IR 05000424/1989026
| ML20006E778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1990 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E656 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-89-26, 50-425-89-30, NUDOCS 9002260343 | |
| Download: ML20006E778 (4) | |
Text
+
'
-
pr
,._
K-
. -..
.
7s /".'id. #b
'
m
-
t ENCLOSURE 4 ERRATA PACKAGE FOR THE FINAL SALP REPORT l
.i
.Page;
' Paragraph-Line-Initial Report Reads Final Report Reads
.
'
,
.?
11of the Subject Line
50-425/89-26 50-425/89-30
'
+9M transmit-tal letter
.,
1 of the-
1 The overall level of Deleted
'
,
transmittal'
. performance attained
-
<
<
letterl during this SALP is comparable...
.
1 of the
2
...to that of the Deleted-transmittal-last SALP period.
-letter-
]
'
e-1 of the.
5 ImprovementsLhave Improvements were I
transmittal been noted...
noted...
- letter
Coversheet
INITIAL SALP REPORT FINAL SALP REPORT
-
,
'of SALP Report
>
5 ofLSALP
~1 While the overall.
Deleted Report performance demon-strated by the plant
is comparable...
i 5 of SALP.
I
...to that of the Deleted-ReportL last SALP period, c
the...
i s
.
_,-
g 22gfl $ i$ N> 8
,
Q
'"
.
i
%f
.+
,
,
,.l &
'
'
'
'
,
Qn m Dy.Wo" pCr UNITE 3 STATES r
,
,/
- o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%
- [.
, (
REGION il
@
gn
.101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
fL
<
- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
,
4* * * * ' g '
t
~
,.
REVISED
'
- December-6, 1989
>
&
' Docket Nos.J 50-4'4, 50-425'
'
.
,
fGeorgia Power Company
%
ATTN: Mr. W.'G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President -
..
.
. Nuclear Operations
'
'P. 0.-Box 1295 Birmingham, AL= 35201:
.
Gentlemen:
-SUBJECT: ' SYSTEMATIC. ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-424/89-26 AND 50-425/89-30)
.
a The Nuclear. Regulatory Commission (NRC) Systematic Assessment of. Licensee
'
. Performance '(SALP) Board has' completed its periodic evaluation of your Vogtle
.!
1 facility for the period October 1, 1988, through September-30, 1989.
The i
'
results _of 'this evaluation :are' documented in the. enclosed SALP Report.
This y
report will be' discussed with you at a public meeting to be: held at your Vogtle
,
faci.lity-in Waynesboro, Georgia, on December 14,'1989, at 10:00 a.m.
j
.i The performance of your Vogtle facility was evaluated in the-functional areas j
Lof plant operations, radiological controls, maintenance / surveillance, emergency
preparedness, security and safeguards,- engineering / technical support, safety W
. assessment / quality verification, -preoperational-testing, and startup testing.
J Althoughtthe functionalf areas evaluated during this assessment period are not
'
identical to those evaluated in the previous period, a close correlation can be
'made for identifying changes in performance.
Lessons learned during startup and early operation of Unit I were effectively-applied to Unit 2 activities.
Professionalism in the control room was a l
strength :and management. support for operations was strong.
Improvements were-j inoted'11n. the areas of maintenance / surveillance and radiological controls.
i Further improvements in radiological controls are expected as the plant staff-l a
?
. gains ~ experience.
Although the Security Program, as defined on paper, is:
j
-
1 sound; implementation deficiencies have caused declining performance in this'
-area. A decline of performance in the emergency preparedness area was also-noted. The ' decline.in this area is attributed to the loss of command control
,
,
~
'and the ' failure.to make a timely General Emergency declaration during your
,
y-
~ exercise.. Asa discussed in the previous SALP, improvement in communications d
.between: management and the NRC residents was needed. Progress has been made in this' area; however, communication channels need to be further nurtured.
Attention' to detail' within the plant staff was also a source of performance
>
short-comings.
Increased management attention is warranted in this area.
>
.
f J
,.
--, -
,
m.
---
,
g - pn,
,, :,, :
gag 's AMe A
L V'
-,
l<-
m..r4
JC i:
'
,
ll i-
i.
,
'
ENCLOSURE c
FINAL SALP BOARD REPORT j
'
'
q
,
U. S. NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION.
!
s
REGION II
i
.
s i 1,.
7; SYSTEMATIC ~ ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE l
.
q
' INSPECTION REPORT NUMBERS
'
50-424/89-26 AND 50-425/89-30 p-GEORGIA POWER-COMPANY
"
V0GTLE, UNITS'lANDj2-0CTOBER 1, 1988 -1 SEPTEMBER:30, 1989
'
.
L
-
>
' I
!
i
& w
@,-
- '
f h_
,
.
.
-5-
'
, w
~
sin with five being -feedwater ' components.
It. Should be noted,. however,.
"
that during-July and August 1989, both units were concurrently-on-line at full power operation.
H :'
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 E
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 factors. Management expectations for procedural compliance have not been effectiv'ely conveyed to the plant staff.
Further, the staff nas not been
. aggressive in identifying and correcting procedural deficiencies.
B.
Facility-Performance Overview Rating Last Rating This Period Period-
. Functional' Area Unit 1 Unit 2 Both Units
.
Plant Operations
NR
Radiological Controls
NR 2(I).
Maintenance / Surveillance
'2 NR 1,
NR
Security and Safeguards
NR 2(D)
Engineering / Technical Support
1
. Safety Assessment / Quality
1
(i'
,
Verification Preoperational Testing (Unit 2 Only) NR
1
,
Startup Testing (Unit 2 Only)
NR NR
NR - Not Rated
'
(I),- Improving Trend
'
(D) - Declining Trend
O
-
- -
- - -
-