ML20198G903
| ML20198G903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch, Vogtle, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Kelly R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601300008 | |
| Download: ML20198G903 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1985021
Text
,
__ _ _ _
l
.
i
JAN 15 1986
l
.
Georgia Power Company
LATIN:
Mr. R. J. Kelly
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
l
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENf 0F LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT N05. 50-321/85-21,
50-366/85-21, 50-424/85-27, AND 50-425/85-26
This refers to the NRC's Systematic Assessment nf Licensee Performance (SALP)
Board Reports for your E. I. Hatch and A. W. Vogtle facilities which were sent to
you on October 23, 1985; our meeting of November 4,1985, at which we discussed
these Reports; and your written comments dated December 2,1985, relative to
these SALP Reports.
Af ter careful review of the comments contained in your response to the E. I. Hatch
SALP Report, I concur that actions taken or underway in the functional area of
training should be offective.
Your comments also raised certain issues regarding the conclub sons reached by the
SALP Board in the functional area of maintenance.
I have carefully reviewed
these comments and, although I acknowledge your reasons for requesting our
reconsideration of the Category 3 rating in the maintenance functional area, I
have concluded that the SALP Board Report accurately reflects your performance
level in this area.
The 15 violations identified in the maintenance area indi-
cated significant problems in adherence to procedures, proper assignment of
functional testing following maintenance, proper identification of root causes,
,
!
and involvement of quality control.
These problems, although to a lesser extent,
j
were still apparent at the end of the SALP period.
The SALP Board recognized
!
that you had shown improvement over the SALP period as evidenced by the increasing
i
trend indicated in the Report.
However, the rating was for the entire period,
and the weaknesses still present and the problems as originally identified were
factors in the Category 3 rating.
As you are aware, the Category 3 ratings in training and maintenance classify the
conduct of nuclear activities as acceptable; however, the ratings represent staff
findings that these functional areas did not receive proper management attention
and that additional involvement by management is needed.
No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any questions
concerning these matters, I will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
h0h
Obb21
J. N. Graec
PDH
g
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
(see page 2)
- _ - -_
_
_ .
- - .
_ __
_.
-.- - -.
_.
- _ _
- - - _
_ _ - . - _
'
.
,
<
'
i
Georgia Power Company
2
JAN 15 1900
f
'
I
i
Enclosures:
!
!
1.
Appendix to Georgia Power Company,
l
!
E. I. Hatch Units 1 and 2 SALP
]
Board Report (dated October 23, 1985)
!
j
2.
Appendix to Georgia Power Company,
l
i
A. W. Vogtle Units 1 and 2 SALP
[
j
Board Report (dated October 23, 1985)
!
3.
SALP Board Report Errata Sheet
[
1
'
cc w/encIs-
I.
diT.Beckham,VicePresidentand
'
General Manager-Nuclear Operation
-
,
!
f. C. Nix, Site General Manager
L (.' E. fornel, Site QA Supervisor
P
LL 'T. Gucwa, Chief, Nuclear Engineer
t
g R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President
i
~ Nuclear Power
!
vD. O. Foster, Vice President
j
and General Manager Vogtle Project
l
'
pH;' H. Gregory, III, General
r
i
Manager, Vogtle Nuclear Construction
g,Gt Bockhold, Jr. , Vogtle
Plant Manager
pRuble A. Thomas,
j
Vice President-Licensing Vogtle
Project
4
j
61 Groover, Quality
l
!
Assurance Site Manager
'
-C. W. Hayes, QA Manager
tJ. T. Beckham, Vice President
& General Manager - Operations
j
Pd. A. Bailey, Project Licensing
Manager
'
'
(George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
.
,
i
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
'
b8ruceW. Churchill,Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
[
l
Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
l
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
!
(James E. Joiner, Troutman, Sanders,
i
Lockerman and Ashmore
'
dames G. Ledbetter, Commissioner
!
. Department of Human Resources
tharles H. Badger, Of fice of
4
I
Planning and Budget, Management
l
Review Division
.
i
i
cc w/encis:
(Cont'd page 3)
.
'
i
I
'
i
i
i
!
i
.
-
-
- .
- -
- -
- -
-
-
.
- - -
._
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
,
'
.
