ML20236M826
| ML20236M826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1987 |
| From: | Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, NUDOCS 8711130302 | |
| Download: ML20236M826 (6) | |
Text
,g:qF g 44
. g,
]
g, gc
'g "
q
-... +
~j k.
f!
, d,e
^
4
. Docket.No.: 50-p)
M i'
g y
.q Mr. James P. O'R'eilly
%(
< ;O Senior-Vice-President - Nuclear Operations v I;
.f 7', ;,
' Georgia Power Company.
T f
/
. 7 j.:
P.0; Boy 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
-D44<
'f
Dear Mn,
O'Reilly:
e j
'4.3
SUBJECT:
. Request for Additio'nal I'nformation' on Generic Letter 83-28, j
Item 2.2.2 for Vogtle" Units 1.and 2 j
The staff has reviewed Georgia Power Company's responses dated' November 8, j
1983, and May 20, 1985 to ' Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions-Based on.
l Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events,". July 8/1983. 'Bssed on this.
1 review, we conclude that the response for Vogtle Units 1 and 2-is-incomplete t 1
and hence we cannot. conclude that the requirements. of ptenr 2.2.,2 are met.
The staff's detailed evaluation,' including the reques for additional information,
-1 is enclosed. To allow' the staff toicomplete-its' review, we request that Georgia-Power Company respond within.60 days of the date of.this. letter.
'[
Q'
^1 s
If you have any questions, I can be reache'd at (301) 492-7357.
- p
- ~e' { l Sincerely,-
].
(
)
Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Project Directorate II_ Division _of Reactor Projects. I/II q.
Cnclosure: As stated q
cc:
See next page
^~
]
DISTRIBUTION:
'.1 Docket tile; j
Local.PDR 1
NRC PDR
.j PDII-3 Reading
~1 hDuncan 8711130302 87'1106
~
h
~
~
4 iller PDR ADOCK 05000424 EJordan P
PDR q
ACRS(10)
+
1 JStone
- tj
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE j
PDIl-3/DRPI/II PQI DRPI/II NRR/ICSB
'N f
CB i
- MMiller/ rad
- MD 3DLashe
'J '
- A aa 1
87 11/5/87 11/ Gt/87' f -/87 1/.
[
P /!I 0'lPI/II a
1 11/{;/87o
'H
.(
i Yi
., l V-Q#
, UNITED STATES l
,.. o
~
8 N'hLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-n g, 1 j
.. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666.
'%,*****/
NCY 06. W.
Docket.No.:
50e424 g,
Mr. James P. 0_'.ReillyL 3
i Senior Vice. President - Nuclear Operations Georgia Power' Company P.O. Box 4545.
Atlanta, Georgia 30302 p
l-
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
SUBJECT:
Request for Additional-:Information on? Generic Letter:83-28, Item 2.2.2' for Vogtlel Units =1 and 2 The staff has reviewed Georgis Power Company's: responses datedLNovember 8,-
1 1983, and May 20, 1985 to Generic Letter 83-28,.-" Required-Actions Based on l
Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," ' July 8 1983. : Based on this-review, we conclude that the response for Vogtle Units 1 and 2 is' incomplete.
i l
and hence we cannot co'nclude that'the requirements'of Item'2.2.2 are met.
1 The staff's detailed evaluation, including the request for additional'information, is enclosed. To allow the stafi' to complete its review,'we request that Georgia Power Company respond within 60' days of the.date of this letter..
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (301)- 492-7357.:.
l Sincerely, C+
hv Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Project Directorate?II-3 Division c+ Reac,, tor Projects.I/II
Enclosure:
As stated L
cc: See next page l
l-V-.
-. - - _ _ _ _ = - _ _ - _
x h
.y Enclosure Staff Evaluation of Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2 Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 i
INTRODUCTION
)
1 Generic Letter 83-28. " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," was issued on July 8, 1983, following the staff's investigation of the l
without scram (ATWS) generic implications of the anticipated transients incidents at the Salem Nuclear Power Plant in February 1983.
Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant to submit, for the staff review, a description of their programs for interfacing with the vendors of all safety-related components including supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the guideline sections below.
These guidelines treat cases where direct vendor contact programs are pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, and establish responsibilities of licensees / applicants and vendors that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION i
Guideline The licensee or applicant response should describe their program for establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendors of safety-related components which ensures that vendors are contacted on a periodic basis and that receipt of vendor equipment technical information is acknowledged or otherwise verified.
This program description should establish that formal interfaces are established with the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendor, as well as with the vendors l
of the diesel generators and safety-reltted electrical switchgear.
In addition the licensee should confirm that a program of informal contact has been established with the vendors of other safety-related components such as auxiliary feedpum'ps, emergency core ecoling system pumps, batteries, battery chargers, and valve operators, to facilitate the exchange of current technical information.
