IR 05000321/1981027
| ML20041D684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Skinner P, Upright C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041D668 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-81-27, 50-366-81-27, IEB-78-12, IEB-79-19, IEB-79-27, NUDOCS 8203080610 | |
| Download: ML20041D684 (8) | |
Text
.
.
UNITED STATES
+*
'o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
W I
REGION 11 0,
j 101 MARtETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
%
d'
ATLANTA, GEORo tA 30303 Report Nos. 50-321/81-27, 50-366/81-27 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name:
Hatch 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366 License Nos. DPR-57, NPF-5 Inspection at Hatch sit nea Baxley, Georgia-f O~
/2/. 2Y /[8/
Inspector:~P.H.' Skinnef
.
Date Sig'ned s
.
M f,j 6 Y Approved by:_C.
ght,fS ctioy hief ate igned
-
Engineering I ectY Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
.
SUMMARY
,
Inspection on October 26 - October 30, 1981
.
Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 36 inspector-hours on site in the areas of maintenance program, test and measurement equipment program, plant procedures and IE Bulletin followup.
Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in two areas; two violations were found in two areas (Failure to evaluate all inspection or test data, paragraph 6; Failure to provide QA review of plant procedures, paa agraph 7.a).
.
pg83%B8ea o!!8853
-
.
g O
.
.,
l REPORT DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Eaployees
- E. Aldridge, Materials Supervisor G. Barker, Test Shop Supervisor S. Beck, Maintenance Foreman
- C. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor
- P. Branch, QC Specialist
"H. Byrd, I&C Supervisor A.'Cowen, I&C Foreman S. Driver, Maintenance Foreman T. Elton,-Engineering Supervisor
- P. Fornel, Assistant QA Site Supervisor
- R. Hukill, Maintenance Supervisor
- M. Manry, Plant Manager
- C, Matkin, QC Specialist J. Moore, Maintenance Foreman R. Musgrove, Shif t Supervisor
.
- ^
- T. McCarley, I&C Supervisor
' D. McCusker, QC Supervisor
- R. Nix, Maintenance Superintendent
- J. Watson, Sr. QA Field Representative
- C, Williams, QC Specialist Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 30, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The licensee acknowledged the inspection finding,s.
3.
'icensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
An item of noncompliance from Inspection Reports 50-321,366/80-28 was q
reviewed with respect to the corrective action as stated in licensee letter dated September-15, 1980.
,
a.
(Closed) Deficiency..(321,366/80-28-12):
Failure to properly store items with weld end preparations. The licensee has submitted a change to the FSAR to redefine the commitment to ANSI N45.2.2, section 5.2.1.
This change has_ not been acted on by NRC. In the interim, weld end
.
_
.
.
.
preparations have been applied to stored items or QC hold tags have
'.
been applied to assure that ANSI N45.2.2 requirements are met prior to issue of material.
4.
Unresolved Items New unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Maintenance Program (62702)
References:
(a) HNP-8, Maintenance Request (MR), Revision 13 (b) HNP-821, Quality Control Work Inspection Program, Revision 7 (c) HNP-824, Control of Special Process, Revision 3 (d) HNP-6941, Preventive Maintenance Performance, Revision 1 (e) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power
.
Plants The inspector reviewed the maintenance program in accordance with references (a) through (d) to ascertain whether the actions met the requirements of reference (e). The following criteria were used during this review:
-
Written proc,edures were established for initiating requests for routine and emergency maintenance
Criteria and responsibilities for review and approval of maintenance
-
requests were established Criteria and responsibilities that form the basis for designating the
-
activity as safety or non-safety-related were established
-
Criteria and responsibilities were designated for performing work inspection and maintenance activities Provisions and responsibilities were established for identification of
-
appropriate inspection hold points related to maintenance activities
!
-
Methods and responsibilities were designated for performing functional testing of structures, systems or components following maintenance work and/or prior to their being returned to service
-
A written preventive maintenance program for safety-related structures,
-systems and components has been established Administrative controls for special processes have been established
-
.
-+y
-. -
- - - -.
-
,
-
,- -
-
.
..
,
.
Method and responsibilities for equipment control have been defined
-
A corrective maintenance program has been established that includes
-
written procedures, responsibilities for review and approval of work requests, inspection of work, hold point implementation, and admin-istrative controls.
Based on this review, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Test and Measurement Equipment Program (61724)
References:
(a) GPC Quality Assurance Manual for the Operation, Mainten-ance and Modification of Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, Revision 35 (b) FSAR Section 17.2.12, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment
,
.
(c) ANSI N45.2.4-1972, Installation, Inspection, and Testing Requirements for Instrumentation and Electric Equipment During Construction of Nuclear Power Generating Stations (d) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants
,
(e) HNP-807, Control of Test Shop Equipment, Revision 5
.
,
,
(f) HNP-826, Maintenance Shop M&TE' Control, Revision 12
-
The i nspector reviewed references (e) and (f) to insure they met the requirements of references (a) through (d).
The following criteria were used during this review:
-
Criteria and responsibility for assignment of the calibration / adjust-ment frequency have been established
'
-
An equipment inventory list has been prepared which identified equip-ment used on safety-related structures, systems or components and calibration frequency of each piece of equipment
-
Requirements. exist for marking the latest calibration date on each
-
piece of equipment A system has been provided for assuring that equipment is calibrated by
-
the date required Requirements have been established which prohibit use of equipment
-
which has not been calibrated within the prescribed frequency i
.
.-
y e,-
y,
,
.
-
- -
.
.
.
,
_ _ _ - _ _ _
,
I
.
.
.
Calibration controls have been established which require evaluation of
-
the cause of an out-of-calibration and the acceptability of items previously calibrated
-
New equipment will be added to the inventory list and calibrated prior to being placed in service.
