ML20147B012
| ML20147B012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801150124 | |
| Download: ML20147B012 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000424/1987035
Text
,
/1
.'
ado
.
,
JAN 0 51988
Docket No. 50-424
License No. NPF-68
Georgia Power Company
ATTN: Mr. James P. O'Reilly
Senior Vice President-
Nuclear Operations
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-424/87-35
Thank you for your supplemental responses of October 26, and November 25, 1987,
concerning activities conducted at your Vogtle facility.
The supplemental responses were discussed during a meeting at your Atlanta,
Georgia office. A summary of the meeting and a list of attendees are enclosed.
It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial and led to a better
understanding by the NRC of your responses.
It should also lead to
improvements in your responses to the NRC.
We will examine your corrective actions during a future inspection.
Your
cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Meeting Summary
w/ Attachment
cc w/ encl:
(See page 2)
I
8801150124 880105
I
ADOCK 05000424
/ll
0
I
lc e!
-
.
.
-
.
.
Georgia Power Company
2
cc w/ enc 1:
P. D. Rice, Vice President, Project
Director
C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality
Assurance Manager
G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager,
Nuclear Operations
L. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety
and Licensing
J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing
Manager
B. W. Churchill, Esq., Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
D. Kirkland, III, Counsel,
Office of the Consumer's Utility
Council
D. Feig, Georgians Against
Nuclear Energy
bec w/ encl:
E. Reis OGC
M. Miller, NRR
M. Sinkule, RII
DRS Technical Assistant
NRC Resident Inspector
Document Control Desk
State of Georgia
?
I
/
g
gf
,
RWeddington
CHosey
111ns JPS thhr
MSinkule.LReyes
, in
12/f6/87 12//7/87 12h M 87 12/jj/87 12/
8- 12p87
l[3dT
12/
87
..
_
. _ .
.
, ,'
-
.
I
ENCLOSURE
<
Meeting Sumary
Licensee:
Georgia Power Company
-
Facility: Vogtle
Docket No.: 50-424
Subject: Georgia Power Company's (GPC's) October 26, 1987,
Supplemental Response to Violation 50-424/87-35-01 and
November 25, 1987, clarification of their July 23, 1987,
response to Violation 50-424/87-35-02
,
A meeting was held at Georgia Power Company's Corporate office in Atlanta,
Georgia on December 9,1987, to discuss Georgia Power Company's October 26,
1987, supplemental response to Violation 50-424/87-35-01 and their November 25,
1987,
clarification
of
their
July 23,
1987,
response
to
.
Violation 50-424/87-35-02. The attendance list is attached.
,
a
l
Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-35, issued on June 23, 1987, contained a
violation for failure to perform an adequate startup shield verification
l
survey.
The licensee stated in their July 23, 1987, response to the violation
that Startup Test procedure 1-600-15, Radiological Shield Survey had been
changed to include the survey methodology of ANSI /ANS 6.3.1-1980.
During tha
week of August 31,1987 (Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-52) an inspector
conducting an ensite inspection attempted to verify '.he implementation of the
licensee's stated corrective actions. Licensee representatives stated that the
procedure change had not been made but had been incluced in a pre-job briefing
j
instead.
During the exit interview or September 4, the . inspector stated that
i
the plant staff had informed him that de procedure change had not been made.
Licensee management did not dispute this finding and stated that there had been
an oversight and lack of attention to detail.
The September 24, 1987, NRC
letter transmitting Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-52 contained a paragraph
stating the NRC's concern that the licensee had failed to take full corrective
actions for the violation and requested a supplemental response.
The licensee responded in a letter dated October 26, 1987, by stating that a
procedure change had been made and the discrepancy between the NRC findings and
their documentation appears to have resulted from a misunderstanding when the
referenced change was reviewed by the NRC.
'
During the meeting NRC representatives stated that it appeared that the
licensee's response did not fully reflect the facts as they actually occurred
i
since the licensee had told the inspector during the inspection there was no
i
procedure change and the inspector's statements at the exit interview and other
meetings with the licensee during the inspection were not disputed.
Licensee
.
..
Enclosure
2
3
representatives stated that the procedure change was available during the
inspection and they thought it had been reviewed by the inspector.
NRC
representatives emphasized the importance of making information known to the
inspector, especially when the absence of that information had been
specifically raised as an issue.
The licensee's October 26, 1987, response also stated that they had decided not
to extrapolate low dose rates measured at low power levels to estimate the
radiation levels to be encountered at full
,ower and the fact that
extrapolation was unnecessary was discussed witn the NRC inspector during the
visit of August 31-September 4, 1987, and no questions were raised.
During the
inspection of August 31 - September 4, 1987, the inspector had raised the issue
that there was no documentation of the evaluation performed after the
50 percent survey which provided the bases for elimination of survey points for
the 100 percent power survey,
NRC representatives stated that it appeared that
the licensee's position that extrapolations wre unnecessary was inconsistent
since the licensee had used extrapolations aa the bases for elimination of
survey points.
Contrary to the GPC letter of October 2 6,1987, this issue was
discussed by the inspector and documented in Inspection Report
No. 50-424/87-52,
j
NRC representatives discussed the documentation of the licensee's shield
surveys that was reviewed during the inspection the week of August 31, 1987, by
l
the inspector and NRC management.
Licensee representatives stated annotations
i
to the original survey records were made several months after the surveys were
completed by restructuring the original survey with those personnel who had
performed the reasurements.
This action was taken in response to the NRC
concerns that the bases for elimination of survey points wasn't adequately
documented and anomalies in the data explained.
NRC representatives stated
that improvements in documentation of the shield survey were needed.
NRC representatives discussed the licensee's letter of November 25, 1987, which
clarified their July 23, 1987, response to Violation 50-424/87-35-02 which
concerned failure to adequately document radiological deficiencies.
The
licensee's July 23 response stated that their Procedure 00150-C, Deficiency
Control, had been changed to clarify the proper treatment of radiological
deficiencies and that plant personnel had been trained on the procedure
revision.
An onsite inspection during the week of November 2,1987, noted
that only health physics technicians had been trained on the procedure change.
The licensee's response stated that they had intended "plant p: esonnel" to mean
appropriate health physics personnel and not all plant personnel.
NRC
representatives stated that it was determined during the inspection (Report No.
50-424/87-61) that there was a continuing problem with failure
document
problens and that training beyond just the health physics group was indicated.
Licensee representatives stated that additional training had been performed and
other actions had been taken that were not described in their response to
Violation 50-424/87-35-02.
However, the corrective actions had been provided
to the NRC in response to coucerns with the plant's deficiency reporting system
raised by other NRC personnel.
They stated that they would inform the NRC of
other GPC letters to the NRC that addressed this issue,
"
's:
.
, ,
ATTACHMENT
Meeting Attendees
,
Georgia Power Company
L. Gucwa, Nuclear Licensing Manager
W. Burns, Vogtle Licensing Coordinator
S. Ewald, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager, Plant Vogtle
M. Puckett, Nuclear Licensing Assistant
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
D. Collins, Chief. Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch
(EPRP), Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)
'
C. Hosey, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section, EPRP, DRSS
M. Sinkule, Chief, Projects Section 3B,
ivision of Reactor Projects
R. Weddington, Senior Radiation Specialist, EPRP, DRSS
!
I
i
l
ll
- - -
- . - - - - - .