the on duty Health Physics / Laboratory Supervisor, as required by procedure 30AC-SEC-002-05, Revision 1, Section 8.1.5.
4.
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
The inspectors kept themselves informed on a daily basis of the overall plant status and any.significant safety matters.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 Engineering Safety Feature (ESF) systems were ' confirmed operable.
The confirmation was made by verifying the following: Accessible valve flow path alignment, power supply breaker and fuse status, instrumentation, major component leakage, lubrica-tion, cooling, and general condition.
General plant tours were conducted on at least a biweekly basis. Portions of the control ' building, turbine ' building, reactor building, and outside areas were visited. Observations included safety related tagout verifica-tions, shift turnover, sampling program, housekeeping and general plant conditions, fire protection equipment, control of activities in progress, radiation protection controls, paysical security, problem identification systems, and containment isolation.
In the area of housekeeping the following discrepancies were observed by the Resident Inspector:
On October 3, 1986, a Unit-2 reactor building ladder from the 185'
-
elevation, station 9,
was found in the Unit-1 reactor building Southeast diagonal on the 106' elevation.
On October 16, 1986, leaking 55 gallon drums of lubricant oil were
-
found in the reserve fuel oil storage area.
On the positive side, all Unit-1 diagonals were readily accessible for inspection, except for the SE diagonal 87' elevation that was radiologically contaminated. Also, these accessible diagonals were clean and no equipment and tools were left from the recently completed Appendix
"R" work.
.
E se
.
,
In the course of the monthly activities, the inspectors included a review of the licensee's physical security program. The performance of various shifts of the security force was observed in the conduct of daily activities oto include: protected and vital access controls, searching of personnel, packages and vehicles, badge issuance and retrieval, escorting of visitors, patrols and compensatory posts.
The additional security required for the Unit-2 refueling in the reactor building at the drywell entrance and on the refueling floor was observed.
No violations or' deviations were identified.
5.
Maintenance Observation (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-Specifications (TSs), 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.
During this inspection period,.a-regional maintenance team was onsite. The results will be documented in inspection report 50-321,366/86-30.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Plant Modification (37700)
The inspectors observed the performance of selected plant modification Design Change Requests (DCRs). The observation included a review of the DCR for technical adequacy, conformance to TSs, 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.
Two as-built discrepancies between the actual equipment and the system drawings were noted during the walkdown of the Unit-1 diesel generators.
The Resident Inspector found that ampere meters installed for the "1A" control rod drive pump (CRD), IC11-C001A, and for the 4160-600V station service transfer switchgear on the 4160V Bus "1F" both had a meter range of 0 to 50 amperes. Drawing, H-13356, Revision 14, with no outstanding ABN indicated that the CRD pump and the station service transfer switchgear ampere meter ranges were respectively from 0 to 200 amperes and from 0 to 15 amperes. The licensee is investigating to determine the-correct range for these instruments.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
l t
[
-
~
.
7 Surveillance Testing Observations (61726)
The inspectors observed the performance of selected surveillances.
The observation included 'a review of the procedure for technical adequacy, conformance to TSs, 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.
During the review of the monthly diesel generator (D/G) manual start surveillance, procedure 34SV-R42-001-1S, Revision 3, the Resident Inspector found that:
l Step 7.4.4.4 required the Unit-1 control room D/G day tank reading be
-
greater than 900 gallons after this test. However, no procedural means was established to convert the unitiess control room D/G day tank scale of 0 to 1 into gallons of fuel. Also, the Unit-1 D/G fuel oil transfer pump operability procedure, 34SV-Y52-001S, Revision 1, Step 7.2.8, had the same discrepancy.
This problem did not apply to Unit-2,since procedure, 34SV-R43-002-2, Revision 0, provides the conversion from control room D/G day tank indication to volume. At the time of the inspection, the licensee had not responded to a similar violation (i.e.
86-28-01, failure to provide a method of conversion from differential pressure to volumetric flow for the control room ventilation system).
The licensee will not be cited until the response to the previous item has been review to determine corrective actions.
It is requested however, that the licensee address this item in the response to 50-321, 366/86-28-01.
-
Steps 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 required the start and stop time for the D/G air start compressors (i.e.,
for the "1A" D/G these compressors were IR43-C001A and 1R43-C010A) to be recorded in order to determine, if the air compressors ability-to recharge the air system has deteriorated.
No acceptance criteria was given in the procedure for this parameter.
During the review of the Unit-1 D/G fuel oil storage quantity procedure, 345V-R43-002-1, Revision 0, the Resident Inspector found that:
Errors of a 145 gallons in the non-conservative direction and 290
-
gallons in the conservative direction were made in determining the fuel stored in Unit-1 D/G main storage tanks (surveillances performed on 06-24-86 and 06-26-86), because of an incorrectly applied mathematical interpolation of converting the tank level readings oto a volumetric scale. The actual numerical error introduced in the non-conservative direction was negligible (less than 0.9%).
-
This procedure was not consistent with the Unit-2 procedure 34SV-R43-002-2, Revision 0.
The Unit-1 procedure checked the Unit-2 main storage tanks, whila the Unit-2 procedure did not check the Unit-1.nain storage tank <
.
5-
On the positive side, itt was 'noted that as a result of a licensee identi-fied missed TS surveillance (See Unit-1 LER 86-002) for testing the 4160V automatic bus tran(fer, the system engineer recognized and corrected the failure to test redundant Unit-1 diesel generator relays by generating procedure 42SV-SUV-043-1S, Revision 0, to test the 4160V emergency bus undervoltage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
ESF System Walkdown (7I710)
The inspectors rcutQely conduct partial walkdowns of ESF systems. Valve and breaker / switch lineus and equipment conditions were randomly verified both locally and in 3he control room to verify that the lineups were in accord-ance with licensee requirements for operability and equipment material conditions Kere satisfactory. The Unit-1 D/Gs were walked down in detail.
Findings concerned with plant modification and surveillance are documented respectively in!papagraphs 6 and 7 of this report.
Equipment labeling discrepancies identified by the Residet Inspector were:
Approximate 1 lialf of the labels were missing on the Unit-1 D/G relay
-
panels: 1H21-P230, -P231, and -P232.
Relays without labels included those for tne D/G loss of, cyclant accident (LOCA) start signal and for the D/G toad shedding. " 'This c.omenclature is used in the once per operating 'ycle D/G LOCA/LOSP (loss of offsite power) surveillance c
test, 42SV-R43-001-IS, Revision 2.
-
On frame 9 of tSe 4160V Buse"1F", the breaker for the "10" residual heat removal (RHR) pump was incorrectly stenciled as for the "1C" RHR pump. The small plastic tag at the switch handle correctly identified thu breaker as the "1C" RHR pump.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Reportable Occurre'nces (90712 & 92700)
A number of Licensee Event "eports (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.
The following LERs are considered closed:
.
Unit 1:
85-27, 85-41,'86-06, 86-10, 86-13, 86-18 & 86-20.
Unit 2: None
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
<
..
,
10. Review of Inspector Followup Items The following Inspector Followup. Item was reviewed and closed.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 50-321,366/86-09-03 - Clarification
.of the Maintenance Department Procedure 50AC-MNT-001-0S for controlling
,
addition of oil to equipment found low with oil, 50AC-MNT-001-0S, Revision 5, Section 8.1.4.1, revised the definition of corrective maintenance. The addition of oil to equipment found with a low oil level is now considered preventive maintenance.
,
4 d
v L