Georgia Power Company
3
JAN 15 1986
cc w/encis:
(Cont'd)
(Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel
Of fice of the Consumer's Utility
Cour.cil
Douglas C. Teper, Georgians Against
k
Nuclear Energy
Jaurie Fowler, Esq., Legal Environmental
'
Assistance Foundation
v Tim Johnson, Executive Director
Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman
V
Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel
LDr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judge
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
pGustave A. Linenberger, Jr. , Administrative
Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel
Jillie Pirner Garde, Citizens
Clinic Director, Government
Accountability Project
bcc w/encIs:
Whairman Palladino
t. Commissioner Roberts
Commissioner Asselstine
y
gCommissioner Bernthal
Commissioner Zech
vvJ. M. Taylor, IE
(f. E. Murley, RI
J:"G. Keppler, RIII
wr. D. Martin, RIV
LJ.'B. Martin, RV
W A. Axelrad, IE
sRecords Center, INP0
Region !! Distribution List C
l
t,0. Humenansky, OCM
'
d.' O. Neighbors, NRR
l
tr'B. Engle, NRR
f
J. Reis. ELD
Wugh S. Jordan. Executive Secretary
M. Sinkule, RII
G. Pick, RII
I
bec w/ enc 15:
(Cont'd page 4)
!
l
l
l
t
-
.
Georgia Power Company
4
M 15 m
bcc w/encis:
(Cont'd)
4,yNRC Resident Inspectors - Hatch
and Vogtle
Document Control Desk
State of Georgia
'
f
I
l
/
Rli
RI
Pif
Pit
Pff
P,
Rl[y,
,. ,
VPa!ciera
VLRrownloo
PDWalker
fif ttK:Jw
Klandis
MVSinkulo
l vtl9/P6
(21 JP6
IPit:Ir6
[t . >tr4
l n/1 Irb
In1 lPG
/h/,
l[ g:
t he o
ott
y
pit
Rif
.trs d r
A rr, t h e,cn
1A01shinski
!
l p/[ /r6
\\ 177Wro
1 F/ /r6
,
S.
I
_
.
5U 1986
ENCLOSURE 1
APPENDIX TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
E. 1. HATCH UNITS 1 AND 2
SALP BOARD REPORT
(DATED OCTOBER 23, 1985)
.
.
Enclosure 1
2
JAN 15 W86
I.
Meeting Summary
A.
A meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. , on November 4,1985, at your corporate
offices in Atlanta, Georgia to discuss the SALP Board report.
B.
Licensee Attendees
R. W. Scherer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
J. H. Miller, Jr. , President
R. J. Kelly, Executive Vice President, Power Supply
J. T. Beckham, Jr. , Vice President and General Manager, Nuclear
Operations
Harvey Nix, General Manager, Plant Hatch
M. B. Hobby, Assistant to President
Don Crowe, Nuclear Safety Manager
L. T. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing
J. J. Badgett, Manager, Nuclear Training
R. D. Baker, Nuclear Licensing Manager, Plant Hatch
S. C. Ewald, Manager, Radiological Safety
Max Manry, Manager, Nuclear Performance and Analysis
A. W. Benson, Manager, Security
D. S. Read, Deputy General Manager, Quality Assurance
David R. Altman, Nuclear Information Manager
J. R. Roberts, Superintendent, Uniform Security, Nuclear
C.
NRC Attendees
J. A. 01shinski, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)
R. D. Walker, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII
A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII
V. L. Brownlee, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, DRP, RII
J. F. Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch 4, Division of Licensing
(DL)
G. W. Rivenbark, Project Manager, Operating Reactors Branch 4 DL
P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Inspector, Plant Hatch
G. M. Nejfelt, Resident inspector, Plant Hatch
R. E. Carroll, Jr. , Project inspector, Reactor Projects Section 28,
DRP, RI!
D. B. Gruber, Technical Support Inspector, Technical Support Section,
DRP, RII
II.
Licensee Comments
Licensee comments submitted in iesponse to the SALP Board Report for
E.I. Hatch follow,
i
j
- - -
,.'
.
,
.
-
-
3
_,
E
~
~
-
,,.,\\u
_..
-
.
. . . . . .
,
J +4 M.Her Jr
NED-85-875
2351N
December 2,1985
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
REFERENCE:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
RII: JNG
Region II - Suite 2900
Inspection Reports
101 Marietta Street, NW
50-321-50-366 85-21)
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
50-424-50-425 85-27)
.
ATTENTION: Dr. J. Nelson Grace
Gentlemen:
By letter dated October 23, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Connission
(NRC) transmitted the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
report for Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle and requested connents from the
Georgia Power Company (GPC).
The SALP assessment covered a period of twenty
months from November 1, 1983 through June 30, 1985.
On November 4,1985, a
public meeting between the NRC and GPC was held to discuss the details of
this important report.
GPC recognizes and appreciates the observations made in your report
regarding the performance of Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle.
GPC believes
(
that such evaluations of licensee performance benefit GPC and the public by
focusing attention on matters important to plant safety.
GPC is committed
to
the
safe
operation
and
construction
of
its
nuclear
facilities.
