ML20134A982

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SALP Repts for Apr 1979 - Aug 1980
ML20134A982
Person / Time
Site: Hatch, Vogtle, 05000000
Issue date: 01/08/1981
From: Robert Lewis
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132B505 List:
References
FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8508150484
Download: ML20134A982 (17)
v • d • e


Text

. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

( e

- Enclosure 1 SYSTEFATIC ASSESSME.YT OF EICENSEE PERFORFANCE FOR GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

)

85081504B4 850610 PDR FOIA LEIGHTD84-293 PDR [

M16 -ow -

m

' .o i

11 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 Section 1 C. M. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear Support Section 2

  • S. B. Burwell, Licensing Project Manager, NRR
  • D. M. Verrelli, Licensing Project Manager, NRR I

C. Julian, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. I r

~

  • 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 j evaluations are forwarded to an icteroffice review board formed of senior members I 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.

m-% .

--w -

E 12 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 noted in the past year on shift formality and in operational compliance.

The s_ecurity 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 asuring ch=t ca==iem.ne dates of corrective action are being met. Some improvement has been noted since management attention has been directed on this subject. Compliance with health chvsic procedures and contamination control needs to be improved on a daily basis. Several events in the past year reziecteo adversely on operational compliance.

C. Overall Evaluation GPC i,s 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 performanc_e is evaluated to be average for Region II. -

~

r A p r+- m es

4 ,,a- 2 a a,-s a - r- n a g b

9  %

e i

%' =$

2 ENCLOSURE 2 i

i f-

I I

I t

e i

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR r

HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT U. NITS 1 Ah 2 .

O I

P

.l

'l 9

_y ,- - -+ -r y,--,- w, ,-,evt=v, ym-- y .r- ,-w-w -s-e

s 2-1

, Region II LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS) 1 Facility: Hatch Nuclear Plant Licensee: Georgia Power Company

Unit Identification

J Docket No. License No./Date of Issuance ' Unit No.

50-321 DPR-57 08/06/74 1 50-366 NPF-5 06/13/78 2 Reactor Information Unit 1 Unit 2 NSSS General Electric General Electric

!ST 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 r/2 H. C. Dance, Chief, RPS No. 1 C. Julian, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. 1 P. A. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, RPS No. 1 4 R. F. Rogers, eenior Resident Inspector (contacted by telephone)

D. M. Verrelli, Licensing Project Manager (contacted by telephone)

A. Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncomoliance Categotr Unit 1 Unit 2 Violations 0 0 Infractions 20 21 Deficiencies 14 /

1l1 /

v ,%

  • Mb M M -b n , ,-,,r, - _

--Q,-- a m

~

T

' .=

2-2 Areas of Noncomoliance Unit 1 Unit 2 (List areas as required) (Points) (Points)

Part 21 10 10 Security 68 68 Radiation Protection 34 24 Administrative 80 116 Quality Assurance 30 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 28 66 Personnel Error 25 24 Defective Procedures 7 5 Design / Installation 2L .

21 Other 11

  • 20

. Total 98 136 Licensee Event Reports Reviewed Unit 1: 79-021/03L to 80-027/03L Unit 2: 79-029/03L to 80-029/0IT The board noted that the number of LER's submitted from Hatch ~is' higher than

~

mo L 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 (SIS) which , Unit I does not. Ine latter condition appears to be the reason for the larger number of LERs on Unit 2.

C. Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties None '

Orders None I

1..

e s' * ,

2-3 Immediate Action Letters An IAL dated June 28, 1979, and a Confirmation of Action Letter dated

'v 5, 1979, were issued to the Hatch I and 2 facility concerning the tive action to be taken for the High Pressure Coolant Injection A Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) failures on June 27, 1979.

as completed the commitments required to date.

5 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 Durina 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 systema to be unplemented to alleviate security problems.

