ML20235W058

Insp Repts 50-321/87-23 & 50-366/87-23 on 870829-0925. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters,Operational Safety Verification,Maint Observation & Surveillance Testing

ML20235W058
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	10/07/1987
From:	Holmesray P, Menning J, Randy Musser, Sinkule M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235W044	List: ML20235W042 ML20235W050 ML20235W058
References
50-321-87-23, 50-366-87-23, NUDOCS 8710150568
Download: ML20235W058 (7)

See also: IR 05000321/1987023

Text

_ _ - - _ _ _ . _ . _ .

. . . . . . .

e nMob UNITEo STATES

q'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

',# n REoloN il

,* ,j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

• 5 'r ' ATLANTA, GEORGI A 3o323

%...../

I

\

Report Nos.: 50-321/87-23 and 50-366/87-23

Licensee: Georgia Power Company

P. O. Box 4545

Atlanta, GA 30302

Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5

Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2

Inspection Condu ted: August 29 - Se tember 25, 1987

Inspectors: ]M ohm / [O /C 7/f"7

Peter Hvinfes7R ay, Senior Resident Inspector Date Signed

fN frica/ U h /0f7 h'^7

Date S'igned

Johh M rthinh, Resident Inspe,ctor

[ $st $ $tcavdic &

Randal Muster, Resident Ins ector

lo/p/rJ

Datre Signed

Approved by: 1 L V.?Cz%b&

"

e /0/ 7/#7

Marvin W S'inkule, Chief Dat6 Signed

Project Sec. ion 2C

Division of Reactor Projects

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine inspection was conducted at the site in the areas

of Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters, Operational Safety

Verification, Maintenance Observation, Surveillance Testing Observation,

Radiological Protection, Physical Security, Reportable Occurrences, Bulletin

Followup and Temporary Instruction inspection.

Results: One violation was ideritified.

G

R k68sygoo7 K 0500032j

PDR

_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_________-_ ______ _ _

,

gf -

f

'

g  % ,' M'

r ,m

<

M ,

'y

w a .,;

'

m

' '

'

f

REPORT DETAILS

11 . Persons Contacted

a 3' . Licensee- Employeest

T. Beckham,'Vice President, Plant Hatch

• H. C. Nix, Plant Manager

D. Read,LPlant-Support Manager

.

'*H.'L. Sumner,: Operations Manager

• P..:E. Fornel, Maintenance Manager ,

• T.;R.-Powers, Engineering Manager

• R.:W.-Zavadoski, Health Physics and. Chemistry Manager.

.C. Coggin,' General Support' Manager

• M.'_Googe,.0utages and Planning Manager-

• 0. M. Fraser, Site: Quality Assurance (QA) Manager-

-

• S. B.,Tipps, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Compliance

Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators,

mechanics, security force members and, office personnel.

• Attended exit interview

2.: . Exit: Interview (30703)

The11nspection scope and findings were summarized on September 25, 1987,

with"those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee did not

!

-identify as proprietary any' of the material provided to or reviewed by

the . inspector (s) during this inspection. The licensee acknowledged the

findings and took no exception.

,

'

(0 pen) Violation 50-366/87-23-01. Failure to revise surveillance

procedure.

_

(Paragraph 6)

.3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702)

(Closed) Violation 321/87-12-02, Failure to Follow Equipment Cleerance

Procedures. The licensee's response dated August- 13, 1987, was reviewed.

Since this matter resulted' from the failure of personnel to follow

. existing administrative controls, corrective action focussed on reminding

personnel of equipment clearance requirements. The inspector reviewed a

l- memo'from the Plant Manager to all p'lant personnel dated June 30, 1987,

'

reiterating ' the . requirement that equipment manipulations be done in

'

accordance with approved plant procedures. This item is closed.

L s

>

-_ ._- - - _ . - _ - - - _ - . - - _ - - - _ . - _ _ . _ - -

.. ,

.-

if, su r L

llll' [ :Y

a.

( I' i

1

.

'

2

. i

, ,

~

,

(C1osed) Violation 1321, ^366/86-28-01, - Failure to ' Meets Control ' Room

Ventilation Flow ' Rate. 'The - GPC0 letter of

December 12,1986 : and . the '

,

JFebruary 23,:1987 response to the NRC request for.more information dated

January 12, 1987Lwere reviewed. - The . corrective actions to ' provide and-

'

perform 'an upgraded procedure, meeting. the requirements of; the Technical-

,

Specif.ications,.have bee'n completed. This item is closed.

(Closed) Violation 321, 366/86-28-02, Improper Control . Room Ventilation-

Surveillance Frequency. The' program for monitoring surveillance ~ frequency

in: accordance with Technical Specification requirements has been reviewed

and appears adequate.- Procedure 42SV-Z41-002-0S, Testing of Cont'rol: Room

> Habitability Filter Trainsiby Vendor was reported performed on ~ July 29,

- 1987 and this meets the 3,25 times 18 months - frequency. This ' item is

closed.

