ML20132B114
| ML20132B114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1985 |
| From: | Holmesray P, Nejfelt G, Panciera V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B067 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-85-24, 50-366-85-24, NUDOCS 8509260107 | |
| Download: ML20132B114 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1985024
Text
-_
. . . -
-
-
--
-
.--
. _ _
._-
- --
'
.
i
['>R8f0
0
UNITED STATES
'
'o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^*
[
REGION ll
,
,
- E
j
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
[
.
,,
4
- i
'" c
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
i
\\..../
1
Report Nos.:
50-321/85-24 and 50-366/85-24
I
f
Licensee: Georgia Power Ccmpany
!
P. O. Box 4545
'
Atlanta, GA 30302
'
Docket Nos..
50-321 and 50-366
License Nos.:
Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2
'
Inspection Conducted-
'uly 27 - August 30, 1985
P. riolmes a)ggw m [h
_f /f f[
Inspectors:\\[{).
.
cenior Resident I4Ypector
Dat S1 ned
3
5
.
ff.f
-
Nealtpt, . _' "w
-W V
j
G
t2sicent inspectoF
Da -
nea
fjf [
l
Approved by:_V. W. Panciera, Section Chiet
Q4gp
_
D .e 5 gned
1
Project Section 28
, Division of Reactor Projects
.
\\
SUMMARY
Scope:
This inspection involved 144 inspector-hours on site'in the areas of
i
Technical Specification Compliance, Operator Performance, Overall Plant Opera-
l
tions, Quality Assurance Practices, Station and Corporate-Management Practices,
j
Corrective and Preventive Maintenance Activities, Site ' Security Procedures,
Radiation Control Activities, and Surveillance Activities.
i
1
~
Results: Of the areas inspected, two violations were identified, one in the area
-
of Reporting (paragraph 6) and one in the area of Technical Specification Changes-
(paragraph 10).
i
l
i
8509260107 850919
'
ADOCM 05000321
'
G
.
!
!-
'
- _ - _ _ _ _ , - _
. . . _ . - _ - . . . . . _ . - . , _ _ _ _ , . . . _ . _ . . _ . - .
- , , _ _ , _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ ,
,
_
_
_
-
-
-
. _ .
-
-
..
.
-
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons. Contacted
j
Licensee Employees
j
"H.'C. Nix, Site General Manager
- T. Greene. Deputy Site General Manager
- H. L. Sumner, Operations Manager
i
i
T. Seitz, Maintenance Manager
,
C. T. Jones, Engineering Manager
- R. W. Zavadoski, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager
P. E. Fornel, Site Q.A. 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-
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August ~ 30, 1985, with
t
those persons indicated in paragraph I above. During the reporting period,
frequent discussions were held with the General Manager and/or his
assistants concerning inspection findings.
The licensee acknowledged the
findings and took no exception.
The licensee did not identi fy as
proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector (s)
during this inspection.
.
3. .
Licensee Action on Previous Findings
!
Not inspected.
1
4.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items were not identif~ied during this inspection.
5.
Plant Tours (Units 1 and 2)
The inspectors conducted plant tours periodically during the inspection
,
interval to verify that monitoring equipment was recording as required,
'
l
equipment was properly tagged, operations personnel were aware of plant
'
conditions, and plant housekeeping efforts were~ adequate. The inspectors
also determined that appropriate radiation. . controls were properly esta-
blished, critical clean areas were being controlled in accordance with
!
procedures, excess equipment or material was stored properly and combustible
)
material and debris .werc disposed of expediticusly.
During tours, the
!
i
e
i
r
., , ,
,
w
--m,
,m.y.
-w-
p.__,ye%,.,,.,v.-w,.-.,,,,..
,..,,.,,m_,m-
, m. y-
. .y.,,e v_.e. , - r e m s.,
e.
-a,
3+-,nem_,..,..a.,,-
- . . . - --
_.. .
-
-
- - -
.-
.
- -
_
_
-
-
- - - -
.
i
'
j
-
2
.
!
!
inspectors looked for the existence of unusual fluid leaks, piping vibra-
tions, pipe hanger and seismic restraint settings, various valve and breaker
-
'
positions, equipment danger and caution tags, component positions, adequacy
.
of fire fighting equipment, and instrument calibration dates.
Some tours
'
were conducted on backshifts and/or weekends.
The inspectors routinely conduct partial walkdowns of ECCS systems. Valve
and breaker / switch lineups and ecuipment conditions are randomly verified
both locally and in tne control room.
During the inspection period, the
inspectors conducted a complete walkdown in the accessible areas of the
Unit 2 Resicual Heat Removal (RHR) system to verify tnat the lireups were in
accordance with licensee requirements for operability and equipment material
i
conditions were satisfactory.
1
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
i
During a system walkdown of the Unit 2 RHR system, several valves with
limitorque operators were found with local valve position not in agreement
with the remote (control roorr)-indication.
These valves are listed below:
<
LOCAL
!
VALVE
VALVE
INDICATION
REMOTE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
_(% OPEN)
INDICATION
,
Torus Suction
34
OPEN
.
Torus Suction
0
OPEN
,
Minimum Flow
12
OPEN
RHR to Torus
16:0
SHUT
i
OFF SCALED
SHUT
i
RHR Heat Ex Vent
OFF SCALED
SHUT
i
.
