ML20199D119
| ML20199D119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1986 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Foster D GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606190300 | |
| Download: ML20199D119 (5) | |
Text
. - - _ _ _ __ __ - ___ -____
'M {;t
~
JUN 111986
/
T Georgia /ower Company ATTN:W r. D. O. Foster dy bg' Vice President and General Manager Route 2 Box 299A Waynesboro, GA 30830-
Dear Mr. Foster:
SUBJECT:
V0GTLE READINESS REVIEW - INTERIM REVIEW QUESTIONS - MODULE N0. 9A,
" RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION" We have completed an initial review of Module 9A, which you submitted to us on March 25, 1986, for evaluation.
As a result of the review, the enclosure lists comments and questions which need clarification and a written response.
Please review the comments and provide a written response.
Your input is requested to be received on or before June 30, 1986.
Your assistance in responding to this request for additional information is appreciated.
Sincerely, Originial signed by David M. Verre111 for Luis A. Reyes, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Vogtle Readiness Review Program -
Module No. 9A, Questions and Clarifications and Remarks
/cw/ enc 1:
J. H. Miller, Jr.
j President V R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President &
j Project Director VP. D. Rice, Vice President, Project Engineering
. H. Pinson, Vice President, Project Construction (ccw/ enc 1: Con't page 2) 8606190300 860611 PDR ADOCK 0500 4
A TEOl i
JUN 111986 Georgia Power Company 2
cc w/ encl: Cont'd)
J. T. Beckham, Vice President &
General Manager - Operations
/R.A. Thomas,VicePresident,
/ Licensing
/D. S. Read, General Manager Quality Assurance
/C.W. Hayes,VogtleQuality j Assurance Manager 4
/ W. C. Ramsey, Manager -
f Readiness Review
/G. B. Bockhold, General Manager,
/L.Gucwa, Manager,NuclearSafety Nuclear Operations
/M. H. Googe, Project and Licensing Construction Manager
/E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Manager -
/-Construction v J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing j Manager VG. F. Trowbridge, Esq., Shaw,.
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
/B. W. Churchill, Esq., Shaw,
/ Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge VE. L. Blake, Jr., Esq., Shaw,
/ Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge V J. E. Joiner, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman and Ashmore
. G. Ledbetter, Commissioner, Dep.'rtment of Human Resources C. H.' Badger, Office of Planning f and Budget
/ D. Kirkland, III, Counsel, Office of the Consumer's Utility s/b. Council C. Teper, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy
. B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/Dr. O. H. Paris, Administrative Judge Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/ Panel VG. A. Linenberger, Jr., Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/B.P. Garde,CitizensClinic, Director Panel Government Accountability Project L
~
JUN 111986 Georgia Power Company 3
/bcc w/ encl:
. J. Reis. ELD
/. M. Hill, IE
/M. Sinkule, RII VE. Christnot, RII
/NRC Resident Inspector
' /focument Control Desk State of Georgia f
RII
/
RI RII
'M sb7 QV Christnot:dm MSi nkule kBrownlee 6/ /86 6/lD/86 6/g/86 L
F ENCLOSURE V0GTLE READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM - MODULE N0. 9A QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND REMARKS NRR has completed an initial review of Module 9A, Radiological Protection, which was presented to the NRC on March 25, 1986.
As a result of the review, one branch within NRR (Facility Operations Branch) has generated questions and clarifications which need a written response. A second branch within NRR (Plant Systems Branch) has generated remarks discussed below. These comments are based on interactions between NRC staff / licensee and are stating NRR staff views and observations as a result of the Module 9A review.
Questions and comments which need a response are as follows:
Facility Operations Branch 1.
FSAR Section 13.5.1.1.A (No.1731) - FSAR Section 13.5.1.1.A states that the
- General Manager-Vogtle Nuclear Operations (GMVN0) has the ultimate responsibility for all plant procedures.
The GMVN0 'is also the approving authority for procedures which establish plant wide administrative controls and other listed procedures. The FSAR section also states that nuclear operation department heads are the approving authority for other procedures in their respective areas of authority.
Connitment 1731 as stated would give nuclear operations heads approving authority (under direction of GMVN0) for all procedures in their respective areas, including those _ listed by the FSAR as reserved for the GMVNO.
The commitment and/or FSAR should be clarified to resolve this inconsistency for the procedures listed in FSAR Section 13.5.1.1.A.
2.
FSAR Sections 13.5.1.1.C and 13.5.1.1.d - FSAR Sections 13.5.1.1.C and 13.5.1.1.D have been omitted from the Module 9A commitments.
These commitments should be included in Module 9A.
3.
FSAR Section 13.5.1.1.H (No.1769) - FSAR Section 13.5.1.1.H describes procedures for shift relief and turnover for plant personnel.
Included is the requirement for " appropriate" supervisory personnel to develop shift logs. This requirement is omitted form the Module 9A commitments and should be included.
4.
FSAR Section 17.2.5 - FSAR Section 17.2.5 describes the provision of instructions, procedures, and drawings.
This section also identifies that the GMVNO is responsible for ensuring preparation, execution, and proper training for procedures. This responsibility is not covered-in the Module 9A commitments.
5.
Technical. Specifications Sections 6.2.2.F (No. 2631) - Section 6.2.2.F does not exist. This specification is given in T.S. Section 6.2.2.E.
Plant Systems Branch Plant Systems Branch identified six questions which were mostly resolved in a telecon discussion.
However, there were two areas for which commitments were made on the telecon, but which may not be in full compliance with NRC staff positions. These two areas are as follows:
Enclosure 2
1.
The requirement for a qualified Health Physics Technician to be on site at all times when there is fuel in the reactor (verses an individual qualified in health physics procedures).
2.
Requirements for high radiation area controls which differ from the Standard Technical Specifications (and may omit some critical control specification).
These PSB issues were based on review of the draft Technical Specifications and will be handled through the normal licensing process during Technical Specification review.
While the commitments may be adequate in this area, radiological safety considerations are dependent upon the details of the final Technical Specifications.
L._
....