(Closed) Violation 366/86-43-01, Failure to Establish a Procedure to

Verify Hydrogen Recombiner Trouble Alarm Setpoints. (Note

This' violation

is being ' tracked by - the licensee as 86-43-02). The GPC0 letter ,of

April.10, 1987 was reviewed. The corrective action of adding-the' trouble

alarm setpoints'into.a Procedure Upgrade Program (PUP) validated procedure

was completed on 9/8/87', the effective date of: procedure 57SV-CAL-006-2S,

Post LOCA~ Hydrogen Recombiner Calibration. This' item is closed.

l i .i

4. ~0perational Safety Verification (71707)

The,. inspectors kept themselves informed on a daily basis of the overall

plant status and any significant safety. matters related to plant-

operations. Daily discussions were held with plant management and various

members of the plant operating staff. The inspectors made, frequent visits

to the control room. Observations included instrument readings, setpoints

and recordings, status of operating systems, tags and clearances on

equipment, controls and switches, annunciator alarms, adherence to

limiting conditions for operation, temporary alterations in effect, daily

journals and data sheet entries, control room manning, and access

control s.. This inspection activity included numerous informal discussions

with operators and their supervisors. Weekly, when on site, selected

..

~

Engineering Safety Feature (ESF) systems were confirmed operable. The

confirmation was made by verifying the following: accessible valve flow

path alignment, power supply breaker and fuse status, instrumentation, i

major component leakage, lubrication, cooling, and general conaition.  !

l

General plant tours vare conducted on at least a weekly basis. Portions

o

of the control building, turbine building, reactor building, and outside j

areas were ' visited, Observations included general plant / equipment i

conditions, safety related tagout verifications, shift turnover, sampling

program, housekeeping and general plant conditions, fire protection  ;

equipment, control of activities in progress, radiation protection l

l,, controls, physical security, problem identification systems, missile l

L ' hazards, instrumentation and alarms in the control room, and containment ]

,

isolation.

1

?

_ _ _ _ . - . ~ . _ -

, - - _ _ . - _ __

-- - --

F

,

!

3

<

During this reporting oeriod, the inspector reviewed the licensee's use of

overtime for compliara with the requirements of Technical Specification 6.2.2.g. The licensee's procedural controls on overtime are currently

contained in Section 8.4 of procedure 30AC-0PS-003-05, " Plant Operations".  !

The inspector reviewed time sheets for selected licensed operations

=

. personnel for June and July of 1987 and determined that technical

, ,

specification requirements were met for these individuals.

No violations or deviations were identified.

L 5. Maintenance Observation (62703)

, During' the report period, the inspector (s) observed selected maintenance

activities. :The observations included a review of the work documents for

adequacy, adherence to procedure, proper tagouts, adherence to technical

specifications, radiological controls, observation of all or part of the

actual work and/or retesting in progress, specified retest requirements,

and adherence to the appropriate quality controls.

No violations or deviations were identified.  !

6. Surveillance Testing Observations (61726)

The inspector (s) observed the performance of selected surveillance. The t

observation included a review of the procedure for technical adequacy,  !

conformance to Technical Specifications, verification ~ of test instrument

calibration, observation of all or part of the actual surveillance,

'

removal from. service and return to service of the system or components

affected, and review of the data for acceptability based upon the

acceptance criteria.

On September 2, 1987, Procedure Upgrade Program (PUP) personnel discovered

that a surveillance procedure was deficient while incorporating a technical

specification submittal. The involved procedure is 575V-011-016-2S,

Rev. O, "GE Numac Main Steam Line Logarithmic Radiation Monitor Functional

Test". Amendment No. 71 to the Unit 2 Technical Specifications added

Section 4.3.6.7 which requires a channel functional test of the logic  !

'

associated with the Main Control Room Environmental Control System

(MCRECS) pressurization mode activation in response to main steam line

high-radiation conditions. Amendment No. 71 was effective on February 27, {

1987. PUP personnel discovered that procedure 57SV-D11-016-2S was  !

deficient in that it failed to test MCRECS pressurization activation logic  !

(in response to main steam line high radiation conditions) to the relay at

the end of the logic identity. A temporary revision to this procedure was

prepared and satisfactorily performed on September 7, 1987. Licensee

procedure 40AC-REG-001-0S, Rev. 2, " Technical Specifications Surveillance

Program," provides current requirements for the revision of surveillance

procedures to accommodate Technical Specification changes. Section 5.3.2 l

of this procedure requires that procedure revisions required by technical

specification changes be issued on or before the day the revised Technical

_

_

I

,

..

4

L Specifications are implemented. This matter is considered a violation of

Technical Specification 6.8.1.a which requires that written procedures

be established, implemented and maintained covering the activities

recommended in. Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Rev. 2, February

1987. Appendix "A" recommends administrative procedures for procedure

review and approval. This matter will be tracked as Violation

50-366/87-23-01, Failure to Revise Surveillance Procedure.

7. ESF System Walkdown (71710)

The inspectors routinely conducted partial walkdowns of ESF systems.

Valve and breaker / switch lineups and equipment conditions were randomly

verified both locally and in the control room to ensure that lineups were

in accordance with operability requirements and that equipment material

conditions were satisfactory. The Unit 2 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling

(RCIC) system was walked down in detail.

