IR 05000321/1981022
| ML20031E766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1981 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Rogers R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E754 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-22, 50-366-81-22, NUDOCS 8110160398 | |
| Download: ML20031E766 (4) | |
Text
f'
-
.
/
UNITED STATES
1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
a.
REGION 11
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
Report Nos. 50-321/81-22 and 50-366/S1-22 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street 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 Hatch site near Baxley, Georgia Inspector:
_
- /
/
/
R. F. @gers, Senior Resident Inspector D&te Signed
- [/th/
Approved by: [
M f
V.'L. Bffwnlee, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Date Signed Secti6n 28, Division of Resident & Reactor Project Inspection SuitttARY Inspection or. July 28 - August 20, 1981 Areas Inspected This inspection involved 80 inspector-hours on site in the areas of Tainical Specification compliance, housekeeping, operator performance, overail llant operations, quality assurance practices, station and corporate management practices, corrective and preventive maintenance activities, site security procedures, radiation control activities, surveillance activities, and previous enforcement items.
Resul ts
,
'
Of the 10 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified, i
0$
>
r
..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- T. Greene, Assistant Plant lianager S. Baxley, Superintendent of Operations R. Nix, Superintendent of liaintenance C. Coggins, Superintendent of Engineering Services W. Rogers, Healtn Physicist C. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted ine
.d technicians, operators, mechanics, security force it. embers, anc l rice personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 5 and 14,1981 with persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
Noncompliance (Closed) (366/81-12-01): Overfilling of Battery on 2A Diesel Genera tor.
The licensee's corrective actions described in their response dated July 7,1981 appear to have been effective. This item is closed.
(Closed) (321, 366/81-12-02):
inadequate Surveillance on Various Safety-Related Batteries.
The licensee's corrective actions described in their respor.se dated July 7,1981 appear to have been adequata.
This item is closed.
(Closed) (321, 366/81-09-01):
Failure to Designate Storage Levels on High Density Fuel Racks.
The corrective actions discussed in the licensee's response to this item dated June 8,1981 have been imple-mented.
This item is closed.
(Closed) (321, 366/81-09-02):
Failure to Promptly Correct i Mient Covers Over High Density Fuel Racks.- The corrective actiones
- cribed in the licensee's letter dated June 8,1981 have been impleme. ced.
This item is close r
,.
o
b.
Deviation (Closed) (321, 366/81-09-03):
Failure to Test Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent and Drain Valves flonthly.
Corrective actions discussed in the licensee's response dated June 19, 1981 have been implemented.
This item is closed.
c.
Open Item (Closed) (366/78-24-02): Agreement Between FSAR Penetration List and LLRT Procedure.
This item hcs been adequately addressed through revisions to HNP-2-3952 and 10018. This item is closed.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified uuring this inspection.
5.
Plant Operations Review (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector periodically dt. ing the inspection interval reviewed shift logs and operations records, including data sheets, instrument traces, and records of equipment malfunctions. This review included control roc 1 logs and auxiliary logs, operating orders, standing orders, jumper legs
'i equipmcat 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 reparting interval to assure that operations and security remained at an acceptable level.
Shift tt novers were observed to verify that they were conducted in accordance v.ith approved licensee procedures.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
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 nd combustible material and debris were disposed or expediticusly.
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 instrament calibration dates. Some tours were conducted on backshifts.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
-
r
....
7.
Technical Specification Compliance (Units 1 and 2)
During this reporting interval, the inspector verified compliance with selected limiting conditions for operations (LC0's) and results of selected surveillance tests. These verifications were cccomplished by direct observation of monitoring instrumentation, valve positions, switch positions, and reviev of completed logs and records. The licensee's compliance with selr.cted LC0 action statements ~ were reviewed on selected occurranres as thes happened.
Within the areas inspected, no violations o 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 tb security force, the establishment and maintenance of gates, door and ison> tion zones in the proper condition, that access control and badging was proper, and procedures were followed.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
,
I
,