IR 05000321/1979032
| ML19211C958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1979 |
| From: | Dance H, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211C938 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-32, 50-366-79-36, NUDOCS 8001160054 | |
| Download: ML19211C958 (4) | |
Text
.
.
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
$
E REGION ll
.
1 #
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s
Report Nos. 50-321/79-32 and 50-366/79-36 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name: Hatch I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and,NPF-5 k TdP__
/6
~
Inspected by:
t
-
R. F. Rogers
~
\\
---
'
~
Date Signed j
f
i Approved by:
A)
f's 61-n ' /f'7 f
.
H. C. Dance, Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 5 - October 5, 1979.
Areas Inspected This inspection involved 110 inspector-hours onsite of technical specification compliance, reportable occurrences, housekeeping, operator performance, overall plant operations, quality assurance practices, station and corporate management practices, corrective and preventative maintenance activities, site security procedures, radiation control activities, annual emergency drill, and surveillance activities.
Results Of the twelve areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or devia-tions were identified in eleven areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (infraction - failure to initial logs by oncoming shift operators and to remove keys from control board (321/79-32-01 and 366/79-36-01),
Paragraph 7).
1756 021 8001160 0 %
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- T. Moore, Assistant Plant Manager
- T. Greene, Assistant Plant Manager S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations R. Nix, Superintendent of Maintenance C. Coggins, Superintendent of Engineering Services W. Rogers, Health Physicist / Radiochemist C. Bellflower, QA Site Supervisor Other Licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview
.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope ar.d findings were summarized on September 7, 14, 21, 28 and October 5,1979, with persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. With regard to the items of noncompliance, the licensee stated that he will evaluate the occurrences.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations Review ' Units 1 and 2)
The inspector periodically during the inspection interval reviewed shif t logs and operating records, including data sheets, instrument traces, and records of equipment malfunctions. This review included control room logs, auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing orders, jumper logs and equipment tagout records. The inspector routinely observed operator alertness and demeanor during plant tours. During abnormal events, operator performance and response actions were observed and evaluated. The inspector conducted random off-hour inspections during the reporting interval to assure that operations and security practices remained at an acceptable level.
Shift turnovers were observed to verify that they were conducted in accordance with approved licensee procedures.
1756 022
.
,
,
-
-2-6.
Plant Tours (Units 1 and 2)
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 plant housekeeping and plant housekeeping efforts were adequate. The inspector also determined that appropriate radiation con-
.
trols were properly established, critical clean areas were being controlled in accordance with procedures, excess equipment or material is stored properly and conbustible material and debris were disposed of expeditiously.
During tours the inspector looked for the existence of unusual fluid leaks, piping vibrations, pipe hanger and siesmic restraint settings, various valve and breaker positions, equipment caution and danger tags and component positions, adequacy of fire fighting equipment, and instrument calibration dates. Some tours were conducted on backshifts and weekends.
7.
Procedural Compliance - Control Room (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector selected several procedures performed in the control room and audited their performance for the period Octoter 3-4, 1979.
The procedures selected follow:
HNP-12, Plant Operating Orders, Rev 6 HNP-17, Relief of Personnel, Rev 3 ENP-314, Key Control, Rev 5 HNP-1/2-1119, ECCS Status Check, Rev 0 HNP-8, Maintenance Request, Rev 8 Of the procedures reviewed, the inspector found two instances where the oncoming plant operator failed to initial the log entries of the previous two shifts prior to assuming day shift responsibilities (10/4/79 on Unit 1 and 10/3/79 on Unit 2) as required by HNP-17, Para D.I.
The inspector also noted that keys were installed in five key operated switches in the HPCI and RCIC systems on the Unit 2 control panel. This practice is contrary to procedure HNP-314, Paragraph B.3, on Key Control which requires the keys to be removed.
These items are also discussed in the Notice of Violation.
8.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reported by the Licensee (Units 1 and 2)
The following licensee event reports (LERs) were reviewed for potential generic problems, to detect possible trends, and to determine whether corrective actions appeared appropriate. Events which were reported im-mediately were also reviewed as they occurred to determine that technical specifications were being met and that the public health and safety was of utmost consideration.
17JO n23
- '
LER No.
Date of Report Description
'
50-321/79-63 8/31/79 RHRSW Pumps Low Flow 50-321/79-66 9/4/79 Jet Pump LCO Not Met
.
,,
.
-3-
.
LER No.
Date of Report Description 50-321/79-67 8/31/79 Failure to Review Change 50-321/79-69 9/5/79 Inoperative Fire Pumps 50-321/79-70 9/14/79 Excessive Hydrogen in Offgas 50-321/79-75 9/18/79 RHRSV Calculational Errors 50-321/79-79 9/24/79 Reactor Level Surveillance Exceeded 50-321/79-80 9/25/79 RBM Out of Service 24 Hours 50-366/79-4 1/17/79 RHR Test Results 50-366/79-7 1/17/79 RPS MG Set UV Trip 50-366/79-13 2/9/79 Failure to Meet a T. S.
50-366/79-54 7/6/79 Drywell Cooling Problems 50-366/79-96 9/19/79 HPCI Flow Control Inoperable 50-366/79-97 9/12/79 RHRSW Cooling Water Flew Low 50-366/79-99 9/7/79 HPCI Exhaust Press Switch Inoperable 50-366/79-101 9/17/79 HPCI Isolation Delta Switch Calibration 50-366/79-103 9/19/79 High Drywell Temperature The inspector met with the Plant management staff on September 7, 1979, and expressed concern over the percentage of reported LERs which could be attributed to either personnel error or procedural deficiencies. A review of all LERs submitted to date this year indi ated that approximately 33% of all reported items are due to these types of problems. Licensee represen-tatives stated that this area would receive increased attention and that slack attitudes towards procedural compliance would not be tolerated.
9.
Technical Specification Compliance (Units 1 and 2)
During this reporting interval, the inspector verified compliance with selected limiting conditions for operation (LCO's) and results of selected sureeillance tests. These verifications were accomplished by direct obser-vation 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 happened.
10.
Physical Protection the inspector verified by observation and interview during the reporting interval that measures taken ta assure the physical protection of the facility met current requirements. Areas inspected included the organi-zation of the security force, the establishment and maintenance of gates, doors and isolation zones in the proper condition, that access control and badging was proper, that search practices were appropriate, and that escorting and communications procedures were followed.
1756 U24