Accordingly, we intend to be fully responsive to the observations discussed
in your report.
I
Enclosed are GPC's responses to the evaluations.
Enclosure I addresses
Plant Hatch and Enclosure 2 addresses Plant Vogtle.
In our response for
Plant Hatch, we identify a disagreement with your evaluation of Category 3
in the functional area of Maintenance.
We request that you reconsider this
specific evaluation based on our connents and the volume of activities that
took place during the twenty month evaluation period.
We believe a Category
2 evaluation
is justified.
Notwithstanding, our corrective action to
further improve our maintenance program is proceeding on a high priority
basis.
.
~
,
-
.,
..
..
.*
-
-
.
y
ue.upalb.e:d
.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
Offica of Inspection and Enforcement
Region !! - Suite 2900
December 2, 1985
Page Two
We would be pleased to discuss this response or answer questions you may
have.
Yours very truly,
m
y
/'
J.
illey, Jr.
.
!
DMC/mb
-
f
Enclosure 1
Coments on SALP Report for Plant Hatch
Enclosure 2
Coments on SALP Report for Plant Vogtle
c:
Mr. R. E. Conway
Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Mr. D. O. Foster
Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.
Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr.
SeniorResidentInspector(Hatch)
Senior Resident inspector (Vogtle)
b
.
.
..
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
l
.
.
.
.
. . ,
.
,
.
-
,
,
ENCLOSURE 1
.--
,
COMMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
INTRODUCTION
Georgia Power Company (GPC) has concluded that the ratings presented in
the SALP report for Plant Hatch reflect the Plant's level of performance,
except in the functional area of Maintenance.
GPC has carefully reviewed
the SALP report and has several coments on each of the functional areas.
Special attention has been directed to the functional areas of Maintenance
and Training.
OPERATIONS
Our performance was evaluated as a Category 2 (Management attention and
involvement are evident and resources are adequate).
We are pleased
that the NRC recognized an improvement in this period.
GPC has been and
is
devoting
management
attention
to
this
most
important
area.
Specifically, GPC has substantially increased its corporate office
nuclear staff, applied additional resources to procedural development,
and placed plant emphasis on improving procedural compliance by both
operations and maintenance personnel.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
Our performance was evaluated as Category 1 (Management attention and
involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety and
resources are ef fectively used).
GPC is very sensitive to the need to
protect our employees, as well as the public, from unnecessary radiation
exposure.
In this regard, we are proud of the NRC's evaluation.
Our
company will continue to apply the necessary resources to further
improve Radiological Controls.
MAINTENANCE
Our performance was evaluated as Category 3
(Licensee management
attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but
weaknesses are evident).
In our view, the NRC rating reflects a
disproportionate reliance on a number of relatively minor violations.
Plant Hatch's maintenance program has improved significantly because of
actions which were under development and partially implemented during
the SALP period.
Thus, GPC requests reconsideration of the Category 3
evaluation.
We believe that it is important to recognize that during this evaluation
period. Plant Hatch scheduled and successfully managed one of the most
extensive and difficult maintenance efforts ever implemented at the
Plant,
It was, in our view, one of the more dif ficult ptriods relative
to other nuclear power plants. At times the Plant undertook an
11
-
.
.
..
.
.
-
.
ENCLOSURE I (Continued)
COMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
appearance that resembled initial construction-like efforts,
(e.g.,
those activities associated with recirculation pipe replacement and
repairs, torus modifications and replacement of electrical equipment).
In
spite
of
such
expanded
maintenance
activities,
maintenance
performance improved and only minor deficiencies were identified by the
NRC. Our evaluation of the overall situation leads us to conclude that
a fair evaluation is Category 2.
Notwithstanding our view of the NRC
evaluation, the following actions are being taken:
1.
As discussed with your staff, GPC will schedule quarterly meetings
with NRC Region
!!
to
include
the detailed status of our
maintenance activities.
We believe this type of meeting will
enhance comunications and improve performance.
2.
As discussed in the SALP meeting, GPC will, in the near future,
complete its staffing in the Maintenance and Outage Planning Areas
in the General Office.
We believe this level of additional
professional support to our plants will substantially enhance
performance.
3.
GPC will continue to address the following items:
a.
Adherence to procedures / Attention to detail:
(1) Procedure upgrade program is in progress to improve the
quality of the procedures.
This will be a major ongoing
effort with expected completion by the end of 1987.
(2) Efforts to achieve Accreditation are in progress for
maintenance with both current specific equipment and
certification training to begin in the second quarter of
1986.