2. A management meeting was held in Region II Office-on March 19, 1980, 4

at the request of Georgia Power Company officials. The topics discussed were as follows:

Modifications being made to preclude low level radioactive water

  • releases to the ground as describe 4 in Licensee Event Report number 50-321/79-21. The modifications are estimated to be completed before

. June 1980.

2 Trainina programs completed for - those operators not complying with Technical Specifications as they relate to the operation of the High 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 l

by telephone of significant eveiits. i 4

E. Justification of Evaluation of Fun:tional Areas Categorized as Requiring i i

an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See Evaluation Sheets)

The listed functiot:.al. areas were reviewed with regional specialists and the i

resident inspectors. It is believed that recent enforcement ' actions have brought about improvements in licensee's operactons ano it appears that no 4

chronic problems exist within the functional areas. The continuation of i l

l the routingnsnection orcaram is recommended, i

w. e . - , . - . . ,

-,h --q..

23. _

1 l

2-4 '

F. Comparison of Unit 1 With 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 perfquiance of licensed activities is average as compared to other Region II facilities. No increase in inspection frequency' or s con _e is required at this time. Good communications exist oetween the licensee,' NRR project manager and the Region II office. .

Appendix A - Functional Areas Appendix B '- Action Plan. - (Internal Use Only) ,

F G, .

'I l.

--___.,__ J

a .,

APPENDIX A 2-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)

Inspection Frequen,:y 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  :
11. Security and Safeguards
12. Design Changas and Modifications  ;
13. Reporting x 14 QA Audits X
15. Comuu.ttee Activities x 4
16. Quaa 7 Control y
17. Procurement 3 1

{, l  ? J f 2jfANCli TEF)

//S/8/

iDATE) s

, ^

APPENDIX 3 2-B-1 Region II ACTION PIAV Facility - Hatch Nuclear Plant Appraisal Date: August 4,,- 1980

1. Escalated Enforcement Action .

No escalated Enforcement Action is warranted at this time. The licensee appears to be responsive to concerns expressed by the NRC and their programs for correction of identified items appears to be effective.

2. Inspection Program Changes As a result of this audit, no areas were identified as requiring increased inspection frequency. The routine resident and region based program will continue at Hatch.

~

3. Management Meetings Planned , ,

. . A management meeting was held to discuss this appraisal with the licensee in October. No additional meetings outside those required by the routine inspection program are planned.

4 Status of Action From Previous Appraisals Past regional appraisals have been reviewed to determine the status of actions recc= mended. All previously recommended actions have been completed.

w .x .h _0f_.

mes P. O'Reilly  ;

R tonal Director 1 i

I

)

m.-. me 14 4Qpas4 4 .4 .e AJ a.- 4 4 > x.h-. -. -

. - 4

  1. .+ 2.-a 4 .d 6

k 3

9 g o i

ENCLOSURE 3 .

t h

n l

i h

1 1

h i

4 l

  • 1 l

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE a

5 FOR 1

V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS LAND 2 a

i j

i t

f I

i 1

3 i

(

)

i l .

1 i

d 1

~!

,_. . . . _ .,,_ , - . , . . - . _ .. . , .. . .. . .__ ,_.,_. . , - . , _ . _ . . , _ , _ _ . . ~ . _ _ . . , _ _ , _ . . . _ . __._,..__,, .. ....,-.. m.._ , , , _ , . ,

\

. l l

3-1 '

Region II l

Licensee Performance Evaluation (Construction)

' Facility: Vogtle Nuclear Plant Licensee: Georgia Power Company Unit Identification:

Docket No. License No./Date of Issuance tait No.

