IR 05000321/1979036
| ML19308C702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1979 |
| From: | Messitt B, Wessman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308C699 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-79-36, 50-366-79-40, NUDOCS 8002010171 | |
| Download: ML19308C702 (4) | |
Text
,
Q/
'
UNITED STATES 8'
~ 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
e REGION 11
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,
g,.....,o/
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-321/79-36 and 50-366/79-40 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name: llatch I & 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at flatch site near Baxley, Georgia Inspector:
.y
./
> lA,
/, 7
/ T // of W B. R. Messitt
[
Date Signed Approved by: b u w -
it /, t /79 R. Wessman, Acting Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Sif,ned SUMMARY Inspect. ion on November 26-28, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Routine Maintenance and Plant Tour.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no items of noncompiiance or deviations were identified.
,
,
.
s
.
y
"-~
800201 0 /7
t
,
<
+
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- L. Banega, Jr., SQCS
- S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations
'
- C. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- M. Carter, OCS
- T. Greene, Assistant Plant Manager M. Manry, Plant Manager
- D. McCusker, Sr., QCS
- C. Miles, QA Field Supervisor
- C. Moore, Assistant Plant Manager
- R. Nix, Supervisor of Maintenance
- G. Spell, Sr., QAFR Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, and office personnel.
Other Organizatir 's
,
NRC Resident Inspector
R. F. Rogers
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 29, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
.
!
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items l
.
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
,
5.
Maintenance
.*
_
'
a.
Review Conducted e
__
,
The inspector reviewed 125 safety-related Maintenance Requests (MR)
completed since January 1979 and located in station records.
,
_
_
-
-
.
-
-2-
The inspector reviewed the qualification and training records of eight maintenance mechanics, electricians and foremen.
The inspector also reviewed 25 equipment clearance sheets, related to maintenance and located in station records.
The inspector monitored work in progress on the Plant Service Water Pump and the Condensate Filter - Demineralizer conducted on November 27, 1979.
Additionally, the inspector reviewed Procedure RNP-2-6200 " Plant Service Water System Maintenance" and an Internal Quality Assurance Audit of the Maintenance Program, Audit 79-MT-2, audit dates 9/17-27/79.
The above documentation was reviewed to verify:
Administrative approval was obtained prior to initiating work
-
-
Where required, maintenance was perfo rmed using an approved
^
procedure Where required, functional testing was performed prior to return
-
of the systems or components to service Quality Assurance review was performed
-
Maintenance was performed by qualified personnel
-
-
Where required, a reportable occurrence report was submitted in connection with the maintenance.
The inspector used one or more of the following acceptance criteria for inspecting the above items:
ANSI N18.7 (1976) " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance
-
_
for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants"
-
ANSI N45.2.9 (1971) " Requirements for Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Quality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants" Technical Specifications f
-
ILNP-501 " Equipment Clearance"
-
luiP-8 " Maintenance Requests"
-
Quality Assurance Manual
-
,
,
b.
Findings
-
..
No items of noncompliance or deviationswere identified in this area.
-
However, while no specific discrepancies were found, the inspector noted an area of concern in that the existing program of administrative controls over the maintenance activities is not being applied uniformly.
For example, some MR's will have a detailed description of work to be
,
performed including maintenance procedure to be used (if any) while other
.
.
...
. -
--
.-
-
-
..
.,
,
-3-work descriptions for similar work are much less detailed; some MR's will identify Radiation Work Permits or Weld / Burn Permit used while others will not. This makes it difficult for the line supervisor to
,
maintain close and coglete control over ongoing work. The licensee
,
"
noted that a similar conclusion was reached in the internal QA audit of the cointenance program.
The resident incpector will monitor
licensee response to this internal audit.
6.
Plant Tour The inspector toured the following areas:
Intake Structure
-
,
-
Control Room Maintenance Shops
-
Areas of the Turbine Building
-
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i
,
.
O
.
-*w r
i r
_..
., - _ -, -,
,
. _,
..
.