ML20207T369
| ML20207T369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1987 |
| From: | Conway R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| GN-1230, NUDOCS 8703230490 | |
| Download: ML20207T369 (8) | |
Text
I a
Georgia Power Company 4
Project Management Route 2. Box 299A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Telephone 404 7244114 404 554 9961
- M Vogtle Project January 16, 1987 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission File:
X7BD102 Region II, Suite 2900 Log:
GN-1230 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30323
Reference:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 2 - Readiness Review Program At tent ion:
Mr.
J. Nelson Grace During our visit to your of fice on October 27, 1986 we expressed our satisf action with the results of the Pilot Readiness Review Program performed on Unit 1.
Georgia Power Compa ny (GPC) considers that the program was a successful test of the concept that a utility can perform a self assessment ol its design, construction, and operational preparation processes to increase the assurance that quality program activities have been accomplished in accordance with regulatory requirements.
We believe that both GPC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have benefited f rom the Pilot Readiness Review Program in terms of added predictability and stability to the licensing process, early identification and resolution of problems, and early resolution of dif ferences in the NRC's and GPC's interpretation of regulatory requirements.
These benefits along with the scheduled systematic review and acceptance of GPC programs by NRC have resulted in a completion and licensing process for Vogtle which avoided many of the last minute problems experienced at certain other nuclear pro jects.
Based on the above, GPC has initiated conceptual planning for a Unit 2 Readiness Review Program which would take advantage of lessons learned in the Unit 1 pilot program and result in the same benefits for Unit 2.
A summary discussion of a Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is provided in the attachment to this letter.
B703230490 870116 PDR ADOCK 05000425 A
PDR ih LECl
r;
.Mr.
J. Nelson Grace-GN-1230 Page 2 We believe that a Unit 2 Readiness Review Program would be of mutual benefit to both GPC and the NRC.
As we previously discussed on-October-27,-1986, it appears that a joint meeting between GPC and the NRC, such as the interaction that occurred in the Unit 1 pilot program development, may.be appropriate.
We are prepared to proceed with the program in'the first quarter of 1987 and look forward to working with you to obtain mutual concurrence on the scope of the program and our planned interactions during this effort.
Very truly yours, R.
E.-Conwa RWM/ REC /bjd 2 Enclosures 0712C/012-7
cc:
U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docume nt Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Victor J. Stello, Jr., Director U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D.C.
20555 J. W.
Thonpson U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Be thesda, MD 28014 Ms. Melanie A.
Miller Division of Licensing Licensing Branch #4 Washing ton, D. C.
20555 Senior Resident Inspector U.
S.
Nuclear Regulator y Connission Vogtle Electric Generating Plant B. W.
Chur chill Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowb ri dge 1800 M Street, Northwest Washing ton, D. C.
20036 J.
E. Joiner Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore Candler Building 127 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, GA 30303 Danny Feig 1130 Alta Avenue At lant a, GA 30307
r7-q -
- v
.t:
k 1
Page Two cc:. William M.
Hill NRC-IE (EWS-305)
Building East West / South Towers 4340' East-West Hwy.
Be thesda, MD 20555-W.
H.-Rankin Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street, N. W.
Atlanta, GA.
30323 William D.
Edmu ndson Southern Company Services Inverness Building 40, Room 240 Birmingham, AL 35243 R.
A. Thomas D.
E. Dutton W. T. Nick er son D.
T.
King K. Wiedner P.
D. Rice R.
H. Pinson C. W. Whitney J.
A. Bailey
-C.
W.
Hayes W.
C. Rams ey R. W.
McManus R.
T. Oedame r J. Starnes (INPO)
Document Control Project File RR Reading File 0712C/012-7 1
i PLANT VOGTLE - UNIT 2 CONCE PTUAL READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Background
In 1984, the Georgia Power Company (GPC) began a pilot program for self-evaluation of Plant Vogtle Unit 1 in response to the recommendations contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report to Congress on Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1055).
The program, identified as Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, was conducted to provide a systematic and disciplined review by GPC and NRC of GPC's implementation of Design, Construction, and Operational preparation processes to increase the assurance that Quality Program activities at Plant Vogtle have been accomplished in accordance with Regulatory Requirements.
Georgia Power 's objectives in under taking a Readiness Review program were many.