(3)
Increased
involvement
of
supervisory
personnel
was
accomplished during the course of the SALP review period
by adding six maintenance foremen, three !&C foremen and
one maintenance supervisor.
b.
Proper assignment of functional testing following maintensicc:
(1) A Work Planning Group was established during the SALP
review period to ensure that functional testing will to
adequately performed folloning maintenance,
12
- -
.
.
.
,
.
.
..
,
.
-
.
ENCLOSURE 1(Continued)
ComENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
(2) As the maintenance procedures are upgraded, required
functional tests will be more clearly identified and
formally documented procedurally.
These actions will
further
assure
that
required
functional
tests
are
properly conducted.
c.
Proper identification of " root causes":
(1) There continues to be increased emphasis on root cause
determination by site personnel with increasing corporate
support.
Maintenance engineering currently reviews plant
equipment maintenance work orders (MWO's) and provides
trending of problem areas for management review and
follow-up.
(2) A corporate maintenance group, already recruited, will
review significant or recurring corrective maintenance
activities and will provide strong site support.
(3) A computerized MWO tracking system
is
currently
in
place.
It is the primary tool for supporting these
trending and " root cause" efforts.
d.
Quality control involvement and QC functions for major jobs
will be conducted by GPC as a general rule.
When QC must be
contracted out for specific activities, site QC will be more
directly involved in the control of these activities.
SURVEILLANCE
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
GPC agrees with the NRC's
evaluation of the Plant Hatch surveillance program.
In order to ensure
that the surveillance program continues to be an effective one and that
further
improvements
are
made,
GPC
has
initiated
a
Technical
Specification
surveillance
review,
devoting
increased
Company
and
consultant resources to improve Plant Hatch's surveillance program.
FIRE PROTECTION
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
Plant Hatch has continued
to demonstrate improved performance in the fire protection functional
area.
Special
measures have been
taken to
improve
surveillance,
training, and maintenance.
As the final Appendix R retrofits are
complet*..
the
fire
protection
performance
should
show
further
improvements.
1-3
.
-
-
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.,
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)
_.
_,
._.
__.
_
COMMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
GPC agrees with the NRC's
evaluation.
Additional training has been conducted for operations
supervisors and other key emergency planning positions.
Additional
training
and drills will
be
conducted to ensure
that
Emergency
Preparedness is maintained at high standards.
GPC sincerely believes
'
that emergency planning and preparedness is an important part of our
defense-in-depth philosophy relative to public safety and comits to
achieving improvements.
SECURITY
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
GPC agrees that a Category
2 evaluation is appropriate.
We are disturbed with the NRC's reported
declining trend.
Improvements will be implemented to attain better
performance
such
as
state-of-the-art
equipment,
reviews
of
the
organization and staffing levels, and reconsideration of modification to
our security building.
REFUELING /0UTAGES
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
Again, GPC notes that
during this SALP period
Hatch experienced two major outages, including
a 7-1/2 month outage to replace Unit 2 recirculation piping.
In
addition, major improvements and retrofits were implemented without
significant events.
We have added to our site maintenance and outage
staffs and are creating a new corporate Maintenance and Outage Planning
Group to improve the refueling and outage programs further.
The Hatch
ALARA record and the satisfactory performance of major outage activities
are results of improvements already implemented.
TRAINING
Our performance was evaluated as Category 3.
GPC recognizes that its
operator requalification program experienced programatic deficiencies
and has attached the highest priority to that program's improvement.
We
are pleased that you recognize the upward trend
in our training
performance and acknowledge the NRC staff efforts to work closely with
us.
We have every expectation that the next SALP report will reflect
the results of our program improvements.
These improvements are:
1.
Special instruction has been provicec to assist our students in the
cevelopment of improved study hatits ar.c test-taking methods.
One-on-one tutoring has been anc v.ill te continuously available on
c.
student request and as deemeo necessary by training management.
1-4
.
-.
.
_
,-
.
.
- * *
,
.
-
.
ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued) _
_
_
__
COP 9 TENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
3.
The Plant Hatch training staff has increased and the corporate
training staff has doubled.
4.
GPC is aggressively pursuing accreditation of its training programs
by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) with the
following actions:
a.
Seven of ten program self-evaluations have been submitted, and
an accreditation team visit is scheduled for early 1986.
b.
All training programs are being converted to performance-based
programs
and
a
multi-million
dollar
training
program
development contract has been signed to help the prompt
improvement and development of training programs at Plant
Hatch.
c.
GPC is upgrading the instructor training programs to improve
the caliber of classroom and
practical
instruction.
An
instructor upgrade program has been initiated to improve the
comunication, technical,
and development skills of Hatch
instructors.
d.
