IR 05000416/1982060

IE Insp Rept 50-416/82-60 on 820719-0813.Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Follow Procedure & to Comply W/Tech Specs Re Control of Keys to Operate Plant Equipment & Switches

ML20027E625
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	08/26/1982
From:	Cantrell F, Scott D, Wagner A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20027E603	List: IR 05000416/1982060 ML20027E602 ML20027E606 ML20027E613 ML20027E619
References
50-416-82-60, NUDOCS 8211150549
Download: ML20027E625 (5)

Text

c

,

,

~

1. " "'109 UNITED STATES

/

k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

$

g REGION ll E

101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100

e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report No. 50-416/82-60 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company

'

Jackson, MS Facility Name:

Grand Gulf 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-13 Inspectors:

M W/f/2-A. G. Wagner

'r/

Date Si'gned YA YN D. E! Scott ~

f' /// ~

Dat'e Si~gned Approved by:

g g 2-4h F. 5.' Cantrell, Sectidn/dfef, Division of Date Si'gned Project and Resident Pfograms SUMMARY Inspection on July 19 - August 13, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 92 inspector-hours on site in the areas of fuel load witnessing, operational safety, TMI Task Action Plan implemen-tation and surveillance testing observation.

Results Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; two items of noncompliance were found in one area (paragraphs 5a and 5b, failure to follow procedure, and paragraph Sc, failure to comply with technical specifications).

' F211150549 021021

~

~

PDR ADOCK 05000416 O

PDR,

F'

e.

b

.

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager

• R. A. Ambrosino, Assistant Plant Manager G. Johnson, Operations Superintendent

• J. W. Yelverton, Nuclear Site QA Manager L. R. Miller, Operations

• R. G. Keaton, Operations

• M. A. Lacey, Quality Assurance Supervisor 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 20, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee had no comments regarding the inspection findings.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 416/82-55-06. The licensee has provided additional information regarding operator overtime work hours. This is discussed in paragraph 8.

4.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 8.

5.

Operational Safety The inspectors were kept 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.

'

i The inspector made frequent visits to the control room such that it was visited at least daily when an inspector was on site. Observations included i

l

!

$

e

-

.

.

.

instrument readings; setpoints and recordings; status of operating systems; status and alignments of emergency standby systems; purpose of temporary tags on equipment controls and switches; annunciator alarms; adherente to procedures; adherence to limiting conditions for operations; temporary alterations in effect; daily journals and data sheet entries; and control room manning. This inspection activity also included numerous informal discussions with operators and supervisors.

General plant tours were conducted on at least a weekly basis.

Portions of the auxiliary building, reactor building and outside areas were visited.

Observations included valve positions and system alignment; snubber and hanger conditions; instrument readings; housekeeping; radiation area controls; tag controls on equipment; work activities in progress; vital area controls; personnel badging, personnel search and escort; and vehicle search and escort.

Informal discussions were held with selected plant personnel in their functional areas during these tours.

In addition a complete walkdown which included valve alignment, instrument alignment, switch positions were performed on the Low Pressure Core Spray System. Comments are noted below:

a.

During observation of control room activities the inspector noted a large number of personnel entering and exiting the control room.

Some of the personnel appeared to be using the control room for a passageway to and from the turbine building. The inspector requested to see the operations access list for personnel requiring routine access into the control room. This requirement is contained in plant administrative procedure 01-S-06-4, Access and Conduct in the Control Room. Paragraph 6.4.1 requires the operations superintendent to provide this informa-tion to the security supervisor and to maintain a current access list in the shift superintendent's office. The failure to provide this information constitutes an apparent violation of the administrative procedure.

It will be identified as violation 416/82-60-01, failure to follow procedure.

b.

During a review of shift logs and records, the inspector observed that the shif t superintendent's log does not contain basic information concerning shift activities. A summary of major evolutions performed on a given shift is required by paragraph 6.4.1 of operations section procedure 02-S-01-5, Shift Logs and Records. The required summary shall include work performed on the shift, any special evolutions and changes to station status. During a review of the shift superinten-dent's log on August 5,1982 at 0000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, there was a single entry made accepting the shift. That was the only shift entry. There was not a statement as to understanding the shift nor were there entries indicating fuel loading in progress or surveillance performed. On 8-6-82 at 0000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, there were no statements as to understanding plant conditions or surveillance performed on that shift. The failure to log the required information constitutes an apparent violation of the operations procedure. This violation will be identified as 416/82-60-02, failure to follow procedur,

<

,

.

.

c.

A concern was previously expressed by the inspector concerning excessive overtime worked by operators. This was documented as an unresolved item 416/82-55-06. As a result of this concern the licensee has identified numerous examples whereby operators were worked in excess of the limits specified in paragraph 6.2.2.f of the Technical Specifications without authorization. One operator exceeded the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> limit in seven days by 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> during the week of 6/23/82. The same operator exceeded the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> limit in seven days by four hours during the week of 6/26/82. Again, the same operator exceeded the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> limit in seven days by four hours during the week of 7/15/82.

During this same period on July 16-17, 1982, this operator exceeded the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> work limit in a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period.

In addition, eight other operators exceeded the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> limit in a seven day period. One of the same operators also exceeded the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> limit for a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period. The previously identified concern is upgraded from an un-resolved item to an apparent violation.

It will be identified as violation 416/82-60-03, failure to comply with technical specifi-cations.

d.

The inspector noted that the administrative procedures do not address controls for keys used to operate plant equipment and switches. This

,

lack of control was discussed with senior plant management.

It is the inspector's understanding that management will review the situation and appropriate controls will be put into effect. The inspector will review these controls during a subsequent inspection. This will be identified as inspector followup item 416/82-60-04.

6.

Fuel Load Witnessing The inspectors witnessed portions of the preparations and conduct of startup test procedure 1-000-SU-03-0, Revision 2, Fuel Loading. The witnessing verified compliance with FSAR Chapter 14; Startup Manual Chapter 8000; Plant Administrative Procedure 01-S-06-02, Conduct of Operations; 01-S-06-4, Access and Conduct in the Control Room; 01-S-06-6, Fuel Management and Control; 01-S-06-10, Control of Refueling Operations; 01-S-06-15, Special Nuciear Materials Inventory and Transfer Control.

No violations or deviations were identified in the above area.

t 7.

ACRS Meeting The senior resident inspector participated in the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards meeting held in Washington, DC on August 10 and 11, 1982.

,

l The meetings were held to discuss full power licensing of Grand Gulf Unit 1.

,

!

8.

TMI Task Action Plan Implementation l

'

The inspector was informed that the NSSS vendor had completed the review of plant emergency operating procedures as required by TMI Task Action Plan l

[

e

-

s.t+

.

,

.

.

i item 1.C.7.

Upon review of several revised procedures, the inspector noted that they had been rewritten close to their original condition as existed prior to NRC review. Resolutions to NRC comments and concerns had been removed to resolve NSSS vendor comments. The NRR staff reviewer of the Grand Gulf Emergency Operating Procedures was informed.

It is the inspector's understanding that the licensee will provide copies of the NSSS vendor's comments and resolution to the NRC for their additional review.

This item is considered unresolved pending the submittal of the vendor comments and the review by the NRC with adequate resolution of additional NRC comments. This is identified as unresolved item 416/82-60-05.

9.

Surveillance Testing Observation The inspectors observed the performance of the below listed surveillance procedure. The inspection consisted of a review of the procedure for technical adequacy, conformance to technical specifications, verification of test instrument calibration, observation on the conduct of the test, removal from service and return to service of the system and a review of test data.

06-0P-1C61-M-0001, Revision 10, Remote Shutdown Panel Instrumentation Channel Check.

No violations or deviations were identified in the above area.

!

,

e

!

e I

d i

er

-- -

+'-w e r

. - -, - -

,,.

-v-.r

-,-,,

w-

,-r---

--

m

- -

-

- -

e-----

--- - - -