IR 05000416/1981015
| ML19350E676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Cantrell F, Paul G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350E673 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-81-15, NUDOCS 8106230429 | |
| Download: ML19350E676 (4) | |
Text
.
-
.-
m.neo
%
UNITED STATES
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
,
s.,
II -
.. $
REGION 11 f
101 MARtETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100
%
<-
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report No. 50-416/81-15 Licensee: MissisJppi Power and Light Company Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPRR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf Nuclear facility near Port Gibson, Mississippi Inspector:
d. b /. -
I.-3-Sl G. L. PaulW
Date Signed Approved by:
_
d A
/ 5/
F.'S, Cantrell, SedtJ'6jf Chief, Resident and Da'te Signed Reactor Project Ittspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on May 19-22, 1981 Areas Inspected
'
This routine announced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of operating staff training, training programs for non-licensed personnel, and staff qualifications.
Results Of the three 3 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncomp'iiance or deviations were identified.
.
8106230N7
-
,'
.
.
- ~
-
e
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Pr
^-atacted Liu -.
sonnel
'
"C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager
"R.' A. Ambrosino, Nuclear Support Manager
"J. Custer, Training and Administrative Supervisor
"J. Hanton, Training Supervisor
"D. Mahoney, Quality Assurance O. L. Stuart, Assistant Plant Manager Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians, operators, mechanics and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- A. G. Wagner
.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview i
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May '22,1981 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
'
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 7.
'
5.
Training Program Non-Licensed Personnel Reference:
a)
American National Standard 3.1/1978 b)
Proposed Technical Specifications, Section 6.4 c)
Facility Quality Assurance Manual The licensee's training procedures and programs were reviewed for adequacy and compliance with requirements and commitments for the following areas.
a.
General employee training
_ - - _ _ _
_
.-_
__
_
_.,
.
d'a
,.
-
b.
Temporary employee training c.
On-the-job training for technicians, staff, and general employees, d.
Regulatory Guide 8.13 The inspector reviewed training records for eight individuals in the ab.ove categories to verify the described training program was provided, and that the individuals actually received the training wnich was documented in the training records. Only a small percentage of the general employees have received, the required general employee training. The program was estab-lished in February, 1981. General employee training implementation is not currently adequate.
This -item will remain open and will be reviewed at a future inspection. (416/81-15-01)
Within the areas reviewed no violation were noted.
6.
Staff Qualifications Reference:
a)
FSAR Chapter 13 b)
ANSI 3.1/1978 - ANSI 18,1/1971 c)
Regulatory Guide 1.8 A review of chapter 13 of the facility FSAR was conducted to evaluate the training requirements and qualifications of the plant staff. All organira-tional charts and tables in chapter 13 are two. years out of date and thu; are unusable. Chapter 13 will require updating to correct numerous errors.
This item will remain open and will be reviewed at a future inspection.
(416/81-15-02)
Within the areas inspected no violation were identified.
7.
Operating Staff Training Reference:
a)
Technical Specification 6,4 b)
ANSI 18.1/1971 - ANSI 3.1/1978 c)
10 CFR 55 d)
FSAR e).
Task Action Item II.B.4. and Denton letter of March 28, 1980 f)
Regulatory guide 1.8 g)
NUREG 737 a.
Review conducted A review of training records and procedures was conducted to confirm regulato ry requirements were met in accordance with the above references. Two areas reviewed have not been established to date.
Training for the mitigation of core damage will be established when contractual assignments are made.
The licensee estimated that core damage training would commence in October 1981. Addtionally, no Health Physics Training has been conducted.
Seven operators that were interviewed were weak in health physics knowledge.
.
-
-
-,. -
- - -,
.-
'. <.
e
- ,' *.~
-
i Health physics training is currently being planned and will be implemented in the next few months. This item will remain open and will be reviewed at a future inspection (416/81-15-03).
Senior reactor operator, candidates receive the same: basic training as reactor operator canidates with the addition of a supervisory skills course.
Some reactor (and senior reactor) operator candidates were weak in the thermodynamics and heat transfer area.
Several operator candidates had the reactor fundamentals course waived due to previous experience.
This course specifically covers thermodynamics anc heat transfer areas. The plant staff committed to ensuring that candicates receive sufficient training in thermal dynamics and heat transfer areas prior to operator licensing examinations.
Within the areas reviewed no items of violation were identified.
7.
Final-Safety Analysis Review Transient Analysis The inspector attended a training lecture to ensure training objectives are being met.
Some confusion and uncertainty prevailed during the lecture,
" Decreasing Coolant Inventory Accident Analysis".
Much debate occurred between the lecturer and students. A review of the material with several instructors and plant staff revealed that the transient analysis section of the FSAR is generic in nature and not necessarily ' plant specific.
Several
.
probable errors were noted in Table 6.3.1, Sequence of Emergency Core Cooling System Start Times during the lecture.
No formal method of feedback had been established to correct FSAR errors noted during a lecture.
Other chapter 6 transient. curves were not fully explained in class and
,
'
several unanswered qupttions remained at the conclusion of the lecture.
Another FSAR discrepancy discovered during interviews was an apparent unconservative analysis on a lost of feedwater heating..The analysis uses a 100* drop of a feedwater temperature as the conservative approach whereas some plant staff pointed out it probably should be in the 110-120 range due to heat balance curves in the FSAR.
This item will remain as an unresolved item (416-81-15-01). The licenses committed to getting a General Electric response to the apparent dis-crepancies in the tronsient analysis section of the Final Safety Analysis Report.
,
.
-
-, _.,.
.,
,. _