A
quality
on-the-job
training
program
for
Maintenance
personnel is being developed and near completion.
5.
Other significant training initiatives being implemented, include:
a.
The Hatch operator performance standards have been upgraded.
Observations already indicate a more professional control room
performance.
Operators who could not meet the upgraded
standards have been reassigned.
b.
While some of the senior operators already have college
degrees,
GPC
is
implementing
degree-programs
for
those
operators who do not have a technical degree.
c.
The emergency operating procedures have been reviewed, with a
training perspective, to avoia unnecessary memorization or
inappropriate immediate operator actions.
6.
A new requalification program has been submitted to the NRC for
' review.
GPC has already seen tangible returns from the upgraded
program in the performance of operators.
The higher standards are
being strictly applied as reassignments of several experienced
operators have already taken place.
1-5
'.
.
.
,
-
. .
,
-
.
,
ENCLOSUREI(Continued)
.
.
. .. _
..- ...
_
_
COMMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
7.
Other training improvements have been implemented.
These are:
a.
A formal eleven week training program for support engineers
has been recently implemented.
This program should enhance
overall plant knowledge.
b.
Deficiencies in emergency planning training for operations
supervisors have been corrected by additional training.
This
matter will be monitored during drills and exercises.
Future
performance-based training will focus on dificiencies.
It is unfortunate that, while the SALP report covered a twenty month
period, the period was terminated two weeks before initiation of
engineering training and the completion of our requalification upgrade
program.
Considering the strides made in training at Plant Hatch in
1985, it is disappointing that the report grade did not recognize the
progress in the same manner as the report narrative.
GPC will continue
our efforts into the future.
QUALITY PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
GPC agrees with the basic
components of the evaluation.
However, we believe that our program
performance is improving.
Some of the major improvements initiated
during this rating period include:
a comprehensive zero based audit
matrix system;
increased use of work in progress
and
contractor
surveillances; and revised, expanded, radiological controls monitoring
procedures.
We believe we have a large and aggressive QA staff which
has been charged with responsibility to continue aggressive program
implementation and the use of the newly developed zero-based audit
matrix system.
We intend to look more at work-in-progress, to place
greater emphasis on the use of technical specialists in key audit
program activities, and to review a broad range of other programs to
ensure that quality is built-in and maintained.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
GPC has expanded its
licensing staff.
This will result in GPC being more active in planning
future HNP licensing activities, in industry-wide licensing activities,
and in identifying and clarifying license commitments.
GPC recognizes
past concerns over timeliness, and has taken action to correct this
problem, such as implementing a computerized tracking system, and by
upgrading its cemitment management systen.
1-6
.
.
.
.
-
.
...
.
,
ENCLOSURE 1(Continued)
- _.
. ..
..
- _ .
-
.-:
2
--
- ^=
COMMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT HATCH
GPC is working to have a competent, forward looking, and receptive
licensing organization.
Recent organizational changes will result in a
more assertive licensing approach.
We believe that company-generated
initiatives have and will result in improvements.
We fully expect to
have those improvements visibly manifest themselves to NRC in the future
and that these improvements will be reflected in the next SALP rating.
CONCLUSION
We
feel
this
SALP evaluation
was
representative
of
the
Plant's
performance except in the area of maintenance.
GPC is committed to
further enhance all our programs.
We are taking appropriate action to
address their concerns and plan to keep you informed during our
quarterly meetings.
.
1-7
.
JAti 15 1935
ENCLOSURE 2
APPENDIX TO GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
,
A. W. V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2
SALP BOARD REPORT
(DATED OCTOBER 23, 1985)
-
.
JAN 15 1986
Enclosure 2
2
I.
Meeting Summary
A.
A meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. , on November 4,1985, at your corporate
offices in Atlanta, Georgia to discuss the SALP Board report.
B.
Licensee Attendees
R. W. Scherer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
J. H. Miller, Jr. , President
R. J. Kelly, Executive Vice President, Power Supply
R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President and Project Director - Vogtle
J. T. Beckham, Jr. , Vice President and General Manager, Nuclear
Operations
D. O. Foster, Vice President Project Support - Vogtle
R. H. Pinson, Vice President Project Construction - Vogtle
P. D. Rice, Vice President Project Engineering - Vogtle
Ruble A. Thomas, Vice President, Project Licensing, Plant Vogtle
George Bockhold, Jr., General Manager, Plant Vogtle Nuclear Operations
M. B. Hobby, Assistant to President
Don Crowe, Nuclear Safety Manager
L. T. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Licensing
J. J. Badgett, Manager, Nuclear Training
W. E. Burns, Nuclear Licensing Manager, Plant Vogtle
S. C. Ewald, Manager, Radiological Safety
Max Manry, Manager, Nuclear Performance and Analysis
A. W. Benson, Manager, Security
D. S. Read, Deputy General Manager, Quality Assurance
M. H. Googe, Project Construction Manager
R. L. George, Manager, Vogtle Support Group, Southern Company Services
Inc. (SCSI)
G. D. McGaha, Manager, Mechanical Engineering - Nuclear Plant Support,
(SCSI)
David R. Altman, Nuclear Information Manager
Ken Pointer, Plant Engineer, Vogtle Regulatory Compliance
J. R. Roberts, Superintendent, Uniform Security, Nuclear
C.
