IR 05000321/1980008
| ML19305E052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1980 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Conlon T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305E050 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-80-08, 50-321-80-8, 50-366-80-08, 50-366-80-8, NUDOCS 8004220221 | |
| Download: ML19305E052 (3) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
_
____
$n ner
[
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
o
$
aE REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 o
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
MAR 41%C Report Nos. 50-321/80-08 and 50-366/80-08 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name:
E. I. Hatch Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
-
Inspection at E. I. Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia 3 t/l8-0 Inspector:
sc4,ff hr scy
[
V. L. grownlee Dit( Aigned Approve J-e/- fo T.'E. Conlon, Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on February 21-22, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 10 inspector-hours on site in the areas of followup on items or noncompliance relative to 10 CFR Part 21.
Results
.,
The previously identified items of noncompliance identified in IE Reports 50-321/79-33 and 50-366/79-37 remain open.
.
!
.
800.4220221
._. _ _ _ _ _ _
_______ _ ___________ ___
.
>
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Empl
- es
- M. Manry, Pls e..ianager
- C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- G. E. Spell, Jr., Senior QA Field Representative
- T. V. Greene, Assistant Plant Manager
- D. A. McCusker, Senior QC Specialist
- C. L. Coggin, Superintendent Plant Engineering Services
- R. T. Nix, Superintendent of Maintenance
- S. X. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations
- T. L. Elton, Plant Engineer
- J. M. Summers, Office Supervisor
- T. C. Wilkes, Nuclear Security Supervisor NRC Resident Inspector i
- R. F. Rogers l
- W. H. Barron
'
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
-
,
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 22, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous I.nspection Findings
(0 pen) Infraction 321/79-33-01 and 366/79-37-01, "E. I. Hatch Part 21 Procedures". The inspector reviewed GPC's letter of response dated i
December 20, 1979; held discussions with responsible QA, plant management and Plant Review Board (PRB) personnel; and reviewed the following procedures:
a.
Management Procedure No. 400-004, " Power Generation Department General
. 0ffice Notification of Company Officers under 10 CFR 21".
b.
GPC Production Department Procedure GEN-3010, " Notification of Designated Company Officer under 10 CFR 21".
c.
HNP-801, "Nonconpliances ", Rev. 11, i
d.
HNP-425, " Deviation Report", Rev. 5.
,-
.
l
-2-
!
HNP-450, Reportable Occurrence Reports", Rev. 4.
e.
f.
HNP-456, " Reports of Defects and Noncompliance", Rev. 2.
The inspector determined that the E. I. Hatch management control system employed to ensure that the implementing and notification requirements of Part 21 remains inadequate.
Inadequacies detected by the inspector are as follows:
The scope of the control system does not adequately define how audit a.
_
findings, basic components not yet placed in service, or how informa-tion received from other sources (vendor, architect / engineer, NRC, NSS, engineering, etc.) which are subject to consideration under Part 21 will be handled.
.
b.
Part 21 controlling documents do not incorporate or reference other management control program procedures used to complete any part of the Part 21 control program.
There is no guidance and evaluation criteria developed to provide c.
assurance that a meaningful " Substantial Safety Hazard" evaluation will be performed.
d.
Present reporting procedures do not clearly define the report content as required by 21.21(b)(3) when alternate reporting methods are used.
^'
Site management personnel concurred with the inspector's findings and committed to further review of the control system and procedural changes where required to properly implement a Part 21 management control program.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not ident.ified during this inspection.
.
i