Based on this review, one violation was identified. References (b), (c) and (d) require that when inspection and testing equipment are found to be out of-calibration, an evaluation shall be performed and documented regarding the previous inspection or test results based on this out-of-calibration equipment and of the acceptability of items previously inspected or tested.
Reference (f) requires this evaluation for equipment used by maintenance shop personnel.
Reference (e) which governs the use of test equipment used by plant personnel, requires that only instrumentation beginning with the most recent calibration be checked until a sufficient number have been evaluated to ensure the quality of the remaining calibra-tions. This method does not evaluate for acceptability all items previously inspected or tested. Failure to eva'uate all previous inspections and tests performed with measuring and test equipment later found out-of-calibration is a violation (321,366/81-27-01).
7.
Procedures (42700)
Re,ferences:
(a) HNP-9, Procedure Witing and Control, Revision 15 (b) HNP-10, Document Distribution and Control, Revision 12 (c) HNP-12, Plant Operating Orders, Revision 9 (d) HNP-25, Quality Assurance Review of Plant Procedures, Revision 3 (e) HNP-814, Procedure Reviews for Safety Related Proce-dures, Revision 9 (f) HNP-818, Temporary Procedure Change Revision 12 (g) HNP-830, Procedure Performance, Revision 2 (h) FSAR Section 17.2.5 Instructions, Procedures, and
,
Drawings (i) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operationai Phase of Nuclear Power Plants The inspector conducted a review of selected plant procedures in accordance with the guidance and requirements provided in references (a) through (g)
above to ascertain whether overall procedures are in accordance with regula-tory requirements. The following criteria were used during this review:
-,
.-
__
-
..
,
Required review and approval performed of procedures and temporary
-
changes Overall procedure content consistent with references (h) and (1)
-
Records of procedure changes maintained
-
-
Safety reviews performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59
,
-
Administrative procedures observed in preparing and handling proce-dures.
In addition to the procedures referenced above, the inspector also reviewed the following procedures:
HNP-1-1910, Loss of All Plant Service Water, Revision 3 HNP-2-1910, Loss of All Plant Service Water, Revision 3 HNP-1-6200, Plant Service Water System Maintenance, Revision 8 HNP-1-1400, Standby Liquid Control System, Revision 6 HNP-1-6310, SLC System Maintenance, Revision 8 HNP-0-6912, Cold Weather Checks, Revision 2 HNP-1-1907, Failure of Safety / Relief Valves to Operate, Revision 12 As a result of this review, one violation and two inspector followup items
-
were identified as discussed in the following paragraphs.
,
a.
Quality Assurance Review of Plant Procedures Reference (d) describes the procedure used by Hatch Nuclear Power Station to assure that quality requirements are included in safety related procedures. A review of this document indicates that this procedure is inadequate for the following reasons:
(1) Table 1 does not include a listing of all procedures to be reviewed by the QA organization.
(2) There is no Figure 1 included in the procedure as referenced. in steps 3 and 4.
,
(3) Mandatory changes are defined as " required to comply with guide-lines;" however, step E.5 states that they will be considered in a subsequent revision.
(4) The procedure does not describe the requirements for changes to-procedures as required by reference (h).
_
.
.
__ -.-
.-
_
-
.
..
(5) The method by which QA concurs that a procedure is acceptable is not specified.
Failure to provide measures to assure adequate QA review and approval of plant procedures is a violation (321,366/81-27-02).
b.
Record Keeping / Review Practices The inspector reviewed records of completed documents generated since January 1978, specifically for procedures HNP-1-6200 and HNP-0-6912.
This review indicated numerous examples of unacceptable record keeping practices such as writeovers, pencil entries, out of-specification data not addressed by the review and missing data. Approximately 30% of the records reviewed contained at least one ' example of the deficiencies noted above. Since this item has been previously identified by GPC QA
,
audit 79-PC-1/37 conducted on March 1,1979 and corrective action is due to be completed on November 1,1981, this will be tracked as an inspector followup item pending review of the corrective action of the QA audit item (321,366/81-27-03).
c.
Action on Disapproval of Temporary Change
...
-
Reference (f) in section B.3 requires that, if the Plant Review Board and Plant Manager do not approve a temporary change, marked up copies of procedures indicating the change be replaced with an original copy of the procedure within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. An evaluation is not required to be performed of the effect or possible effect of having performed a change that is later disapproved. Direction is not provided in the procedure
to return systems / components to the status that was required prior to
,
performing the temporary change, nor does the procedure address actions to prevent recurrence. This will be tracked as an inspector followup
,
item pending procedure revision to incorporate the concerns identified above (321,366/81-27-04).
8.
IE Bulletin Followup (92703)
(Closed) IE Bulletin 78-12, Atypical Weld Material in Reactor Pressure a.
Vessel Welds.
Combustion Engineering provided a report to the NRC dated June 8,1979, which certified that no discrepancies were found at Hatch Nuclear Power Station to' substantiate problems covered by this bulletin.
c b.
(Closed) IE Bulletin 79-19, Packaging of Low-level Radioactive Waste for Transport and Burial. This item was closed based on the results of
'
the Health Physics Appraisal reported in inspection report 50-321,366/
-.
80-27.
.
i e
,
,
e+
m
'
..
c.
(Closed) IE Bulletin 79-27, Loss of Non-Class 1E Instrumentation and Control Power System Bus During Operation.
The inspector reviewed actions taken by the licensee as identified in correspondence to NRC Region 11 from W. A. Widner serial RII:JPO, 50-321/50-366, I&E Bulletin 79-27 dated 6/17/80.
N
- e h*
%
a W
9