50-424 CPPR-108/6-28-74 1 50-425 CPPR-109/6-28-74 2 Reactor Information Unit 1 Unit 2 NSSS Westinghouse Westinghouse MVI 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. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section #1 T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section #1 M. D. Hunt, Project Inspector S. B. Burwell, Licensing Project Manager (By Telephone)

A. Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category: Unit 1 Unit 2 ,

Viol-tions 0 0 Infractions 8 7 Deficiencies 2 2 -

ID t

e

_ .e 6 - ' me e m - .m m a a. >-- . , _ e -. - a-- ,- ,

~

l 3-2 l

{

l

! Unit 1 Unit 2

' Areas of Noncompliance (Points) (Points) 30 20 j Concrete Placement 32 32 1- Backfill Control 10 10 Reportin's of CDR 10 10

' Weld. Rod Storage 2 2

Receipt Inspection '

i 84 74 TOTAI. POINTS 4

The board in its deliberation of Noncompliance Items considered that the

! number of concompliances did not indicate 1. trend that would be indicative of a breakdown in the license 7s QA program. The licensee's rey anses to j

the noncompliances have_ha-a fonad to ha =daouate and timely.

! B. Number and Nature of Deficiency Reports l Unit 1 Unit 2 Type of Events 1 3 3

j Part 21 1, i Backfill Erosion 1 4 Void in Concrete Cooling Tower Eebar Collapse 1. .

1 1

The licensee has exercised care in eval'uating CDR's and reports have been l

acceptable .

C. Escalated Enforcement Actions I 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 specificTrsues Te'garding Vogtle were outstanding.

E. Justification of Evaluat tn d 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 -

4 twelve sonths 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 insjections is deemed necessary.

}

a e.e'd w e .

  • me.

~_e z

_______.ma --m_.._

=. . . _ _ ._ ._.

. 1 3-3 l i

l F. Comparison Of Unit 1 '4ith 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 programatic in nature and therefore applied equally well to bo th units .

G. Overall Evaluation The licensee's management shows a healthy attitude toward the applicability of quality assurance requirements for we wa ..su ,, rrg ram . They have been aware of and have initialed corrective ac_liin for outstanding significant items uromptly. Particularly noteworthy is the training _ school established on the Vogtle site. The applicant has built and staf fed 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 ha'd developed.

., Appendix A - Functional Areas Appendix B - Action Plan - (Internal Use Only) o O e i

L l

l i

6 s

l

  1. w.. .. - .-.

_ - _ _ - . _ -_______________--.__m. ___ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ . -___-______m_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - .____.________a___-m_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

^

J APPENDIX A 3-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Construction)

Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease

1. Quality Assurance, Management & Training X
2. Substructure and Foundations 'X
3. Concrete X'
4. Liner (Containment and Others) X
5. Safety-Related Structures X
6. Piping & Hangers (Reactor Coolant & Others) X
7. Safety-Related Components (Vessel, Internals and HVAC) X
8. Electrical Equipment . X
9. Electrical (Tray and Wire) X
10. Instrumentation X
11. Fire Protection X
12. Preservice Inspection X
13. Reporting X o

(BRANCH CMET)

(kfR

'(DATE)

. A APPENDIX B

, 3-B-1 Region II A_CTION PI.AN Appraisal Date: S*F*

Facility.. vogtle Nuclear Plant

1. Escalated Enforcement Action this time. The licensee No escalated Enforcement Action is warranted atd by the NRC and their programs Close attention appears to be responsive to insure concerns expressefor that adverse trends are correctio will be given to noncompliance trends to corrected rapidly.
2. Inspection Program Changes A resident inspector (construction) is to fbe established on site inThe requency of inspections.

1981 marked increased l

This will result in a scope of their routine inspection i al inspection due regional inspectors will expand the l programs in the areas of mechanical, wel' ding and e ectr c disciplines.

the increase in construction activities in these l

3. Management Meetings Planned l with the licensee 4

A management meeting was held to discuss this appraisaN in October.

inspection program are planned.

4. Status of Action From Previous Appraisals tatus of h

Past regional appraisals have been reviewed to determine t actions recommended.

M O .

I Ja' s P. O'Reilly Regt nal Director n - - . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - - . - - _ - . _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ -- - _ - - _ - - - . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - - - - _ . - - - _ - - . _ - - _ _ . - _ - _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20134A982&oldid=2876782"