IR 05000321/1989022

Errata to SALP Repts 50-321/89-22 & 50-366/89-22 for Jul 1988 - Sept 1989,consisting of New Cover Sheet to Indicate Repts as Final & Revised Page 5

ML20011E218
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	01/23/1990
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20011E216	List: IR 05000321/1989022 ML20011E215
References
50-321-89-22, 50-366-89-22, NUDOCS 9002090220
Download: ML20011E218 (2)

Text

g:,L 7 =.' !!

&

nw x

.,

g.

_

'

,_

s.q,

' # -

i

,

t.

.

.!

.

ENCLOSURE FINAL SALP BOARD REPORT l

,

U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

REGION II

,. ;

i SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE

-

INSPECTION REPORT NUMBERS

!

50-321/89-22 AND 50-366/89-22 GEORGIA-POWER COMPANY HATCH, UNITS 1 AND 2

,

JULY 1, 1988 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1989

,

t

!

I t

,I 9002090220 900123 PDR ADOCK 05000321

PDC

w

,

" or

m; with five being feedwater components.

It should be noted, however,_

a that4 during - July and August 1989, both - units were concurrently

on-line at full power _ operation.

While improvements in the level'of performance in.some specific areas-were identified, the composite of the ratings attained over -all of.

the functional areas assessed during this SALP period 15 comparable to the composite of those attained during the last SALP period-The

.

following concerns 'and/or observations are presented for review and action, as appropriate.

The' Security Program's implementation has not been consistent or

-

at the level of effectiveness expected. - Deficiencies concerning -

both personnel and control of safeguards information have been-noted. These deficiencies are repetitive in nature to incidents-over the past several years and do not reflect that adequate attention-is being given to the-identification of the root cause of the problem or to the implementation of effective corrective action (s).

Attention to detail by the plant staff continues to be a

-

recurring source of both operational and administrative-problems.

In this regard, procedural inadequacies, both in

- content and application, are contributing f actors. Management expectations for procedural compliance have not been effectively conveyed to the plant staff.

Further, the staff has not been aggressive-in identifying and correcting procedural deficiencies.

-B.

Facility performance Overview

Rating Last Rating This Period period

. Functional Area Unit l' Unit-2 Both Units-Plant Operations

NR

Radiological Controls

NR 2(1)

Maintenance / Surveillance

NR

Emergency Preparedness

NR

Security and. Safeguards

NR 2(0)

Engineering / Technical Support

1 2-

' Safety Assessment / Quality

1

.

Verification Preoperational Testing (Unit 2 Only) NR

1 Startup Testing (Unit 2 Only)

NR NR

NR - Not Rated.

(I) - Improving Trend (D) - Declining Trend

1

. __

.

.