Also, two local indicators could not be read: 2E11-F047A due to excessive
dust on the face; and another 2E11-F068A, had no scale on the face.
!
Upon notification of the conditions found, the licensee verified: that the
flow path through 2E11-F004C was open by pumping water; that the control
i
room remote indications represented the actual valve positions; and that the
RHR system operation from control room was no't degraded.
'
i
j
0f the maintenance work orders (MWO) reviewed no confirmation of -local
versus remote valve position indication was specified in the test section of
the MWO. Also the procedures for limitorque operator maintenance did not
contain instructions for assuring ~ proper local valve position indicator
~
accuracy. The licensee stated that there is no functional use of. local
j
position indicators onllimitorque valves at Plant Hatch.
1
1
6.
Plant Operations Review (Units 1 and 2)
I
The inspectors, periodically during the inspection interval, reviewed shift
!
l
logs and operations records, including data sheets, instrument traces, and
records of equipment malfunctions. Th.is review included control room logs
i
-- -
- - -
-..
. - - . .
.
-
..-
.
-
-
. . -
- - - . - - . -
.
.
.
- - .
.
-
.--._= _. ---.
.
.- .-
.
.
3
.
t
and auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing orders, jumper logs and
equipment tagout records.
The inspectors routinely observed operator
alertness and demeanor during plant tours.
During normal events, operator
f
perforn ance and response actions were observed and evaluated.
The
l
inspectors conducted random off-hours inspections during the reporting
'
interval to assure that operations and security remained at acceptable
levels. Shift turnovers were observed to verify that they were conducted in
accordance with approved licensee procedures.
On August 27, 19S5, a mechanic entered the IC diesel generator (DG) room,
thinking he was in the 1A DG room, took local control of the DG and pressed
i
the local start button. When the DG rolled on starting air, the mechanic
realized that he was in control of IC DG and not the tagged out 1A DG.
He
immediately returned the 1C DG to its standby mode.
The 1C DG was
inoperable for automatic start for about five minutes. During the time that
both the 1A and the 1C DGs were inoperable, the Technical Specifications
,
requirement is to be in hot shutdown within six hours. However, Operations
personnel a short time later verified the operability of that the IC DG.
The inadvertent actuation of an engineered safety feature (ESF) is required
to be reported within four hours in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(ii).
The report was not made until 1245 on August 28, 1985. This is a violation
(321/85-24-01).
Similar violations were cited in Report 84-41 (two
examples).
7.
Technical Specification Compliance (Units 1 and 2)
i
During this reporting interval
the inspectors verified compliance with
,
.
selected limiting conditions for operations (LCOs) and results of selected
'
surveillance tests.
These verifications were accomplished by direct
observation on ~ monitoring instrumentation, valve
positions,
switch
,
positions, and review of completed logs and records.
The licensee's
,
compliance with selected LCO action statements were reviewed on selected
i
occurrences as they happened.
1
Within the area's inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
,
8.
Physical Protection (Units 1 and 2)
t
\\
The inspectors verified by observation and interviews during the reporting
i
interval that measures taken to assure the physical protection of the
facility met current requirements. ' Areas inspected included the organiza-
.
tion of the security force, the establishment and maintenance of gates,
doors, and isolation zones in proper condition, that access control and
badging was proper, and procedures were followed.
.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
I
9.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reported by the Licensee
The following licensee event report (LER) were reviewed for potential
4
generic impact, to detect trends, and to determine whether corrective
,
1
J
4
- - - + ,
-,,.mm-
y
,<-w-
r
, - , -
m , ,
-,,._...3
~,--n
.,,-,s-----.--
,
-e.---r
.-,-~7.-a,
s w, ey-ymev
,,.s---
wy.-+---,mmw,,v
-
. _. .. - .
- . . .. .- .
. _ - - . ~
. . . -.
-
- . . .
. . .
--
.-
_.
.
.
i
4
,
4
actions appeared appropriate.
Events which were reported immediately were
,
also reviewed as they occurred to determine that Technical Specifications
1
were being met and the public health and safety were of utmost considera-
-
l
tion. The following LERs are considered closed:
!
'
Unit 1:
83-96", 83-09*, 85-01, S5-04*
]
Unit 2:
84-09*, SS-02, 85-12, 85-13, 85-17*
)
- In-Depth Review Performed.
f
l
10. Drywell Pneumatic Mcdifications, Technical Specifications (TS) Change
.
i
On August 23, 1985, the licensee submitted a change to revise the tables of
primary containment i solation valves to reflect drywell pneumatic system
!
changes. The pneumatic system changes to Unit I are to be completed during
the upccming outage to commence November 30, 1985.
The pneumatic system
changes to. Unit 2 were completed during the recirculating system pipe
replacement outage which commenced in January 1984.
j
10 CFR 50.59(a)(1)(i) states that the holder of a license authorizing
operation of a production or utilization facility may make changes in the
j
f acility as described in the safety analysis report without prior commission
!
approval, unless the proposed change involves a change- in the Technical
Specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
The modification to the Unit -2 drywell pneumatic system in 1984 prior to
,
]
submittal and approval by the Commission is contrary to 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1).
j
This is a violation (366/S5-245-02)..
,
\\
5
i
!
!
i-
l
!
i
I
L
,
,,m-,ew.,,-rw,
,-~-
~'s=--v~
~ -
,-~ve=*v
= " *