ML19270G168
| ML19270G168 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1979 |
| From: | Staffa R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270G164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906050085 | |
| Download: ML19270G168 (1) | |
Text
,_
emma 0I
- Georg a Power Company
- ?.,-
230 Peachtree Street Poet Off ce Box 4545 Atlanta Georgia 30303 Te:ephone 404 522-6060 g { $ l\\ AMik k16s GCOrgia POWCf 1979 Power Supply Engineering and Serv United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission tre sourNm etarc system Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region 11 - Suite 3100
REFERENCE:
101 Marietta Street RII: RVL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 50-366/79-9 ATTENTION:
Mr. R. C. Lewis Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company offers the following information in response to your letter of March 23, 1979, describing an apparent noncompliance with NRC requirements noted during your February 10 - March 2, 1979, inspection of the Hatch Nuclear Plant.
Infraction 366/79-09-01 The above infraction concerned the use of an improper core maximum peaking factor (CMPF) in the startup testing program. The use of the improper factor was due to a change from the original 2.48 value of CMPF to the new value of 2.38 which came as a result of the process computer's calculational method of handling 150 inch 8 x 8 R fuel assemblies.
An NRC inspection revealed that the change in the value of the CMPF for Hatch 2 had not been incorporated into the startup testing procedures in an adequate or timely manner. On August 25, 1978, a Standing Order was written implementing the new value of the CMPF.
It was not until November 22, 1978, that the new value began to be incorporated into the startup test procedure.
All calculations prior to this date used the old value. After this problem was found, an investigation of the startup test procedures was performed which identified the procedures which might have been affected by this change and calculations were reperformed to insure that this change would not cause any of these procedures to fail the acceptance criteria.
It was found that this change in CMPF value had no effect on the acceptance of any of these tests.
A study is underway to insure that all startup test procedures to be performed are changed to use the correct value of CMPF. This review will be complete prior to startup of Unit 2.
The inspection report contains no information which is believed to be proprietary.
Very truly yours,
)
7906050035
/
/
.Ill.
- a. o_
R W. St ffa nager Qua i y Assurance H
e JAB /bg