ML19270G179
| ML19270G179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1979 |
| From: | Martin R, Vogtlowell R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270G164 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-366-79-09, 50-366-79-9, NUDOCS 7906050100 | |
| Download: ML19270G179 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000366/1979009
Text
'
.
.
UNITED STATES
p Rf009
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- o,
[
'
,
REGION il
o
3
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
e *$
5
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o303
o,s,*****/
Report No. 50-366/79-09
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Facility Name:
E. I. Hatch, Unit 2
Docket No. 50-366/79-09
License No. NPF - 5
Ir.spection at Hatch Site
n, r Baxley, Georgia
A
Inspector:
M
3-23-79
R. J. Vogt'-Low 1
Date Signed
' dltub
3/2_3/79
Approved by:
6
R. D. Martin, Section Chief, RONS Branch
Date Signed'
SUMMARY
Inspection on February 20-23, 1979
Areas Inspected
This routine unannounced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in
the area of review of startup testing activities.
Results
Of the areas inspected one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one
involving failure to effect proper corrective action in disseminating
area
the corrected value for Core Maximum Peaking Factor (366/79-09-01).
7906050tm
.
t
-s
-
.
.
..
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- H. Nix, Assistant Plant Manager
- S. Baxley, Superintendent Operations
- M. Kehoe, Senior Plant Engineer
- C. Miles, QA Field Supervisor
- G. E. Spell, Senior QA Field Representative
- P. E. Fornel, QA Field Representative
- D. Brock, Startup Test Director
C. Coggin, Startup Engineer
Other Organizations
R. M. Wyatt, General Electric Company
F. Tehranchi, Southern Company Services
NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Rogers
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 23, 1979
with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The inspector
discussed the apparent item of noncompliance related to the use of the
incorrect Core Maximum Peaking Factor (CMPF) in ascertaining acceptance
of results of certain startup tests. The licensee did not take excep-
tion to the findings and committed to conduct a re-evaluation of the
potential adverse impact on the acceptability of all startup test
results to date due to the usage of an incorrect CMPF.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- t
.
__
._.
.
..
-2-
5.
Startup Test Results Evaluation
Six completed startup test procedures were reviewed by the inspector
to ascertain whether uniform criteria are being applied for evaluating
completed startup tests to assure their technical and administrative
adequacy. Each procedure was reviewed to verify:
Each procedure change was approved in accordance with the pertinent
a.
administrative procedures.
b.
That the test change had been completed if it entailed specific
action.
That the procedure change did not change the basic objectives of
c.
the test.
d.
That all test exceptions had been resolved and that the resolution
had been accepted by appropriate management.
That outstanding exceptions have been identified and if completed,
e.
proper approval signature obtained.
f.
If required, the retest requirements have been completed.
Licensee review and evaluation of the test results and acknowledge-
g.
ment that testing demonstrated system design requirements.
h.
That the licensee specifically compared test results with esta-
blished acceptance criteria.
That data sheets had been completed and that all data recorded
i.
where required are within acceptable tolerance.
j.
That those personnel charged with responsibility for review and
acceptance of test results have documented their review and
acceptance of test package.
The following documents were reviewed:
HNP-2-10422, Pressure Regulator Startup Testing - T.C. 1
HNP-2-10522, Pressure Regulator Startup Testing - T.C. 2
HNP-2-10622, Pressure Regulator Startup Testing - T.C. 3
HNP-2-10722, Pressure Regulator Startup Testing - T.C. 4
HNP-2-10822, Pressure Regulator Startup Testing - T.C. 5
HNP-2-10625, Main Steam Isolation Valves - T.C. 3
Three examples of the use and subsequent supervisory approval of an
incorrect value of Core Maximum Peaking Factor (CMPF) were identified
-
i
i
e
. _ ,
.
__ _
_
.
.
..
5
-3-
by the inspector in three different startup test procedures (STP).
All three cases involve Data Sheet 68 (from HNP-2-10001) which is useo
to calculate the neutron flux scram setting for comparison to the
observed neutron flux peak during the particular startup test. Specific
acceptance criteria for these STP's delineates the minimum acceptable
margin to the scram setpoint trip. A value of 2.48 instead of the
required 2.38 for CMPF was utilized in the calculation yielding a
higher than prescribed scram setpoint. This in turn had the potential
of compromising the acceptability of the test results relating to the
" flux-peak-to-scram-setpoint" acceptance criteria.
Such use of the incorrect CMPF was identified in the following STP's:
HNP-2-10422, Pressure Regulator (Attachment E/11)
HNP-2-10522, Pressure Regulator (Attachment E/13)
HNP-2-10625, MSIV (Attachment D/33)
The licensee committed to conduct a re-evaluation of all startup test
results to date whose acceptability could be adversely affected by the
above described findings.
The particular Jeviation from the original 2.48 value of CMPF to the
currently applicable value of 2.38 came as a result of the process
computer's calculational method of handling 150 inch 8x8R fuel assemblies
and was identified by the licensee via their internal Deviation Report
No.78-444.
Paragraph 16.1 of Section 16, " Corrective Action", of the Plant Hatch
Quality Assurance Manual obligates the licensee to " establish measures
to assure that conditions adverse to quality such as failures, malfunc-
tions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and
nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected." In the case of
significant conditions adverse to quality paragraph 16.1 further
requires that "the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition
is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition".
Based on the findings discussed above, it appears that adequate correc-
tive action was not taken to disseminate the new value of CMPF for
use, as appropriate, in plant procedures. This is an item of noncom-
pliance (366/79-09-01).
6.
Quality Assurance Audits
The following QA audits of startup activities performed by the onsite
QA staf f were reviewed:
.
.
. .
%
-4-
Audit of Unit 2 Startup Testing at Test Condition 1
Audit of Unit 2 Startup Testing at Test Condition 3
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations
were identified.