ML20027B680
| ML20027B680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1982 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Kelley R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B681 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209290221 | |
| Download: ML20027B680 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1982017
Text
-
.
.
-
.
-
, -
--
f
4
s
m
.~
e
1 ggg
% Mcon
I
Docket Nos. 50-321
50-366
Georgia Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. R. J. Kelley
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Performance Appraisal Inspection 50-321/82-17, 50-366/82-17
This refers to the Performance Appraisal Inspection conducted by Mr. D. Hinckley
and members of the Performance Appraisal Section, Office of Inspection and
Enforcement, on April 19-30, and May 10-13, 1982 of activities authorized by
NRC Operating Licensee DPR-57 and NPF-5 for Plant Hatch, Units 1 and 2.
This also refers to the observations discussed with members of your staff on
a
May 13, 1982, at the Georgia Power Company corporate offices.
This inspection is one of a series of Performance Appraisal inspections being
conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
The results of these
inspections are used to evaluate, from a national perspective, the performance
of your management control programs in support of nuclear safety.
The enclosed report 50-321/82-17, 50-366/82-17 identifies the areas examined
during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a
comprehensive examination of your management controls over licensed activities
that included examination of procedures and records, observation of various
,
activities, and interviews with management and other personnel.
The enclosed appraisal report includes observations that may result in
enforcement actions; these matters will be followed by the NRC Regional Office.
The report also addresses other observations and the conclusions made by the
team for this inspection.
Section 1 of the report provides further information
,
regarding the observations and describes the Performance Categories identified
in the Conclusion section of each area.
Appendix A to this letter is an
Executive Summary of the conclusions drawn for the nine functional areas
inspected.
The Performance Category for the area of Committee Activities was designated
as Category Three.
The area of Licensed Training was evaluated as Category
One and the remaining areas as Category Two.
I
As a result of the significant weaknesses identified in Committee Activities,
designated as Category Three, you are requested to inform this office within
60 days of receipt of this letter of the actions you have taken or plan to
take to improve the management controls in this area.
Your response will be
followed by the NRC Regional Office.
- "'* 4
.... .... .. .. .
.. .. .. ... ......
.. . . .
.
.
.
.
.. ..
.
.
. . . .
.
.-
. .. ~....
- SURN ' ""
!
8209290221 820901
' " * "
'
'" *
- '
'
" "'
s
PDR ADOCK 05000321
Q
" " " ' '
"
'
-
--
- " " ' ' *
""'
- "
I NRC FORM 318 s10 80t NRCM O240
u ?FICIAL
RECORD
COPY
"
'm 2u:.
_
_-_
<
w
u
s.
v
Mr. R. J. Kelley
-2-
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s)
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office,
by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written
application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the
date of this letter.
Such application must be consistent with the requirements
of 2.790(b)(1).
The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures
of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
James M. Taylor, Director
Division of Reactor Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
IE Management Appraisal Report 50-322/82-17, 50-366/82-17
2.
Appendix A - Executive Summary
cc w/ Enclosures:
,H. Nix, Plant Manager
1
1
'
I
f
W
OF F ice ) .lE -
- 0RPB
IE:DRP:0Rk
I
Q
,
,
~ ~^"'t .0. J. q (E,Y.; ;b,,JGP.A. T. LOW;
. Jt;' .
0,F :
Ht
^ " > .YP IL.
?I
..d. .
I
fE.
.
.
.
ii:TCIAL RECORD COPY
"" ' *o- 32";'
~~c m.m m .io so, ~~c u om
.
- _ _ _
_ ~ _ ~ - .. . .
_
=
.-
.
- --
_.
_ . .
.
n
N.
%.
3
G_
4;
s
A
t
I
Mr. R. J. Kelley
-3-
t
Distribution (w/ Report):
SECY
3
OPE
OCA (3)
,
W. J. Dircks, EDO
H. R. Denton, NRR
4
C. Michelson, AE00
4
W. P. Haass, NRR
S. H. Hanauer, NRR
H. Boulden, OIA
i
R. F. Rogers, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector
'
M. B. Fairtile, NRR Project Manager
i
R. C. DeYoung, IE
J. H. Sniezek, IE
,
l
J. P. O'Reilly, RII
R. C. Lewis, RII
J.'M. Taylor, IE
i
E. P. Wilkinson, INPO
'
Region II Reading Room
All Licensees
State of Georgia
,
PAS Regional Coordinators
PAS Files.
'
IE Files M
'
LPDR
1
'
i
Distribution (w/o Report):
,
IE Reading
DRP Reading
4
i
>
7
l
omer>
- sumaawa)
.
..................
.. ...... ..... .....
. ...... ......... .
... .. .. .. . ..
.... .. .. ..
.. ..
. . .....
. ... ........ . .
DATEf
............ ....
.. ... . . .... ....
. .... .... .........
. .... ... . ...
. . . ..... .... .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J
- NRC FORM 318 HO.'80l NRCM O240
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
, 1" " **o-3[8j24
__ _ . _
.
__, __
_ _
,
%
UNITED STATES
O"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
j
,j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
e
c
(...../
11992
.
Docket Nos. 50-321
50-366
Georgia Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. R. J. Kelley
~
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
~
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Performance Appraisal Inspection 50-321/82-17, 50-366/82-17
This refers to the Performance Appraisal Inspection conducted by Mr. D. Hinckley
and members of the Performance Appraisal Section, Office of Inspection and
Enforcement, on April 19-30, and May 10-13, 1982 of activities authorized by
NRC Operating Licensee.DPR-57 and NPF-5 for Plant Hatch, Units 1 :.d ?.
.
This also refers to the observations discussed with members of your stat' on
May 13,1982, at the Georgia Power Company corporate offices.
This inspection is one of a series of Performance Appraisal inspections seing
'
conducted by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
The results of these
inspections are used to evaluate, from a national perspective, the performance
of your management control programs in support of nuclear safety.
The enclosed report 50-321/82-17, 50-366/82-17 identifies the areas examined
during the inspection. Within these areas,'the inspection consisted of a
comprehensive examination of your management controls over licensed activities
that included examination of procedures and records, observation of various
activities, and interviews with management and other personnel.
The enclosed appraisal report includes observations that may result in
enforcement actions; these matters will be followed by the NRC Regional Office.
The report also addresses other observations and the conclusions made.by the
team for this inspection.
Section 1 of the report provides further information
regarding the observations and describes the Performance Categories identified
in the Conclusion section of each area.
Appendix A to this letter is an
l
'
Executive Summary of the conclusions drawn for the nine functional areas
inspected.
The Performance Category for the area of Committee Activities was designated
,
as Category Three.
The area of Licensed Training was evaluated as Category
'
One and the remaining areas as Category Two.
As a result of the significant weaknesses identified in Committee Activities,
designated as Category Three, you are rcquested to inform this office within
60 days of receipt of this letter of the actions you have taken or plan to
take to improve the management controls in this area.
Your response will be
followed by the NRC Regional Offic.e.
.
.
._
Mr.,R. J. Kelley
2-
-
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s)
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this. office,
by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written
application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the
date of this letter.
Such application must be consistent with the requirements
.
of 2.790(b)(1).
.
The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures
,of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
-
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased
to discuss them with you.
.
.
Sincerely,
J^
-
t
.
~
IX _ s
. /e
C,
J ei'M. Taylo , Director
ivision of R actor Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
IE Management Appraisal Report 50-322/82-17,
50-366/82-17
2.
Appendix A - Executive Summary
'
cc w/ Enclosures:
H. Nix, Plant Manager
.
e
9
OO
l
'
.
. - - -
'
.
APPENDIX A
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A team of six NRC inspectors from the Performance Appraisal Section conducted
an announced inspection at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant and Georgia Power
Company offices during April 19-30 and May 10-13, 1982.
Management controls
in nine areas were inspected.
Of thesh, seven areas were considered to be
Category Two, one area was considered to be Category One, and one area was
considered to be Category Three.
A summary of the results of the inspection
is given below.
Committee Activities:
Category Three (Section 2)
,
_ The written guidance provided for both the Plant Review Board (PRB) and
the Safety Review Board (SRB) as well as the training program for SRB members
were significant strengths.
"
'
The most significant weaknesses were similar for both committees. They existed
primarily in the review processes and in the monitoring of the committee's
completion of assigned responsibilities.
Many of the reviews performed by
each committee appeared cursory, the members depending heavily on reviews by
others.
The assurance by individual members that their committee was meeting
all requirements was based on limited objective evidence.
In interviews upper level corporate management demonstrated a lack of awareness
of committee activities and responsibilities and, similar to committee members,
a lack of demonstrable assurance that the c6mmittees fulfilled their responsi-
bilities.
Quality Assurance Audits:
Category Two (Section 3).
Strengths in the QA Audit Program included the depth and scope of the written
program, the level of auditor qualifications, and the regular review of audit
plans by the SRB.
Significant weaknesses included the failure to develop a
method to demonstrate assurance that all audit requirements were met, to
provide definitive guidelines for the preparation of audit checO.ists, and to
provide adequate QA training and orientation for non QA personnel.
Design Changes and Modifications:
Category Two (Section 4).
The licensee had established and implemented a program to control safety-
related design changes and modifications. Weaknesses included inadequate
control of as-built notices and drawings; failure of safety evaluations.to
~
address the effect of modification wnrk on an operating facility; and the
failure to provide a. positive means of assuring that operations personnel were
provided revised procedures, updated drawings and training prior to returning
a modified system to operation.
Also, the licensee performed a limited
technica? overview of engineering work perfonned by Bechtel.
..
1
w
9
. . _ -
-.
. .
.. .- .
_ _ .
-- .-.
-2-
,
a
I
Maintenance:
Category Two (Section 5).
Strengths in the Maintenance Program included the effective utilization of
schedulers for corrective maintenance activities and the evaluation of
maintenance activities fer repetitive failures. Weaknesses included inade-
quacies in the Maintenance Request Procedure, a large backlog of corrective
maintenance work, failure of the active Machinery History File to include
records of parts and materials used, and failure to formally evaluate all
corrective maintenance activities for causative factors.. Measures were being
,
taken, however, to establish a program to evaluate all maintenance requests
for cause of failure, and corrective actions were being taken on INPO
.
identified problems.
t
Plant Operations:
Category Two (Section 6).
,
,
~
Significant strengths identified were the licensee's monthly report and asso-
ciated monthly management meeting to keep. management informed of plant
activities and the assignment of a clerk to each operating shift to relieve
the operating shift.of routine administrative duties.
The most significant
,
weaknesses included an inadequate system to control maintenance requests, so
that the Shift Foremen were aware of ongoing maintenance activities, and a
large number of p,rocedure discrepancies.
.
.
Corrective Action Systems:
Category Two (Section 7).
A significant strength in the Corrective. Action System was the QA Program for
tracking and trending of NRC and QA identified problems. .A significant
weakness was the lack of adequate guidance to provide consistency in the
identification of problems, their correction, analysis, and required actions
to preclude recurrences.
Other weaknesses included a limited understanding of
corrective action systems by staff members, inadequacies in the QA audits of
corrective actions, and the lack of guidance for documenting all identified-
-
safety-related problems.
.
Licensed Training:
Category One (Section 8).
The licensee had established licensed operator qualification and requalification
training programs.
The revised licensed operator training program was effective
in increasing the percentage of candidates who passed the NRC examination on the
,
first attempt.
'
Non-Licensed Training:
Category Two (Section 9).
l
Weaknesses in the non-licensed training program were the failure to retrain-
personndl in QA, failure to periodically evaluate personnel training needs,
inadequate training of plant equipment and radwaste operators, and failure
to document on-the-job training.
The licensee had recognized the need to
improve the non-licensed training program and was in the process of developing
'
,
l
a program to be implemented in July 1982.
This new program appeared to be
comprehensive.
i
..
.
.
.-e--.
-
-w.-,
~- , _ , , ,
_ , , _ _ _ , _ , , . . , _ , , . . , . , , , , , , , - _ _ _ .- - -
,_ . - , _ _ _ _
- , . . . _
_
_
_ . . _ _ _ , , - _ _
--
.
3-
-
Procurement:
Category Two (Section 10).
.
The licensee had established management control systems to control procurement
activities. Weaknesses included the failure to have a comprehensive and current
Parts List, failure to include on some purchase orders and requisitions
adequate descriptions of spare and replacement parts, lack of implementation of
portions of some procedures, lack of procedures to control the use and storage
of such items as janitorial supplies and cleaning agents around safety related
equipment, and deficiencies in the storage and handling of components in the
warehouse.
,
>
e
4
e
.
o
.
t
.
.
e
4
S
W
..
,
- , ~r-.
~ - - -
-
, - - -
- ,
--
--
,-
-- --
-
-- --