IR 05000321/1979018
| ML19249A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1979 |
| From: | Jenkins H, Ruhlmen W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249A010 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-18, 50-366-79-22, NUDOCS 7908170573 | |
| Download: ML19249A024 (6) | |
Text
fa atcoq'o f
UNITED STATES
,
8~
-' %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
REGION 11 I.k h
' /
k
,
f 101 MARIE TT A sT., N W, SUIT E 3100
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/79-18 and 50-366/79-22 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Ncme:
Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch Site near Baxley, Georgia
/
q Inspectors:
/ /[
f(c M ) Q231 b /Z 7/7 ')
W. A. Ruhlman Date Signed
/
r'
II. D. Jenki J,
Date Signed Approved by:
.d/_
_
h!25
Ru 1 man, Actiq 5ection Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on June 4-5, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of training and retraining programs (non-licensed plant personnel); requalification training; and licensee response to IE Bulletin 79-08.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in two areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in onearea (deficiency - f ailure to f ollow procedures - Paragraph 6.b).
.G; 7nc
'
Jyj i.i
29081
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations
- C.
Belflower, GPC QA Site Supervisor
- C. Coggin, Engineering Supervisor
- T.
Greene, Assistant Plant Manager
- M. Manry, Plant Manager D. Moore, Senior Methods and Training Specialist
- R.
Nix, Superintendent of Maintenance W. Rogers, Health Physics and Radiochemistry N. Shuman, Safety and Health Advisor G. Spell, Jr., Senior QAFR Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, and office personnel.
Other Organizations J. C. Lim AEB - Government of Korea (Exit Interview Only)
NRC Resilent Inspector R. F. Rogars, III 2 Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and iindings were summarized on June 5, 1979, with those persons indica ed in Paragraph I above 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspect ion.
5.
Open Items Open items, as utilized in this report, are items f or which corrective action has been established and completion dates have been assigned. Further evalua-tion is required before a finding of acceptable implementation can be made Open items identified during the conduct of this inspection are discussed in Pa ragraphs 6b, 6c, 6d, 7c, 7d, and 8c.
w n p
/r,
')
.
-2-
.
Ine plant manager has committed to a completion date of September 15, 1979, for all open items.
6.
Training and Retraining Programs - Nonlicensed Plant Personnel References:
a)
HNP-203, General Employee Training, Revision 1, dated 2/19 b)
HNP-505, Safety Committee and Saf ety Meetings, Revision 1, dated 6/78 c)
HNP-19, Orientation of New Personne!, Revision 7, dated 6/78 d)
HNP-204, Maintenance Pers.....el Qua li fica tion Tra ining,
Revision 1, dated 6/78 a.
Review Conducted No changes were made to the licensee's training procedures since the last inspection of this area. Areas reviewed with respect to maintaining the implementation of the licensee's commitments were.
(1) General employee training for new employees (2) General employee retraining (3) Tempor~.y employee training (4) On-the-job training for: auxiliary / craftsmen; technicians; QA/QC pe. sonnel; and technical sta f f The inspector reviewed training records for two individuals in each cate-gory above to verify that the described training program was prcaided.
The inspector interviewed one employee f rom each category above to verify that the individual actually received the training which was documented in the training records.
During this review, three (3) open items were identified as discussed in Pa ragraphs 5.b, 5.c, and 5.d below.
b.
Incomplete Training Records During his review of training records for maintenance technicians and repairmen, the inspector veri fied on-the-job t raining records in accor-dance with HNP-204 were being maintained for electrical and mechanical personnel, but no records for other maintenance personnel who were not qualified to ANSI-N18.1-1971 standards were being maintained.
The inspector interviewed two technicians, three foremen, and two supervisors in the other maintenance area: ar d ascertained that an ongoing, on-the job training plan was being employed, but not procedurally covered to include adequate documentation.
Until a revision is made to HNP-204 to include all personnel covered by ANSI-N18.1, this item is open (321/79-18-02; 366/79-22-02).
- 0,>
7, n ?,
,
.
.
'
-3-c.
Inadequate 10 CFR 19 Training Various plant personnel were interviewed by the inspector regarding general employee training. A portion of the interview covered 10 CFR 19 and the employee's knowledge concerning his rights. Each individual had a basic understanding of 10 CFR 19 subjects, but when asked if they received instruction specifically on the subject, the answer was unanimously negative. Consequently, the inspector reviewed the Health Physics training plan for completeness regarding 10 CFR 19.
As a result of his review, the inspector identified the need to revise lesson plans and quizzes associated with HNP-D3 in the area of instruc-tion to workers to include and stress employee NRC relationships as set f orth in 10 CFR 19.12,
.13,.14,.15, and.16.
Until the licensee revises his training to reflect the above mentioned details for future training;this item (321/79-18-03, 366/79-22-03)is open.
d.
Updating Personnel Qualification Status In the course of his review of personnel training records the inspector identified a distinct inability to determine the individua? qualifica-tion as it related to ANSI N18.1-1971 requirements. HNP-204 requires the records of those personnel compl ting Georgia Power Company on-the-job training to reflect ANSI N!8.1 qualification status. Other personnel not certified by this method did not always have documentation substan-tiating the ANSI N18.1 qualification.