The primary objective was to perform, as an owner initiated effort, an in-depth self assessment that would provide both early identification of problem areas and a mechanism for early resolution of dif ferences in NRC and GPC interpretations of regulatory requirements.
Satisfactory completion of these objectives adds stability and predictability to the licensing process and significantly reduces risks in accomplishing scheduled project completion activities.
Unit 1 Readiness Review Results The Unit 1 Pilot Readiness Review Program resulted in the identification of a number of findings and corrective actions which GPC believes, based on its own evaluation and on feedback f rom the independent NRC review of Readiness Review submittals, has confirmed that the systematic approach used in the Unit 1 Pilot Readiness Review Program was ef fective in achieving program objectives.
Unit 2 Concept To extend the benefits achieved in the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program to Unit 2, a modified Readiness Review Program should be established to demonstrate continued acceptable conformance to licensing commitments.
Page 2 of 4 Both units of Plant Vogtle are designed, constructed, and are planned to be operated as an integrated f acility utilizing common licensing commitments, design criteria, procurement specifications, construction procedures and practices, operations procedures, and operations staff.
Therefore, the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program provides a substantial baseline for a-Unit 2 Readiness Review Program.
As a result, a principal goal of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program would be to address any changes in regulatory commitments from those assessed for Unit 1.
Since the adequacy of the programs applied to Unit 1 was established in the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, and since essentially the same prograns will be followed for Unit.2, the Unit 2 Readiness Review Assessment need not duplicate the Unit 1 ef fort.
Rather, the Readiness Review effort for Unit 2 should supplement the Unit 1 program by demonstrating that.the Project ' continues to comply with licensing commitments and -that lessons learned f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review have been incorporated into Unit 2 programs as appropriate.
The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program concept is summarized as follows:
Maintain.and update the commitment and implementation matrices developed during the Unit 1 program to reflect new or revised commitments, and distribute them to the appropriate Project discipline organizations (e. g., Civ il, Me ch anical, Electrical) for their use in maintaining program conf ormance to licensing commitments.
Readiness Review would ensure implementation of any new commitments as was done in the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program.
Establish a list of lessons learned and cor rective actions as a result of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program that would be utilized by the Project to avoid repeating past problems.
This list would also be utilized during the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program to include the Unit I corrective actions and program changes to avoid recur rence of past problems.
9:,i s. #
.,..e, j., Y f
~
~
p_
- ^
3-
[
7
\\
J E
?
Attachment:
2:
Page 3 ofL4
< -L Sample l project design.and. construction activities.
and assess ' the status of -installed hardware to the.
extent necessary-to verify._continuedfacceptable
^
^ compliance with licensing commitments and to
~ demonstrate appropriate ' compliance. to 'the lessons learned and :cor rective actions ~ as described above.-
Assess. Nuclear ~ Operations implementation of" licensing commitments; for acceptability of' t
Construction Acceptance Testing-activities of the Initial Test Program,~ 'Preoperational Test ' Phase.-
A
. separate Readiness Review will not befrequired for-Post Fuel Load programs, where the same procedures and staff assembled for. Unit I will operate Unit 2..
Nuclear Operations has in place a program for the. identification ~and implementation of existing,; new or revised commitments that will verify continuing conformance to operational licensing commitments.
Describe the assessments, results, and. evaluations of'the. Unit 2 Readiness Review Program in supplements to the Unit 1 Readiness Review ~ Program modules.
Potential NRC Interaction
.The Unit'2 Readinels Review program is intended to provide added assurance to the Project of the acceptability of quality and l'icensability of Unit 2 utilizing the effort and results of the Unit 1 assessment, but without duplicating that effort, and 'without any loss of assurance in the finished product.
As module supplements for Unit 2 are completed, the Project would meet with the NRC to apprise them of the assessment results and present the module supplements.
In addition, Unit 2 Readiness Review ' status and progress reports will be presented periodically to the NRC during the early phases of the Unit 2 program._ The intent of these presentations and module supplements would be to provide'an important part of the basis for Unit 2 acceptance and a high level of confidence in Unit 2 quality.
G
..; _ y.. f ^
v Page 4 of 4 Af ter presentation of the module ' supplement by GPC to the NRC it is expected 'that the NRC would perform an' evaluation of the work. processes represented by the module.
Upon completion of their ' activities,. it is further expected that the NRC would identify areas of concern to GPC for corrective action and
- issue.an acceptance letter.
0712C/012-7