IR 05000321/1980041
| ML19341D326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D323 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-321-80-41, 50-366-80-41, 50-424-80-16, 50-425-80-16, NUDOCS 8103050368 | |
| Download: ML19341D326 (16) | |
Text
p cro
/
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d8
-
o V
$
eE REGION 11
~8 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W., SUITE 3100 e,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 g,
,o
,
- ....
Report Nos.: 50-321/80-41, 50-366/80-41, 50-424/80-16, 50-425/80-16 Licensee:
3eorgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Facility Name. Hatch and Vogtle
'
Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366, 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. DPR-57, NPF-5, CPPR-108 and CPPR-109
'
Meeting at Georgia Power Company Corporate Office, Atlanta, Georgia Attending Personnel:
e Details
.
.
Approved by:
[.(
/!28/8 /
R. C. L &is, Acting Chief, RONS Branch Date' Signed i
SUMMARY Meeting conducted : October 20, 1980 This special, announced management meeting was conducted to discuss the resuits of NRC's evaluation of GPC's regulatory performance as concluded in the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
Results A summary of the licensee performance evaluation was presented. Areas of concern
,
were discussed with corporate management. GPC's performance is considered to be acceptable.
!
810 so s 0W25
.
.
-_
-
.
._.. -
.
-
.-.
_
-
-.
.... -..
.
.
DETAILS a
,
Personnel Attending Meeting 1.
!-
Georgia Power Company
,
J. H. Miller, Jr., Executive Vice President W. E. Ehrensperger, Senior Vice President, Power Supply R. J. Kelly, Senior Vice President, Power Generation G. F. Head, Vice President and General Manager, Fossil and Hydro Generation J. T. Beckham, Jr., Manager of Nuclear Generation C. F. Whitner, Vice President Engineering And other GPC personnel i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
,
C. E. Murphy, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch J. C. Bryant, Chief, Construction Project Section No.1 H. C. Dance, Chief, Reactor Project Section No. 1 M. D. Hunt, Project Inspector, Plant Vogtle NRC Resident Inspector
.
R. F. Rogers, Senior Resident Inspector, Plant Hatch 2.
Areas Discussed
,
a.
A brief summary of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) was presented to include the basis for the evaluation and its purpose.
-
b.
The results of the SALP evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussed. GPC's performance to date is considered acceptable. The contained in Enclosures (1) through (3)-to this SALP evaluations are report.
c.
Items of concern were discussed with corporate management to include
,
those areas where the NRC considers additional licensee management
'
attention may be warranted.
i i
,
I
'
!,
b
.
..g o,.
-
-
. - - -
,.
,
--4
., - -.,
-,_,s
.-..,.~
m.~.
,
$
-
_
-m
-.---
'
Enclosure 1
.
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
'
.
.
.
1-1 Region II UTILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Utility:
Georgia Power Company Units:
Hatch Nuclear Plant 1, 2 (Operations)
Vogtle Nuclear Plant 1, 2 (Construction)
.
Appraisal Period:
April 1, 1979 - August 31, 1980 Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section 1 T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section 1 M. D. Hunt, Project Inspector H. C. Dance, Chief, Reactor Projects Secti i1 C. M. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear Support Section 2
- S.
B. Burwell, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
- D.
M. Verrelli, Licensing Project Manager, NRR C. Julian, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. 1
- By Telephone Background SALP evaluations for each site were generated as prerequisites to the NRC identi-fying the general performance level of each utility with an NRC license. These evaluations are forwarded to an interoffice review board formed of senior members from all Offices of the NRC involved in licensed activities. The board will, by virtue of receiving all SALP evaluations,, form a national perspective of licensee performance. Additionally, the evaluations will provide a means for highlighting areas of NRC programs that'may require changes or redirection.
In developing the site evaluations it was determined that an overall evaluation of the utility's performance in its nuclear activities was desirable. Additional enclosures document the individual site evaluations.
The utility and site evaluations were presented in a meeting with senior corporate management in order to provide the decision makers of each utility with the NRC's evaluation of its overall performance in nuclear activities.
.-
.
.
._.
-
_
_
.
.
i 1-2 A.
Areas of Good Performance GPC is generally responsive to NRC regulations and to findings of noncom-pliance.
GPC management has _been open and factual in meeting reporting requirements and keeping the NRC informed. A definite improvement has been i
!
noted in the past year on shift formality and in operational compliance.
The security system has been improved with the implementation of the card reader system.
The training program setup at Vogtle is of worth with respect to training site personnel in their safety related functions.
'
B.
Areas Where Improved Performance is Warranted GPC has been lax in assuring that commitment dates of corrective action are being met. Some improvement has been noted since management attention has been directed on this subject.
Compliance with health physic procedures and contamination control needs to be improved on a daily basis. Several events in the past year reflected adversely on operational compliance.
C.
Overall Evaluation GPC is responsive to NRC requirements, findings of noncompliance, and
- information requests from the NRC. Management attention has been directed to improving their performance across the board.
GPC performance is evaluated to be average for Region II.
.
d
.
!
i r
d
!
!
.. -
.
..
.-
-,. -..
.. - ~.. - -
.,... - -. - -, -. - _.
.
. -. -
-
$
ENCLOSURE 2 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2
.
i
!
l
,
.
.
2-1 i
Region II LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Facility:
Hatch Nuclear Plant
,
Licensee:
Georgia Power Company
,
Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-321 DPR-57 08/06/74
50-366 NPF-5 06/13/78
Reactor Information Unit 1 Unit 2 i
NSSS General Electric General Electric MWT 2436 2436 Appraisal Period: April 1, 1979 through March 31, 1980. These dates were used to
,
provide a comparable basis for all operating reactors in Region II.
Significant
events or enforcement items occurring after these dates were considered in arriving
at the indicated conclusions.
Appraisal Completion Date: August 4, 1980 Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch
~
C. M. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear Support Section #2 H. C. Dance, Chief, RPS No. 1
C. Julian, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. 1 P. A. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. 1 R. F. Rogers, Senior Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone)
D. M. Verrelli, Licensing Project Manager (contacted by telephone)
l l
A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items
Noncompliance Category:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Violations
0 Infractions
21 Deficiencies
14
.
,
i
. _ _
._ _______- - -___
. _ _ _
.
.
-
2-2 Areas of Noncompliance Unit 1 Uuit 2
.(List areas as required)
(Points)
(Points)
'
Part 21
10 Security
68 Radiation Protection
24 Administrative
116 Quality Assurance
20 Total Points 222 238 The board considered the Noncompliance Items during this audit period in light of past audit results at Hatch and concluded that there are no adverse trends with respect to noncompliance. The general conclusion is that Hatch has been responsive to NRC regulations and findings of noncompliance.
B.
Number and Nature of Deficiency Reports Type of Event:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Component Failure
66
',
Personnel Error
24
.
'
Defective Procedures
5 Design / Installation
21 Other
20 i
Total
136 Licensee Event Reports Reviewed Unit 1: 79-021/03L to 80-027/03L Unit 2: 79-029/03L to 80-029/01T The board _ noted that the number of LER's submitt.ed from Hatch is higher than most comparable facilities.
This appears to be due to Hatch's conservative reporting practices and due to the fact that-Unit 2 has a standard technical specification (STS) which Unit I does not.
The latter condition appears to be the reason for the larger number of LERs on Unit 2.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions l
Civil Penalties
!
None i
Orders
i l
None
- '
l l
i
._
__.
.-
l
.-.
_
_
. _,. _
_ _
_ _
_
.
_
-
,
.
2-3
1 Immediate Action Letters An IAL dated June 28, 1979, and a Confirmation of Action Letter dated July 5, 1979, were issued to the Hatch 1 and 2 facility concerning the
corrective action to be taken for the High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) failures on June 27, 1979.
,
The licensee has completed the commitments required to date.
A Confirmation of Action letter was issued on January 18, 1980, concerning
'
actions to be taken by the licensee to resolve maintenance problems with doors which control access to vital areas.
'
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months 1.
A enforcement meeting was held in the Region II Office on January 25, 1980, with Georgia Power Company management. Recent inspection findings in areas of security were discussed.
The licensee explained control systems to be implemented to alleviate security problems.
2.
A management meeting was held in Region II Office on March 19, 1980, at the request of Georgia Power Company officials. The topics discussed were as follows:
Modifications being made to preclude low level radioactive water I
releases to the ground as described in Licensee Event Report number 50-321/79-21. The modif4. cations are estimated to be completed before
June 1980.
Training programs completed for those operators not complying with Technical Specifications as they relate to the operation of the High l
Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) systems. The above corrective actions are in response to an
item of noncompliance identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-321/80-04 and 50-366/80-04.
Recently amended NRC Regulations which require the immediate reporting by telephone of significant events.
i E.
Justification of Evaluation of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring
'
an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See Evaluation Sheets)
The listed functional areas were reviewed with regional specialists and the resident inspectors.
It is believed that recent enforcement actions have brought about improvements in licensee's operations and it appears that no
,
chronic problems exist within the functional areas.
The continuation of
-
the routine inspection program is recommended.
,,.
- - - -
-. - -
--m
,
.
2-4 l
F.
Comparison of Unit 1 %'ith Unit 2
A comparison of Unit I with Unit 2, both in operation, indicates no appre-ciable difference exists between the units.
G.
Overall Evaluation The perfo rmance of licensed activities is average as compared to other Region II facilities.
No increase in inspectior frequency or scope is required at this time. Good communications exist between the licensee, NRR project manager and the Region II office.
Appendix A - Functional Areas
.
.
.
APPENDIX A 2-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (0petations)
INSPECTION FREQUENCY AND/OR SCOPE FUNCTIONAL AREA INCREASE NO. CHANGE DECREASE 1.
Management Control X
2.
Plant Operations X
3.
Refueling Operations and Activities X
4.
Maintenance X
5.
Surveillance and Preoperational Testing X
6.
Training X
7.
Radiation Protection X
8.
Environmental Protection X
9.
Emergency Planning X
10.
Fire Protection X
1.
Security and Safeguards X
12.
Design Changes and Modifications X
.
13.
Reporting X
14.
QA Audits X
15.
Committee Activitias X
16.
Quality Control X
17.
Procurement X
. [,
(BRANtH CHIEF)
//ze/B/
(DATE)
.
.
ENCLOSURE 3 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMMCE FOR V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2
.
i
,
!
!
!
!
.
.
3-1 Region II Licensee Performance Evaluation (Construction)
Facility:
Vogtle Nuclear Plant Licensee:
Georgia Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-424 CPPR-108/6-28-74
50-425 CPPR-109/6-28-74
Reactor Information Unit 1 Unit 2 NSSS Westinghouse Westinghouse MWT 3411 (Rated)
3411 (Rated)
Appraisal Period:
May 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: September 26, 1980 Review Board Members:
C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. B rya nt, Chief, Projects Section #1 T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section #1 M. D. Ilunt, Project Inspector
,
S. B. Burwell, Licensing Project Manager (By Telephone)
A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Violations
0 Infractions
7 Deficiencies
2 l
(
!
l l
_ _.
-
3-2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Areas of Noncompliance (Points)
(Points)
Concrete Placement
20 Backfill Control
32 Reporting of CDR
10 Weld Rod Storage
10 Receipt Inspection
2
"
TOTAL POINTS
74 The board in its deliberation of Noncompliance Items considered that the number of noncompliances did not indicate a trend that would be indicative
,
of a breakdown in the licensee's QA program. The licensee's responses to the noncompliances have been found to be adequate and timely.
B.
Nuyber and Nati.re of Deficiency Reports
_
Type of Events Unit 1 Unit 2
,
i Part 21
3 Backfill Erosion
Void in Concrete
Cooling Tower Rehar Collapse
The licensee has exercised care in evaluating CDR's and reports have been acceptable.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions
!
None.
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months
.
Region II requested a meeting,for May 22, 1979 to discuss enforcement history, onsite QA/QC authority and differences between the licensee's AE specifications, the PSAR and construction site procedures. No specific issues regarding Vogtle were outstanding.
E.
Justification of Evaluation of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See Evaluation Sheets)
Construction activities have increased to the point that within the next twelve months windows of opportunities should open for mechanical and welding inspections to begin. In addition, review of electrical construc-tion procedures should start within 6 months. No increase in inspections
'
beyond the normal programmatic inspections is deemed necessary.
!
l i
,.-
-
_. _ - _
_, _
. ~ _ _
_
_
,
.
.
3-3
>
F.
Comparison Of Unit 1 With Unit 2
,
A comparison of Unit I with Unit 2, both under construction, indicates that no appreciable difference exists between the units.
Findings during this period were programmetic in nature and therefore applied equally well to both units.
G.
Overall Evaluation
'
The licensee's management shows a healthy attitude toward the applicability of quality assurance requirements for the construction program. They have been aware of and have initiated corrective action for outstanding significant items promptly. Particularly noteworthy is the training school established on the Vogtle site. The applicant has built and staffed a facility to train and qualify personnel within its organization.
These trained persons are assigned to safety related tasks to insure that the delegated functions are being properly carried out.
The NRR project manager indicated that good communications existed with the licensee and that no problem areas had developed.
)
Appendix A - Functional Areas
.
J d
I s
,
'
-
r
-
.,.,
.,
-
-
. - - _ _
_
,
_ _ _. _
... _ _ _ _
__
._
_
_
_
_
..
.
.
APPENDIX A 3-A-1
'
FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
,
INSPECTION FREQUENCY AND/OR SCOPE FUNCTIONAL AREA INCREASE NO. CHANGE DECREASE 1.
Management Control X
'
,
2.
Plant Operations X
.'
3.
Refueling Operations and Activities X
4.
Maintenance X
5.
Surveillance and Preoperational Testing X
t 6.
Training X
I 7.
Radiation Protection X
8.
Environmental Protection X
9.
Emergency Planning X
10.
Fire Protection X
11.
Security and Safeguards X
.
12.
Design Changes and Modifications X
13.
Reporting X
14.
QA Audits X
l 15.
Committee Activities X
l 16.
Quality Control X
17.
Procurement X
i
!
l (BRANCH CHIRP) '[g
~
ll2 V F/
'~
-
(DATE)
i l '.
- - -
..
_
.. -....
-
-
. -. - _
.. -.
.-
.. -..
.
- - - -.
- -
-
..
t