IR 05000321/1978039

IE Inspec Repts 50-321/78-39 & 50-366/78-48 on 781007-1110 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected Incl:Plant Opers,Startup Testing,Minutes, Tech Spec Compliance & Reportable Occurrences

ML20148A256
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/30/1978
From:	Dance H, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148A232	List: IR 05000321/1978039 ML20148A229 ML20148A243
References
50-321-78-39, 50-366-78-48, NUDOCS 7812280294
Download: ML20148A256 (5)

Text

- -

. .c ,

-e, e ':*, .

.,V ,

UNITED STATES I p e7' E800

,o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

REGloN 11 l g ') .p., g .

.-

. M ARIETT A sTRE ET. *

8 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

\,...../ l Report Nos. : 50-321'/78-39 and 50-366/78-48 1 Docket Nos. : 50-321 and 50-366

-

j License Nos.: . DPR-57 and NPF-5 ,

Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachttee Street, ,-

j Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name: E. I. Hatch, Units 1 and 2 l

Inspection at: Plant Hatch, Baxley, Georgia Inspection conducted: October 7 - November 10, 1978 Inspector: Rogers, Resident Inspector Approved by: W H!3c/9 H. C. Dance, Chief Date' l

'

Reactor Projects Section N Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch l

Inspection Sununary Inspection on October 7 - November 10, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-321/78-39 and 50-366/78-48)

Areas Inspected: Routine inspections of Unit 1 plant opuccions, Unit 2 startup testing,, on-site committee meeting minutes, techracal specifica-tion compliance and reportable occurrences. The inspections involved 132 hours0.00153 days <br />0.0367 hours <br />2.18254e-4 weeks <br />5.0226e-5 months <br /> on-site by the NRC Resident Inspecto Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identifie .

7812280296;

.,._ . . , .. - - ,

. - . - - .

s s R

.. {

l

RII Report'Nos. 50-321/78-39-and 50-366/78 48 -1 - l

. DETAILS Prepared by: n a ///> vb 8 R. F. Rogers,. Resident Insfector Date

- Reactor Projects Section N [

Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support  !

-Branch t Dates of Inspecti n: Oc ober 7 - November 10, 1978 Reviewed by:' C w idh Date bl '

H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Section N Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Persons Contacted

• • M. Manry, Plant Manager

• • H.' Nix, Assistant Plant Manager

• W. Rogers, Health Physics / Radiochemist

• R. Nix, Superintendent- of Operations

• S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations

• T.'Greene, Superintendent of Plant Engineering Services .

• E. Aldrige, Material Foreman

• C. Bellflower, QA Site Supervisor

.

Plant Operators, Engineers, Quality Assurance inspectors and other licensee personnel were also contacted during the mont * Denotes those' present at exit interviews on October 20 and 27,197 ** Denotes those present at exit interviews on October 13 and 27, and November. 3 and 9,197 . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte . Unresolved items -

No new unresolved items were identifie .J

!

i Exit Interviews  ;

The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in para-

- graph 1)- on La weekly basis !during the inspection period. The inspector summarized the scope. and findings of the inspection each week

..

.*

. .

. - - - - , _

.,, .- . . , . . .

.

H:7'd j ~

'b .. .

l

...

n RII, Report Nos. 50-321/78-3 and 50-366/78-48 -2- .; Test Program Review ~and Evaluation (Unit 2)

'

'The' inspector reviewed the HNP-2-10000 series test. sequencing document to determine the status of startup. testing on Unit 2 on a daily basi The startup test engineers log, control room log, and shif t supervisors log were also reviewed daily. The ins.pector observed control room operations to' ascertain that operator actions were in conformance with'

regulatory' requirements , technical specifications and administrative procedure , Witness of Power Ascension Testing (Unit 2)

The inspector witnessed on a sampling basis the overall conduct of the :

power ascension test program. Tests selected included transient and steady state evolutions. The inspector determined that the proper revision was in use, that operators were familiar with procedural requirements, test limitations and precautions, and that minimum operator manning requirements were satisfied. Procedural prerequisites

.were verified as being met and that properly calibrated test equipment

-

was used. 'The inspector independently evaluated that stated acceptance !

criteria was met and test exceptions documented. The following tests were witnessed during this reporting interva HNP-2-10428 Shutdown From Outside the Control Room HNP-2-10526 Bypass Valve Capacity HNP-2-10527 Load Rejection Within Bypass capability HNP-2-10531 Loss of Off-site Power ENP-2-19529 Recirculation Flow Control ,

HNP-2-10615 High Pressure Coolant Injection KNP-2-10623 Feed Water System HNP-2-10471 Residual Heat Removal System 7.- Plant Tours ,

The inspector. conducted plant tours periodically during the inspection interval to verify that monitoring equipment was recording as required, equipment was properly ' tagged, operations personnel were aware of plant conditions,.and that plant housekeeping efforts were adequat S

-,% _ ,_

f

'

'. .

i l RII Report Nos. 50-321/78-39 and 50-366/78-48 -3- l Plant Review Board Minutes Review The inspector reviewed the minutes of the Plant Review Board for the period from September 16, 1978 to October 25, 1978. Meeting periodicity, quorum requirements, and minute contents were evaluated against the requirements of Section 6 of facility technical, specifications. The inspector had no further question , Technical Specification Compliance During this reporting interval, the inspector verified compliance with selected limiting conditions for operation (LCO's) and results of selected surveillance tests. These verifications were accomplished by direct obse rva tion of 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 occurrences as they happene . Allegation of Improper Steam Piping Insulation by a Former Contractor

[mployee (Unit 2)

The inspector reviewed an allegation which was made to the Occupational Safety and Health administration's (OSHA) Savannah Area Of fice by a letter dated June 12, 1978. This letter implied possible nuclear plant equipment operability questions due to insufficient steam piping insulation on Unit 2. The letter stated that the thickness of the piping insulation was less than required and that chicken wire mesh was not being installed for required lateral support. The licensee provided an audit report dated May 30, 1978, concerning insulation which was initiated when the allegor informed the licensee of his concerns. The licensee found two instances where insulation was 1/2 inch less than required on piping runs outside the drywell and one instance where chicken wire was not used on a moisture separator re-heater (HSR) end-bell. These items were properly documented for corrective action in accordance with the licensee's procedures. None of the audit findings were relevant to nuclear plant safety,

1 Quality Assurance Audits The inspector reviewed the licensee's audit program for the startup test sequence. The following audit reports were reviewed for complete-ness and problem resolution practices:

. Startup Test Program Administrative Controls dated June 26, 1978

. Startup Test Program Implementation and Compliance dated July 10, 1978

. _ - _ - - - _ -_ _

. _ - -

< ,

_ ,

i

..

RII Report Nos. 50-321/78-39 and 50-366/78-48 -4-

.

Chemical and Radiochemical Controls dated June 26, 1978

. Plateau II Test and Acceptance Criteria dated September 25, 1978

. Plateau III Test and Acceptance Criteria dated October 13, 1978

.

O l

l

!

l l

i i

l I

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l