IR 05000321/1981012
| ML20010A486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Kellogg P, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010A459 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-12, 50-366-81-12, NUDOCS 8108110472 | |
| Download: ML20010A486 (4) | |
Text
.pM e%
- .
UNITED STATES
o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
$
E REGION 11
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SutTE 3100 e
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
.....
Report Nos. 50-321/81-12 and 50-366/81-12 Licensee: Georgia Power Ccmpany 270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: Hatch 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 Inspection at H tch near Baxley, Georgia Inspector
/ ie b
h b /4 R.~F.
gers
/
Data Signed Approved by
[ J4 1.#
,d[f2[P/
P! J. gellogg, Section Cliief,f Division of Dat'e Sifgne6 Resident and Reactor Projects Inspection SUMMARY Inspection on March 28 - April 20,1981 Areas Inspected This inspection involved 96 inspector-hours on site in the areas 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 and surveil-lance activities.
l Results Of the eleven areas inspected, no apparent violations or deviations were identified in ten areas, two violations were identified in one area (Failure To Maintain Emergency Batteries paragraph 9).
l
,
l l
'
l I
i 8100110472 810804 PDR ADOCK 05000321,
'
O PDR l
.
.
.
.
..
-
..
..
-
.
,
.
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 Physics 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. April 3, April 10 and April 20, 1981, with persons indicated in pargraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action en Previous Inspection Findings l
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, including data sheets, instrument traces, and records of equipment malfunctions. This review iraluded control room logs, (
auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing orders, jumper logs and equipment I
tagout records.
The inspector routinely observed operator alertness and -
l 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.
l Within the areas inspected, no violation or deviations were identified.
!
_--- _
_ _ _.
_ _ _.
-
,-
.
._-
_. - _ _ _. _ _..
,
-
..
..
.
.
6.
Plant Tours (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector conducted plant tours periodically during the inspection irterval to verify that monitoring equipment sas 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 vibra-tions, 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 ares inspected no violations 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 LC0 action statements were reviewed on selected occurrences as they happened.
Within the areas inspected no violation or deviations were identified.
8.
Physical Protection (Units 1 and 2)
l The inspector verified by observation and interviews during the reporting l
interval thit measures taken to assure the physical protection of the l
facility met current requirements. Areas inspected included the organiza-
!
tion of the security force, the establishment and maintenance of gates, l
doors and isolation zones in the proper condition, that access control and l
badging was proper, procedures were followed.
Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Emergency Batteries (Units 1 and 2)
On April 7 and 8,1981, the inspector observed the physical condition of the emergency batteries installed in both units. The results of that inspection are the subject of two violations described in the Notice of Violations l
enclosed as Appendix A to this report.
In addition to the cited items, the inspector found that battery banks were dirty with some caps broken. On the
.
24/48 volt batteries, thermometers were routinely left in the pilot cells i
with the caps off.
When water was added as a result of routine surveil-lance, required information was not always documented. The batteries l
I
- -
- -
-
.
o
...
_,.
.
.
1 appeared to be occassionally overfilled and also left to evaporate to a low condition based on the sample inspected. When the batteries are watered, excess water is left standing on the tops of.the jars. Present procedures do not provide d;rection on what to do if a battery is overfilled and electrolyte must be removed. Procedural compliance needs to be improved in the battery program following a review of procedural adequacy for content and frequency.
.
l
,
f
.
l l
!
l