On September 18, 1987, while walking down the Unit 2 RCIC system, the

inspectors noted several apparent discrepancies. The system valve lineup

is included as Attachment 3 to procedure 34S0-E51-001-2S, " Reactor Core-

Isolation Cooling System". The inspectors noted that four valves,

2E51-F134, F135, F140, and F141, were not included in the valve lineup

sheets. Valves 2E51-F134 and F135 are instrument vent valves for level

sensor N010. Valves 2E51-F140 and F141 are drain valves for this level

sensor. The inspectors also observod that valves 2E51-F134, F135, and

F140 were not tagged with Master Parts Li st (MPL) numbers. Valve

2E51-F141 was found to be incorrectly tagged as 1E51-F141. Additionally,

the MPL tags on valves 2E51-F061 and F3020 were found to be damaged. The

above discrepancies were promptly brought to the attention of operations

personnel for resolution.

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

8. Radiological Protection (71709)

The resident inspectors reviewed aspects of the licensee's radiological

protection program in the course of the monthly activities. The

performance of health physics and other personnel was observed on various  !

shif ts to - include: involvement of health physics supervision, use of

radiation work permits, use of personnel monitoring equipment, control of

high radiation areas, use of friskers and personal contamination

monitors, and posting and labeling.

No violations or deviations were noted.  !

9. Physical Security (71881)

In the course of the monthly activities, the resident inspectors included

a review of the licensee's physical security program. The performance of

various shifts of the security force was observed in the conduct of daily

- . _ _ _

_

1

l

[

-

,

'

5

l

l

activities to include: availability of supervision, availability 'of.

armed response personnel, protected and vital access controls, searching

of personnel, packages and vehicles, badge issuance and retrieval,

escorting of visitors, patrols and compensatory posts.

No violations.or deviations were noted.  !

10. Reportable Occurrences (90712 & 92700) l

A number of Licensee . Event Reports (LERs) were reviewed for potential

generic impact, . to -detect trends, and to determine whether corrective  !

actions appeared appropriate. Events which were reported immediately

were also reviewed as they occurred to detern'i ne that Technical  ;

Specifications were being met and the public health and safety were of

utmost consideration. No LERs are being closed in this report.

11. IE Bulletin Followup .(92703)

(Closed) I&E 321,366/86-BU-03, Potential Failure of Multiple ECCS Pumps

Due to Single Failure of Air-operated Valve in Minimum Flow Recirculation

Line. The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to IEB 86-03. In

their letter dated November 11, 1986, the licensee. stated that a review of

Core Spray.(CS) system and the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system revealed

that no single-failure vulnerability which could cause a f ailure of more

than one train exists in either system's minimum flow recirculation lines.

Since the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) system for each unit is a

single-train system, the concern addressed in IEB.86-03 is not applicable

to the HPCI system. The licensee's action on this Bulletin is considered

to be complete.

12. Temporary Instruction (TI) Inspection (25582)

(Closed) TI 2515/82 Inspection Requirements for IE Compliance Bulletin

86-01, Minimum Flow Logic Problems That Could Disable RHR Pumps. In

report 321,366/87-12 the IEB 86-01 was closed. The review of the RHR

system's minimum flow logic and physical arrangement revealed that the

concern that failure of one minimum flow valve would disable both

divisions of RHR is not applicable to Hatch. The action on this TI is  ;

complete.

13. Review of Licensee Action Taken in Response to GE Service Information

Letter (SIL) No. 402 (TI 2500/12) (25012)

Review of licensee actions taken in response to GE SIL 402 was previously

discussed in RII Report 50-321, 366/87-08. In that report four out of the

five GE recommendations contained in the SIL were closed. Review of the {

licensee's response to the recommendation for the nondestructive

examination of nitrogen lines remained open. The resident inspector has

subsequently reviewed some nondestructive inspection records and attempted

to determine the extent to which the GE recommendations were followed.

1

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - . - - - J

-

,

!

, <

J

l., , f 6

l4

'

.

GE recommended ultrasonic testing (UT) of all accessible ~ welds ininitrogen

injection' lines from.the last isolation valve ~ to the wetwell .a'nd drywell

h:  : penetrations. GE 'also recommended UT of containment' penetrations and the

. containment shell. within six inches of the: penetrations. The licensee.

performed more ' limited nondestructive' testing :using alternate techniques, .

s partially based -upon the position that' UT .would ' be of limited value.

.. 1without baseline data'. More specifically, in Unit 1 one field weld and

".

two' elbows in' the nitrogen; injection line were tested with the. magnetic

. particle technique on February 5,.1984. No rejectable indications' were ,

reported. In the case of Unit 2, the licensee indicated 2 to' the resident -

inspector _ that liquid penetrant' testing had been performed on ~ accessible

-welds in the nitrogen' injection line. However,.unlike'the case of Unit 1~,.

nondestructive testing records could not be ~1ocated to document the

testing or identify 'the specific welds _that were examined. Review of this

..

matter is considered closed.

,.

Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.

.

,, -

]

.

!

4

l

t

_--___-__ __ _