IR 05000321/1981006
| ML20003H488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Belisle G, Upright C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003H487 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-06, 50-321-81-6, 50-366-81-06, 50-366-81-6, NUDOCS 8105060117 | |
| Download: ML20003H488 (7) | |
Text
,9 4,
UNITED STATES 8'
't, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
E REGION ll Q
- [
101 MARIETTA ST N.W SUITE 3100 p*
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o303
- ....
O Report Nos. 50-321/81-06 and 50-366/81-05 Licensee: Georg, Dower Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name:
Hatch Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia Inspector:
I
I
/
j E A. Belisle <
Aate Signed E
[ 8/
Approved by:
_
C. M. Upright /Sfction ief
/Date/ Signed Engineering Mecti ranch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on March 11-13, 1981 Areas Inspected
?his routine, announced inspection involved 17 inspector-hours or: site in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings and licensee action on previously identified items.
Resultr l
Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
~
8105060117
.
i
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- S. Baxley, Superintendent Operations
- C. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- R. Day, Document Control Supervisor
- R. Houston, QA Field Representative
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- D. McCusker, QC Supervisor
- C. NcPaniel, Superintendent Administration
- C. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor
- C. Mocre, Assistant Plant Manager
- R. Nix, Superintendent Maintenance
- G. Spell, Jr., Senior QA Field Representative
- R. Tracey, Junior Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- R. Rogers
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 13, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved (321, 366/80-28-13): Applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to the accepted QA Program. This matter was forwarded to Inspection and Enforcement headquarters. It was determined by headquarters that the licensee's use of 10 CFR 50.59 for making changes to the QA Program as described in the FSAR is acceptable.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (321, 366/80-25 14):
Safety Review Board (SRB) Audits.
This matter was forwarded to headquarters.
It was determined by headquarters that the licensee's current practices relative to SRB conduct of audits and performance of SRB audit function by a member of the organization being audited are acceptable, providing
.
.-
-
the necessary independence of the auditors is maintained. -The inspec-tor determined that the required independence of auditors was being maintained reistive to SRB audits of the QA Program during a telephone conversation with a member of the SRB on March 16, 1981.
c.
(0 pen) Unresolved (321, 366/80-28-16): QA involvement in review and pproval of implementing procedures.
This matter was forwarded to headquarters. It was determined by headquarters that since the Senior Quality Control Specialist is a member of the Plant Review Board (PRB),
he has the opportunity and responsibility to recommend in writing to the plant manager approval or disapproval of plant procedures.
A licensee memorandum dated July 30, 1980, from J. Beckham to the plant manager states in part " Effective immediately you shall consider the Quality Assurance Department to have the right of veto in Quality Assurance matters affecting your plant procedures". A memorandum from C. Moore to C. Belflower dated August 4,1980 (0PM-80-82) states in part, "We now consider the Quality Assurance Department to have the right of veto in Quality Assurance matters affecting our plant proce-dures". Interoffice correspondence from C. Belflower to the QA staff dated March 7, 1979 (QA-79-061) provides general guidelines for proce-dure review.
Unit 2 FSAR, Section 17.2.5.1 states in part that administrative procedures, inspection plans, test, calibrations, special processes, maintenance, modifications, repair procedures, and changes thereto will be reviewed and concurred with by a member of the site QA Department to ensure inclusion of quality requirements.
HNP-25, Quality Assurance Review of Plant Procedures, Revision 2 dated April 1980, provides a method for insuring that the results of reviews by the site QA Department are made to comply with applicable require-ments and considered for incorporation into the affected procedures.
This procedure requires QA review of approximately 225 procedures.
Hatch Nuclear Plant has approximately 3500 various plant procedures.
QA reviews approximately 6.4% of the total number of procedures.
For the procedures that QA does review and generates mandatory changes!on (mandatory changes are changes which must be c.ade in order to comply with one of the referenced guidelines, i.e., ANSI NIS,7) 6 save been incorporated in the first revision sincs identification that changes were required in 77 procedures resinwed. Some changes were incorpora-ted in later revisions. In one example, HNP-2-3007, required changes were generated on February 26, 1980. The last change to HNP-2-3007 was Revision i dated October 1978.
In extensive interviews with site QA personnel this lack of incorporation of changes was discussed.
There appears to be no consistency when required changes identified by QA are incorporated into procedures. The inspector interviewed the assistant plant manager, in the presence of two QA representatives and
.
-4
_ _
w
- - -, -
- - - - - -
-.
.,, -
.
.
the Senior resident inspector. During this meeting the assistant plant manager stated that, to his knowledge, these changes were slow to be incorporated due to various reasons but improvement would be attempted.
The inspector stressed the need for rapid incorporation of QA comments into existing procedures.
Until rapid incorporation of QA comments into existing procedures is achieved this item remains open.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items a.
(0 pen) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-17): - Plant housekeeping - naed to document curr; '+. practices.
The inspector reviewed HNP-555, Plant Housekeeping, Revision 4 dated February 1981.
The inspector inter-viewed the Senior Regulatory Specialist and a Butiding and Grounds Supervisor relative to their specific duties pertaining to plant housekeeping.
The inspector reviewed a total of 63 data sheets, 27 monthly checks for Unit 1, 25 monthly checks for Unit 2 and 11 weekly data sheets completed since the last inspection in July 1980.
The inspector also interviewed the senior NRC Resident and was informed that overall plant cleanliness had generally improved.
During the original inspection in July 1980, the inspector identified a typo-graphical error that led to confusion among those supervisors inter-viewed. This error was clearly stated to the licensee and the licensee stated that this ambiguity wculd be corrected. At the date of this inspection, March 1981, this ambiguity was not corrected consequently this item remains open.
b.
(Closed) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-18): Cleanliness controls - need to document current practices. The inspector reviewed HNP 6925, Mainten-ance Cleanliness and Housekeeping Control, Revision 4 dated 11/80.
This procedures provides requirements, acceptance criteria, and
,
controls for maintenance cleanliness and housekeer :ng before, dur'ing
!
and after maintenance acttvities. The inspector reviewed the procedure to ensure it met the requirements of ANSI N45.2.1-1973 as committed to by the licensee. The inspector reviewed three maintenance requests to verify that cleanliness centrols had been applied during work perform-ance. The three maintenance equests selected for review are listed below.
MR 2-80-4085 Level B Cleanliness MR 2-80-5190 Level C Cleanliness MR 2-80-4849 Levei C Cleanliness
.
.~
c.
(Closed) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-19): Method for closing QA items.
The inspector reviewed QA-05-06, Site Preoperational, Startup and Operational Audits, Revision 7 dated September 1980 and QA-05-13, Open Items Control, Revision 6 dated October 1980. These procedures provide guidance for preparation, performance, followup and control of items identified during audits. The inspector reviewed six audit finding reports (AFRs) and determined that items identified during audits are being closed by review of objective evidence. The six AFRs selected for review are listed below.
AFR 80-CA-2/88 AFR 80-CA-2/85 AFR 79-FP-2/119 AFR 80-FH-1/39
'
AFR 79-MT-1/109 AFR 80-EP-2/67 d.
(Closed) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-21): Criteria for frequency of QA open item review.
The inspector reviewed QA-05-06, Site Preopera-tional, Startup and Operational Audits, Revision 7 dated September -
1980.
This procedure provides requirements and guidance for the preparation, performance and followup of audits by members of the site QA staff. The inspector reviewed 14 AFRs to verify followup action by 0A personnel meets the requirements of QA-05-06.
The following AFRs sre selected for review:
AFR Correction Date Closecut Date 80-MC-1/41 9'15/80 9/19/80 80-SRV-2/69 1/13/81 1/20/81 80-SRV-2/72 1/23/81 1/30/81 80-SRV-2/73 2/9/81 2/18/81 80-SC-1/15 11/6/80 11/7/80 80-QC-1/57 11/14/80 12/2/80 80-QC-1/54 11/19/80 11/24/80 80-QC-1/52 11/19/80
.11/22/80 80-QC-1/53 11/19/80 11/22/80 l
'
80-QC-1/55 11/19/80 11/22/80 80-QC-1/56 11/19/80 11/22/80 80-QC-1/50 11/14/80 11/18/80 80-QC-1/49 11/14/80 11/17/80 80-PC-1/5 9/10/80 12/19/80 e.
(Closed) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-22):
Level A storage.
The
inspector reviewed a memo dated August 19, 1980 to E. Aldridge from the
'
plant manager documenting an area to be used for level A storage. This area is to be used temporarily untt, a new level A storage area is constructed. This new area is targeted to be completed in June 1981.
- l
.-.
__
.
_
._-
__
__ _-.-
_ _.- _.
-
_
_
_
.
.
-
Once completed, plant procedures will be updated to reflect this new storage area. For the purposes of this inspection, this item is closed with the documentation of a temporary level A storage faci'ity, how-ever, once the new area is completed it will be reinspected. The inspector walked through the temporary level A storage facility. This storage area appeared adequate.
f.
(0 pen) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-23):
Shelf Life Program.
The inspector reviewed HNP-841, Material Shelf Life, Revision 0 dated November 1980, which provides guidance for materials with limited life characteristics. The inspector interviewed a warehouseman to determine the depth, scope and implementation of the shelf life program. The inspector was informed that the program is still in the process of implementation.
In reviewing items that have been incorporated into the program, the inspector was informed that only eight items are classified as requiring shelf life controls to date.
Six of these items are resins. Until the licensee has fully implemented the shelf life program for items in the warehouse, this item remains open.
g.
(Closed) Open Item (321, 366/80-28-24):
Control of Drawings.
The inspector reviewed HNP-813, Drawing Control, Revision 11 dated August 1980 and HNP-840, Departmental Print Control Procedure, Revision 0 dated September 1980. These procedures define methods being used for
,
receiving, processing, filing, up-dating, issuing and controlling prints and drawings issued.
The inspector selected three drawings (aperture cards) from the master file and verified these drawings at four satellite locations. The drawings and locations are listed below.
CONTROL MASTER FILE MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING OPERATIONS ROOM HNP-26001, RIO Rev. 9 Rev. 9 Rev. 10 Rev. 9 HNP-26015, R8 Rev. 8 Rev. 8 Rev. 8 Rev. 8 HNP-26021, R7 Rev. 7 Rev. 7 Rev. 7 Rev. 7 The discrepancy noted between the master file drawings and the satel-
'
lite locations for drawing HNP-26001 could be indicative of a fai10re to control drawings, however, a larger sample would be needed to ascertain if this conclusion is justified. During a future inspection, this apparent lack of drawing control will be fully inspected. Until this area can be reinspected, this item is identified as inspector
,
followup item 321, 366/81-06-01.
h.
(Closed) Open Item (321,366/80-28-26): Clarification and Plant Ruiew Board (PRB) review of design packages. The inspector reviewed HNP-809, Plant Modifications, Approval and Implementation, Revision 7 dated December 1980. The procedure provides administrative controls related to requesting, approving and implementing modifications and has l
J
.
d
clarified the review of design change request by the PRB.
The inspector also reviewed a memo (PM-80-939) to J. Jordan from the plant manager dated September 9,1980 that outlines information needed for design modification packages.
i.
(Closed) Open Item (321,366/80-28-28):
Offsite-organization.
The inspector verified that the licensee has submitted a technical speci-fication change to the NRC dated August 12, 1980. This proposed change accurately reflects the offsite organization.
j.
(Closed) Open Item (322,366/80-28-29):
Onsite organization.
The inspector verified that the licensee has submitted a technical spect-fication change to the NRC dated August 12, 1980. This proposed change accurately reflects the onsite organization.
k.
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item (321,366/80-28-30):
Questions concerning QA personnel's access to information.
The inspector reviewed a memo to the plant manager from J. Beckhan, Jr., dated July 30,1980, that appointed a member of the QA Department to the PRB.
In discussions with QA personnel it was deteimined that QA members now attend the following meetings:
PRB; =onthly management meetings; meetings dealing with IE Bulletins79-01B and 79-14; intake structure backfill repair; daily outage work schedule and special interest meetings such as corrective actions on IE Reports 321, 366/80-28; and QC program development.
1.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (321, 366/80-28-31): Followup monthly inspection form completion. The-inspector reyh.ed a representative sample of cleanliness inspections as discussed in the closecut of item 321, 366/80-28-17, paragraph 5.a.
Although item 321, 366/80-28-17 cannot be closed due to inadequate corrective action, the review of data sheets is sufficient for closing this item.
m.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (321, 366/80-28-33): Magnetic par-ticle inspection of hoists. The inspector reviewed HNP-6922, Crane and Hofst Maintenance, Revision 4 dated March 1980.
This procedure provides instructions for the inspection and maintenance of cranes.'and hoists.
The records of four magnetic particle inspections were reviewed. These are listed below.
MpL No.
Equipment Inspection Date 2L45-E006 CRD Hoist Hook 10/30/80 2L45-E016 RCIC Hoist Hook 10/27/80 2V31-E001 Overhead Crane 10/21/80 IV31-E001 Turbine Bldg. Overhead 10/23/80
.
.
,,,... _
_
,
.
_,_
-,.
.
..
-,
.
n.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item (321, 366/80-28-36): Design control iference. The Georgia Power Company Quality Assurance Manual, Section 3.0, Design Control, Revision 34 dated February 1981 deleted outdated HNP-7 as a reference.
.
\\
'%
,
.
.
l.
..
!
!
.
u