The description should verify that controlled procedures exist for handling this vendor technical information which ensure that it is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant operating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.
Evaluation The licensee responded to these requirements by letters' dated November 8, 1983, and May 20, 1985. These submittals include information that describes the vendor interface program.
In the review of the licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the information and documentation supporting this program is asailable for audit upon request.
l l
- x N
., VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vendor equipment. problems:
the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and the Significant Event Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.
VETIP is designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, evaluated and corrective action taken.
Through participation in the NPRDS program, the licensee submits engineering information, failure reports and operating histories for review under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) reviews nuclear plant events that have been reported through l
the NPRDS programs, Nuclear Network, and NRC reports. Based on the.
significance of the event, as determined by the' screening review, INP0 issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the event and related problems and recommends practical corrective actions.
These reports are issued in Significant Events Reports and Significant Operating Experience Reports (SOERs) and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders.
The licensee's response does not.show that procedures have been implemented that require the review and the evaluation of incoming equipment technical information, including Significant Event Reports, SOERs or Operations and Maintenance Reminders, or the incorporation of this.information into existing l
procedures.
Conclusion i
The staff finds that the licensee's response is inadequate.
The licensee should describe how its procedures were revised to control and implement the use of the NUTAC/VETIP program as a means for compensating for the lack of a direct vendor ir:terface program fcr safety-related equipment.
This response l
should confirm that these procedures include means for implementing the program i
1 enhancements identified in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR TH,AT PROVIDES SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED E.QUIPMENT.
Guideline The licensee / applicant response should verify th'at the responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable instructions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment is provided by the licensee.
Evaluation The staff could find no information in the l'icensee's responses that. addresses the control of vendor-supplied services for maintenance work on safety-related equipment. The licensee has not stated that.it has specific nrocedures to i
provide the proper quality assurance control over vendor-supplied. service.on l
safety-related equipment.
1 i
l
-._.-----,-----nm.w---
1
. Conclusion The submittals are not sufficient for the staff to conclude that the licensee's and vendor's responsibilities are defined and controlled appropriately.
Therefore, the licensee should provide verification that the responsibilities and instructions for vendor-supplied services on safety-related equipment are defined and controlled as is the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services," described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report.
CONCLUSION Based on its review of the licensee's responses to the specific requiremer>ts of Item 2.2.2, the staff finds that the information provided by the licensee to resolve the concerns of this program do not meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28.
l The licensee should show that procedures are implemented to incorporate the vendor l
technical information into plant procedures.
The licensee should describe the formal interface programs that have been or will be established with its NSSS, diesel generator, and major safety-related electrical switchgear vendors, and should also confirm that a program of informal contact has been established with the vendors of other key safety-related equipment.
The licensee should describe how its procedures were revised to control and implement the use of the NUTAC/VETIP program as a means of compensating for the lack of a direct vendor interface program for safety-related equipment.
The description should also confirm that these revised procedures include means for implementing the program enhancements identified in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report.
l The licensee should provide information regarding the control of instructions and quality assurance for vendor-supplied services performed on safety-related equipment.
i l
I
~
j
.:.. V
[
~i
'Mr. J. P. 0'Reilly Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:
Mr; L. T. Gucwa...
Resident Inspector l
Chief Nuclear Engineer Nuclear. Regulatory _. Commission i
Georgia' Power Company-P. 0. Box 572' L'
P.O. Box 4545 Waynesboro~, Georgia. 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30302-q
.)
.Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Deppish; Kirkland, IIIFCounsel'
'Vice President - Licensing Office of'the Consumers'. Utility
- l
-Vogtle Project
. Council
. Georgia Power Company /
Suite;225-1 i
Southern Company Services, Inc.
32 Peachtree Street, N.W.'.
J
.P.O. Box 2625
--Atlanta, Georgia 30303' Birmingham, Alabama 35202 James E. Joiner 1
Mr. Paul D. Rice Troutman, Sanders, Locke.rman, L
.Vice President & Pro' ject General Manager -
&.Ashmore Georgia Power Company Candler Building Post Office Box 299A, Route 2' 127'Peachtree Street, N.E.
Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 i
Danny Feig 1
Mr. J. A. Bailey 1130 Alta - Avenue.
Project Licensing Manager Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Southern Company Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 2625.
Carol Stangler Binningham, Alabama 35202 Georgians Against Nuclear Energy 425 Euclid Terrace.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30307f Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge i
2300 N Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20037 Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.
~
Vogtle Plant Mana'er g
Georgia Power Company Route 2, Box 299-A q
Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 s
Regional Administrator,. Region II i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900-Atlanta,_ Georgia 30323 Mr. R. E. Conway Senior Vice President and-Project Director Georgia Power Company Rt. 2, P..O. Box 299A Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 7;
_ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ -