IR 05000321/1981001
| ML19343C478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Dance H, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343C469 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-01, 50-321-81-1, 50-366-81-01, 50-366-81-1, NUDOCS 8103240312 | |
| Download: ML19343C478 (4) | |
Text
.
,m.. _
...
e pA Rf C
o, UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
s.,
.c REGION lt
'
'o,
'[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., siJlTE 3100 j'
ATLANTA, G EoRGIA 30303
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/81-1 and 50-366/81-1
' Licensee:
Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
,
. Facility Name: Hatch I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366
"
License Nos. OPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch near Baxley, Georgia Inspector: h/E.
-)<
2 -9 - 8/ _
R. F. Ro 'erf
~
Date Signed Approved by:
-
.
(Am 2. -9 - f/
H. C. Dance, Section Chief, RONS Branch Date Signed
^
SUMMARY
Inspection on November 26, 1980 - January.9, 1981 Areas Inspected t-This inspe'ction involved 48 inspector-hours on site in the areas of technical
~
specification compliance, reportable occurrences, housekeeping, operator per-formance, overall plant operations, quality assurance practices, station and corporate management practices, corrective and preventative maintenance activities, site. security procedures, radiation control activities and surveil-lance activities.
Results
=
.,
Of the ~ eleven areas _ inspected, no apparent violations or -deviations were iden-ti fi ed..i n ten areas, one ' violation was identified 'in -one area -(failure to properly document drywell exits by HP personnel
. paragraph 9).
,
%
r-r 8108240 W
~
.
_
.
-
-
. -
- - -
-
-
-
.
-
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
"T. Moore, Assistant Plant Manager
- T. Greene, Assistant Plant Manager S. Baxley, Superintent of Operations R. Nix, Superintendent of Maintenance C. Coggins, Superintendent of Engineering Services W. Rogers, Health Physicist C. Belflower, 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 and findings were summarized on December 19,1980 and January 9,1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
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. shift logs and operations -records,1 aluding 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 normal' events,-operator performance and response actions ~ were observed and evaluated.
The inspector conducted random off-hours -inspections during the reporting interval to assure that operations and security. remained at an acceptable level. Shift turnovers were observed to verify that they were conducted in accordance with approved licensee procedures.
~
Within the areas inspected, no violation or deviations were identifie.
-
,
_o_
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 efforts were adequate.
The inspector also determined that appropriate radiation controls were properly established, critical clean areas were being controlled in accordance with procedures, excess equipment or material is stored properly and combustible material and debris were disposed of expeditiously.
During tours the inspector looked for the existence of unusual fluid leaks, piping vibrations, pipe hanger and seismic 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.
Within the areas inspected no violation or deviations were identified.
7.
Technical Specification Compliance (Units 1 and 2)
During this reporting interval, the inspector verified compliance with selected limiting conditions for operations (LCO's) and results of selected surveillance tests.
These verifications were accomplished by direct observation '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.
Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Physical Protection (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector verified by observation and interviews during the reporting
interval that measures taken to 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, procedures were followed.
Within the areas.-inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Control Point Practices (Unit 2)
On December :17, - 1980, the inspector reviewed the Health Physics records at the control point established at_ the East Drywell Access. The inspector noted that six individuals had failed to log out.of the drywell during the previous month. A time out-and total dosimeter exposure is required to be documented in accordance.with HNP-8008, paragraph H, Blanket Radiation Work
' Permits, so that individual exposure can be controlled. It was significant
..
.
.
.
.
-3-to note that of the six instances, five occurred on the Health Physics technician blanket RWP (#1-80-3626).
The remaining instance was on the plant operator RWP (#2-80-3362).
~
Upon questioning the HP technician on duty, he replied that sometimes HP technicians logged in at the start of the day and probably failed to log out at the end of the day. HNP-8008, paragraph E.2. is clear in stating that the required data is to be entered each time an exit is made.
The-inspector also noted.that the large degree of duplication between what the security guard. recorded and what the HP technician recorded at the control point failed to prevent these occurrences and probably contributed to them. Failure to follow HP procedures (in the case by HP technicians) is a recurring problem. This is a violation (321/366/81-01-01).
I
a-