ML20132C860

Forwards Cycle 2 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Info Requested in 810604 Memo

ML20132C860
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle, 05000000
Issue date:	09/04/1981
From:	Jeffery Grant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20132B505	List: IR 05000546/1982007 ML20132B496 ML20132B590 ML20132B595 ML20132B776 ML20132B783 ML20132C068 ML20132C164 ML20132C652 ML20132C657 ML20132C860 ML20132C867 ML20134A877 ML20134A894 ML20134A915 ML20134A940 ML20134A966 ML20134A968 ML20134A982 ML20134A999 ML20134B019 ML20134B058 ML20134B080 ML20134B096 ML20134B110 ML20134B149 ML20134B160 ML20134B183 ML20134B187 ML20134B208 ML20134B226 ML20134B243 ML20134B259 ML20134B308 ML20134B336 ML20134B339 ML20134B358 ML20134B372 ML20134B385 ML20134B406 ML20134B432 ML20134B445 ML20134B461 ML20134F700
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8109180170
Download: ML20132C860 (3)

Text

, . __ _ _ . .

.p 'n.7 .

cmT3 sT.:.rts l

~ ~

'u . , ,'- .. x. . ..

~...-

-. SEP 4 75gg 4

i i

Docket Nos.: 50-424

j. and 50-425 .

E MEMORANDUM FOR: D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR THRU: R. L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for L,1 censing, OL B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch No.1, DL FROM: J. M. Grant, Project Manager, Licensing 6nnch No.1, DL

SUBJECT:

SALP - CYCLE 2 --

ALVIN W. g NIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i

j In accordance with your memo of June 4,1981, we have enclosed the i

SALP information requested for Alvin W. Vogtle, Unit Nos. I and 2.

1 gf ] l B6 ht.,[

- I j . M. Grant, Project Nanager i dicensing Branch No. 1 l Division of Licensing ~

i

Enclosure:

As stated j

1 /

W 4 __3, . - y+_, ._ -. -_-r_ _ . . _ _ , . .% ,.c .v. -_....._i.,e-_, _, ... . _ . . - , _ . , ,,,,.,....,.r. -

. - + - . _ . - v, -

. = - _ - _ - -

,'[ .

TILITY: Georgia Power Company i ,

Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2

'ACILITY:

I\PPRAISAL PERIOD: July 1,1980 to June 30, 1981

!2RGJECT MAtlAGER: Jane M. Grant 1 Performance Eleinents

a. Quality of Resconse and Submittals l

The applicant has been

! Vogtle Units 1 and 2 are in the post CP stage.

i requested by the staff to respond to and submit information on environ-j mental and safety matters regarding approval of the fisn impingement i

study for the circulating water system and a CP amendment to remov Enclosure Building.

in a timely, efficient manner for the staff to review and evaluate.

b. Efforts Required to Obtain an Acceptable Resconse or Submittal

]

i The applicant has been very receptive to the staff's need for complete, concise submittals required to expedite reviews. Whenever additional information has been required, the applicant has been available for

' both conference calls and/or meetings and has submitted requested l

information without delay. '

1

> c. Worxing Knowledge of Regulations, Guides, Standards and Generic Issues 1

', Insufficient data to support a conclusion.

! d. Tecnnical Competence Insufficient data to support a conclusion.

j

! e. Conduct of Meetings with NRR j It appears the applicant recognizes the meeting process as an importantThe applicant method for resolving conflicts and exchanging information.

recently met with tne staff in Bethesda The applicant to discuss alsoconstructionrequested guidance activity schedules, both past and planned.so tnat as complete an FSAR as possible i

Althougn there has been no real need for more meetings with NRR, the applicant l

i appears will ng to meet with tne staff should the need arise.

! f. Long Standing Open Items

! Not Applicable.

4 9 Organizational and Management Cacabilities i

i Insufficient information to support a conclusion.

I i

l I

1

,,,----,,,.,~.--.-n ----,,,,,.----m---,,--.---,---,

, , , - , , , . .,-.--,--,,,,,-,~,nm..~~n-,-- ------.-r,-------

1 l

(

h. Results of Operator Licensing Examinations Conducted During tne Acoraisal Period Not Applicable.

1. Performance on Specific Issues See iten (a) above.

2. Observed Trends in Performance Insufficient data to support a conclusion.

3. Notable Strengths and Weaknesses -

a. Strengths Insufficient data. ,

b. Weaknesses 4

Insufficient data.

4. Overall Summary l The applicant has been very receptive to the staff's need for complete, concise submittals. The applicant also appears to recognize the meeting process (both conference calls and actual meetings) as an important, cooperative method for resolving conflicts and exchanging information. However, because the staff has 4

still interf, aced to only a small degree with the applicant regarding technical and safety matters, we are unable to appraise the applicant's performance more completely at this stage of Vogtle's licensing process.

.N 'h( . hf (J. M. Grant, Project Manager licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing

-