Until all records of personnel who are qualified t o ANSI N18.1-1971 requirements are properly documented to relfect their status, this item (321/79-18-04, 366/79-22-04) is open.
7.
Requal t r ication Training References:
a)
HNP 200, Licensed Plant Personnel Training and Retraining, Revision 4, dated 2/79 a.
Review Conducted The changes made to the licensee's requalification program since the last inspection of this area were reviewed with respect to maintaining the implementat ion of the accepted requalification training program.
The inspec or reviewed: the licensee's prepared schedule for conducting lectures; the licensee's prepared lesson plan or equivalent for three lecture topics; and the licensee's inclusion in the requalification program of deficient areas identified by evaluation of the most recent annual examinations. The ie.spector determined which licensed operators:
failed all or portions of the annual examinations; received unsatisf ac-tory performance evaluations; had not perf ormed licensed duties for a period four months or longer.
Ihr inspector verified the completion of appropriate follow through action for each of these individuals.
The inspector reviewed the training records of seven (7) NRC licensed 498 3C8
-4-
-
Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators to verify ' hat they included:
copies of annual written examinations and the inoividual responses, documentation of attendance at all required lectures, documentation of the required control manipulations, the results of performance evaluations, documentation of required additional training to satisfy deficient pe r f o rmance, documentation of completion of required procedure reviews and/or self-study. Additionally, the in-spector interviewed three (3) operators to verify that the training records reflect the actual training received.
item of noncompliance was identified as dis-During this review, one cussed in Paragraph 6.b.
Two open items were identified as discussed in Paragraphs 6.c and 6.d below.
b.
Failure to Follow Procedures
'
During his review of licensed p'. ant jerronnel, the inspector identi-fied the failure to follow procedures as required by Technical Speci-fication 6.8.1, in that, sectisn 3.a of pro edure HNP-200 requires the performance of operators t; De evaluated by o al exon.: nation at least annually by operating suyervision to include actions taken during abnormal or emergency cotiitions. Of the six (6) operators reviewed, three (3) had evaluatione which were not conducted during actual or simulated emergency or acq.,nal conditiens and one of those three (3)
was also not conducted by operating supervision.
These examples of failur' to follow procedure HNP 200, collect ively, constitute an item of ncompliance (321/79-18-01, 366/79-22-01).
c.
Timef rame for Conducting Retraining HNP 200, Section 3.c as implemented specifies no time limit for re-ceiving applicable lectures for those licensed operators who scored less than 80% on a section of the annual examination. As a result of this lack of specificity, operators were not, in all cases, receiving lecturees on deficient areas prior to the time of their annual re-examination.
Until HNP 200, Section 3.c is revised to specify a maximum time in-terval for receiving lectures by persons scoring less than 80% on a section of an annual examination, this item (321/79-18-05, 366/79-22-05) is open.
d.
Failure to perform semi-annual procedure review HNP 200, Section 2.d required a semi-annual procedure review of all abnormal and emergency procedures by operators and senior operators.
In some cases, the procedu - reviews were not being conducted on a strict semi-annual basis.
The inspector verified that all abnormal and emergency proce-dures were reviewed at least annually, but not per HNP 200.
"96 309
.
5_
.
Until RNP 200, Section 2.d is revised to reflect actual carrent prac-tices with respect to the scheduling of the abnormal and emergeecy procedure reviews, this item (321/ 79-18-06, 366/79-22-06)is open.
8.
Licensee Response to IE Bulletins 79-08 and 79-10 a.
Review Conducted - 79 08 The inspectors conducted a review of licensee actions to verify the ef fectiveness of operator training conducted in response to IE Bulletin 79-08.
The inspectors reviewed:
management controls implemented to incorporate plant modifications into the operator training and requal-ification programs; management controls implemented to incorporate the operational knowledge gained from the Three Mile Island incident into the operator training and requalification programs; management controls implemented to increase the standard of operator knowledge required in the area of plant transient responses, management controls implemented to assess the effectiveness of the training conducted, including, but not limited to, auditing of training presentations, examination content,
and examination grading.
The inspectors interviewed two (2) reactor operators and four (4) senior reactor operators to establish the operators' subjective evaluations of the effectiveness of training received in conjunction with incidents at the same or other f acilities.
The licensee had not yet evaluated the training given by means of a quiz or other method. This area will be reviewed afte. the evaluation is completed.
Fur record purposes, this is an Inspector Follow Item designated (321/79-18-07, 366/ 79-22-07).
During this review, one open item was identified as discussed in Paragraph S.c below.
b.
Review Conducted - 79-10 The inspectors reviewed the documentation supporting the licensee's response to IE Bulletin 79-10.
The records for the one individual who had been placed in an accelerated requalification program were reviewed.
c Disseminat ion of Information During the interviews with operators concerning the events at Three Mile Island, the inspector identified a distinct lack of infarmation exchange for licensed operators regarding subjects like IE Bulletins, LERs, Trip Reports, and ptchlems at other utilities.
Until the licensee establishes a system for the d i s s erai na t i on of inf orn ation to appropriate personnel on events that occur on other shifts / units at Plant Hatch or significant events occurring at other facilities which could occur at Plant Hatch with undesireable effects, this item (321/79-18-08, 366/79-22-08) is open.
(O'W Z1
'
,>
1 :