NRC Attendees
J. A. Olshinski, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)
R. D. Walker, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII
A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII
V. L. Brownlee, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, DRP
J. F. Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch 4, Division of Licensing
(DL)
M. V. Sinkule, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 20, DRP, RII
M. A. Miller, Project manager, Licensing Branch 4, DL
H. H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector (Construction), Plant Vogtle
J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector (Operations), Plant Vogtle
R. J. Schepens, Resident Inspector (Construction), Plant Vogtle
W. H. Rankin, Project Inspector, Reactor Projects Section 2D, DRP, RII
D. B. Gruber, Technical Support Inspector, Technical Support Section,
DRP, RII
Enclosure 2
3
JAN 15 1986
II.
Licensee Comments
Licensee comments submitted in response to the SALP Board Report for
A. W. Vogtle follow.
c;>
'
'
.. '
.-
-
-
d;33
i
L
-
G
-
. . . ,
.-
s.
-
,
.-
-
,
.
.
.
.
J 64 M.Iler Jr
NED-85-875
2351N
$
t
December 2, 1985
i'
I
I
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
REFERENCE.
,
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
RII:
JNG
Region II - Suite 2900
Inspection Reports
l
101 Marietta Street, NW
50-321-50-366 (85-21)
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
50-424-50-425 (85-27)
i
.
ATTENTION: Dr. J. Nelson Grace
Gentlemen:
By letter dated October 23, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission
(NRC) transmitted the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
.
report for Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle and requested comments from the
Georgia Power Company (GPC).
The SALP assessment covered a period of twenty
l
months from November 1, 1983 through June 30, 1985.
On November 4,1985, a
public meeting between the NRC and GPC was held to discuss the details of
this important report.
.
GPC recognizes and appreciates the observations made in your report
'
regarding the performance of Plant Hatch and Plant Vogtle.
GPC believes
<
that such evaluations of licensee performance benefit GPC and the public by
focuslag attention on matters important to plant safety.
GPC is conynitted
I
to
the
safe
operation
and
construction
of
its
nuclear
facilities.
.
Accordingly, we intend to be fully responsive to the observations discussed
in your report.
Enclosed are GPC's responses to the evaluations.
Enclosure 1 addresses
Plant Hatch and Enclosure 2 addresses Plant Vogtle.
In our response for
Plant Hatch, we identify a disagreement with your evaluation of Category 3
in the functional area of Maintenance.
We request that you reconsider this
specific evaluation based on our consnents and the volume of activities that
took place during the twenty month evaluation period.
We bclieve a Category
2 evaluation is justified.
Notwithstanding, our
corrective action to
further improve our maintenance program is proceecing on a high priority
!
basis.
.
--
-
.
~ * , .
_
-
-
..
.
3
...
ue.npalb.e:d
.
..
--.----.._.---.;__
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
__
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Region II - Suite 2900
December 2,1985
Page Two
We would be pleased to discuss this response or answer questions you may
have.
Yours very truly,
n
y
-
l
J.
iller, Jr.
.
/
/
DMC/mb
/
Enclosure 1
Conments on SALP Report for Plant Hatch
Enclosure 2
Comants on SALP Report for Plant Vogtle
c:
Mr. R. E. Cc nway
Mr. J. T. Bf ckham, Jr.
Mr. D. O. Foster
Mr. G. Bock 101d, Jr.
Mr . H. C. t i x , Jr .
Senior Resident Inspector (Hatch)
Senior Resident ,1nspector (Vogtle)
i
(
,
.
.
,
'
.
.
.
.
.
..
D
'
'.
,
-
j
.
,
h
,
i
ENCLOSURE 2
11
COMMENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT V0GTLE
INTRODUCTION
Georgia Power Company has reviewed the SALP Report for Plant Vogtle and
[
endorses the observation regarding Plant Vogtle's performance.
We feel the
report accurately and effectively appraised Plant Vogtle's performance.
We
agree with the overall evaluation:
(
J
"The licensee continues to implement a vigorous construction
(
project management effort with well qualified and experienced
'
personnel.
Licensee programs have been effective in the
identification and resolution of problems.
Major strengths
have been identified in areas of Soils and Foundations,
Safety-Related Components - Mechanical, and Quality Programs
and Administrative Controls Affecting Quality.
No major
weaknesses were identified."
Even though no major weaknesses were identified, GPC intends to further
enhance our programs by making the following improvements.
EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
Our performane.e was. evaluated as Category 1 (Management attention and
involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nucler safety and resources
are effectively used).
We are committed to continue to devote the same
level of management attention and resources to this area to ensure the high
level of performance is continued.
CONTAINMENT, SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURES AND MAJOR STEEL SUPPORTS
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2, with an improving trend
(Management
attention
and
involvement
are
evident
and
resources
are
adequate).
GPC recognizes
the
importance
of
welding
activities
and
continues to enhance our program.
We have improved our visual weld
acceptance criteria and increased our QA ano QC overview of welding
activities.
PIPING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS
Our
performance
was
evaluated
as
Category
2.
We
are
further
strengthening our programs in this area.
We have implemented the following
programs to further enhance our performance:
1.
Pre-engineering walkdowns to assure the craft has the necessary
information to do the job right the first time.
A foreman accountability program to assist our training program in
c.
improving potential weak areas.
2-1
\\
.
.
- .
'
.
.
ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)
-
- .:-
--
- := : --
- -~
_.
=q
-
-
3.
Increased surveillance reverification where selected contractor
work is reinspected by GPC Quality Control inspectors to assure
adequacy of the contractor's inspection activity.
SAFETY-RELATED COMP 0NENTS - MECHANICAL
Our performance was evaluated as Category 1.
We are taking steps to
!
further enhance this area.
We have recently organized our equipment
maintenance and storage group and are verifying the status of the equipment
j
in our preventive maintenance program.
We have also designated areas of
6
cleanliness throughout the plant to further strengthen this program.
]
FIRE PROTECTION / PREVENTION SYSTEMS
i
l
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
We have addressed the
,
unresolved issues identified in the report and will continue to enhance our
We have revised our fire protection program and
!
clarified the procedures.
The fire dampers are now tested both prior to and
!
after installation and the Work-In Progress (WIP) packages utilized by the
HVAC contractor provide better instructions for installat 4on.
Improvements
have also been made to further enhance our records system.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND CABLES
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2 with performance improving
throughout the report period.
We intend to assure performance continues to
improve. As NRC noted, we have' increased our management involvement in this
area
and
a
reorganization
has
increased
our
supervisor / lead
inspector-to-inspector ratio.
The quality control technical support group
has been established and provides a broad experience base to support the
inspection effort.
CUALITY PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY
Our performance was evaluated as Category 1.
As noted in the report,
our
Quality Concerns
Program has been
effective
in
identifying
and
correcting employees' concerns.
Quality concerns, as well as readiness
review findings, are evaluated by quality assurance for incorporation into
the audit programs to ensure programmatic problems are addressed and assure
root causes are corrected.
Many of the supervisory type issues addressed in
quality concerns would not have been otherwise identified in our previous
audits and surveillances.
We have strengthened our ongoing audit program by
performing annual
assessments
of contractor
programs
and broad-scoped
assessments of particular concerns such as the electrical and welding areas.
2-2
')
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
,
ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)
.
- - = _-)
-
- - - . - - . . = =
=.=::.:
..=-
-
- - - - - - _
. - - . _ -
- - - - - - -
- - .
COPHENTS ON SALP REPORT FOR PLANT V0GTLE
i
LICENSING ACTIVITIES
Our performance was evaluated as Category 2.
We have increased the
1
staff of the project licensing manager and have relocated a staff member to
the job site to better coordinate site licensing activities and further
enhance our overall licensing effort.
'
CONCLUSION
>
We feel
this SALP evaluation was representative of the Project's
-
performance and we are cbmitted to further enhance our programs to make our
performance even better,
g
.
2-3
'
__
_ . . _ _ . _
_ _ _ _ . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _____________ ____ _
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
i
-
.
1-
e
!
JAN 15 1986
e
ENCLOSURE 3
i
!
~
4
'
SALP BOARD REPORT ERRATA SHEET
1
!
i
Page/Line
Now Reads
Should Read
1
';
Cover Letter
50-425/85-27
50-425/85-26
Basis:
Typographical error which incorrectly listed the inspection report
i
number for Unit 2.
t
l
I
I
i
!
,
!
,
!
!
!
,
'
l
1
f
,
,.
L
^
.
[, p aar
UNITE 3 ST ATES
e
'o
NUCLEAR REGULAT!RY COMMISSION
$'
' ' , '
REGloN 11
h
.
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
O
r
ATL ANTA. GEORGI A 30323
7
\\...../
\\
OCT 2 3 1985
-
Georg
Power Ccmpany
ATTN:
r. R. J. Kelly
cutive Vice President
P. O. Box 545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REPORT
5. 50-321/85-21, 50-366/85-21, 50-424/85-27, AND 50-425/85-27
f
The NRC Systematic A esgment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board has completed
its periodic evaluatio 4( your E. I. Hatch and A. W. Vogtle facilities. These
facilities were eval g
f
the period November 1, 1983 through June 30, 1985.
The results of the evp
are documented in the enclosed SALP Board Reports
l
(Enclosures 1 and 2). 1
orts will be discussed with you at your offices
in Atlanta, Georgia on No
4, 1985.
The performance of your E.
h facility was evaluated in the functional
>
areas of plant operations, r
ogical controls, maintenance, surveillance,
fire protection, emergency pre
e ness, security, refueling / outages, training,
quality programs and administratf?pe
ontrols affecting quality, and licensing
activities.
l
The performance of your A. W. Vogtle fa
lity was evaluated in the functional
areas of soils and foundations, containmen
safety related structures and major
steel supports, piping systems and supports, safety related components-mechanical,
auxiliary systems, electrical equipment an
cables, quality programs and
6
administrative controls affecting quality, and icensing activities.
!
The overall Georgia Power Company performance w s satisfactory.
Management
f
attention and involvement were evident at both your
. I. Hatch and A. W. Vogtle
facilities. At the Vogtle facility no weaknesses wer identified, with strengths
identified in the areas of soils and foundations, sa ety related components-
I
mechanical, quality programs and administrative contr is affecting quality.
Licensee programs initiated, relating to these strengt
were the Quality
,
Concerns Program and the Readiness Review Program.
Concern g the Hatch facility,
a strength was identified in the radiological controls ar
with weaknesses
identified in the maintenance and training areai. Also, more
tention to detail
would enhance the performance of all departments.
g
Any comments you have concerning our evaluation of the performa e of your
facilities should be submitted to this office within 30 days follow g the date
r
of our meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. We specifically request that y
advise
!
us of actions you have taken or plan to take to address the weakness i
ntified
!
in the Hatch maintenance and training programs. Your comments, a summary f our
November 4,
1985 meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be i
ued
as appendices to the enclosed SALP Board Reports.
I
UNITED STATES
[ @ 88 4 *o
'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
et' '
REGloN li
h
.
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
'g.....
OCT 2 81985
Georgia Power Company
ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REPORT NOS. 50-321/85-21, 50-366/85-21, 50-424/85-27, AND 50-425/85-26
The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board has completed
its periodic evaluation of your E. I. Hatch and A. W. Vogtle facilities. These
facilities were evaluated for the period November 1, 1983 through June 30, 1985.
The results of the evaluation are documented in the enclosed SALP Board Reports
(Enclosures 1 and 2). These reports will be discussed with you at your offices
in Atlanta, Georgia on November 4,1985.
The performance of your E. I. Hatch facility was evaluated in the functional
areas of plant operations, radiological controls, maintenance, surveillance,
fire protection, emergency preparedness, security, refueling / outages, training,
quality programs and administrative controls affecting quality, and licensing
activities.
The performance of your A. W. Vogtle facility was evaluated in the functional
areas of soils and foundations, containment, safety related structures and major
steel supports, piping systems and supports, safety related components-mechanical,
auxiliary systems, electrical equipment and cables, quality programs and
administrative controls affecting quality, and licensing activities.
The overall Georgia Power Company performance was satisfactory.
Management
attention and involvement were evident at both your E. I. Hatch and A. W. Vogtle
facilities. At the Vogtle facility no weaknesses were identified, with strengths
identified in the areas of soils and foundations, safety related components-
mechanical, quality programs and administrative controls affecting quality.
Licensee programs initiated, relating to these strengths, were the Quality
Concerns Program and the Readiness Review Program.
Concerning the Hatch facility,
a strength was identified in the radiological controls area with weaknesses
identified in the maintenance and training areas. Also, more atten*4on to detail
would enhance the performance of all departments.
Any comments you have concerning our evaluation of the performance of your
facilities should be submitted to this office within 30 days following the date
of our meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. We specifically request that you advise
us of actions you have taken or plan to take to address the weakness identified
in the Hatch maintenance and training programs. Your comments, a summary of our
November 4,
1985 meeting, and my disposition of your comments will be issued
as appendices to the enclosed SALP Board Reports.