ML20245H209
| ML20245H209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1989 |
| From: | Ernst M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8902220234 | |
| Download: ML20245H209 (4) | |
Text
,
~ h l}
gg 0 7 1989 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulation FROM:
Malcolm L. Ernst, Acting Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT (VEGP), UNIT 2 (DN 50-425) -
LOW POWER LICENSE RECOMMENDATION This memorandum provides a Region II assessment and recommendation for issuance of a low power operating license for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),
Unit 2.
This recommendation is based on assessments of plant status and applicant activities as described in Enclosure 1.
Georgia Power Company (GPC) has certified that VEGP, Unit 2 is designed, constructed, and tested in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations Title 10, P-ts 20, 50, 51 and 100 as detailed in Enclosure 2.
GPC submitted its seismic qualification and environmental qualification:
Statement of completion letters as shown in and 4.
GPC has requested a low power operating license by a letter dated January 31, 1989, as shown in Enclosure 5.
GPC updated their request on February 7, 1989, as shown in Enclosure 6.
As-built inspections by both NRC construction and operational readiness inspectors have found the facility to be complete and in conformance with the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Safety Evaluation Report, and Technical Specifications.
No issues were identified that would indicate that a low power license should not be issued.
NRC inspection effort at VEGP, Unit I has been over 41,138 NRC direct inspection hcurs.
Much of the inspection effort for Unit 1 is equally applicable to Unit 2.
NRC inspection effort at VEGP has been over 10,854 NRC direct inspection hours in the construction program and in excess of 2,653 NRC direct inspection hours in-the preoperational testing, operational readiness, and startup testing programs for Unit 2.
Additionally, for the readiness review 9,358 inspection hours for Unit 1 and 2,954 inspection hours for Unit 2 were expended.
The Construction Inspection Program Manual Chapter (MC) 2512 has been completed.
All Preoperational Testing Program MC 2513 items and Startup Testing Program MC 2514 items necessary for fuel load and initial criticality have been comp 1 ted.
Included in this assessment were the following team inspections:
Quality Concerns Program, Construction Appraisal Team, Independent Design Review, Non-destructive examination, and Appendix R.
VEGP, Unit 2 is essentially identical to Unit 1 and all plant procedures were in place for Unit 1.
A procedure team inspection found that all procedures were in place for Unit 2 with only minor changes required. These changes have been completed.
VEGP will be using combined Units 1/2 technical specifications.
The regional office staff has reviewed a draft of the technical specification and the resident inspectors conducted reviews and walkdowns of the final draft. Minor comments have been incorporated and the TSs were found acceptable. The initial fuel load and initial criticality procedures have been reviewed and fourd w-32o)
'. 6 Thomas E. Murley 2
pgaOf E9 acceptable.
All TMI Action items and NRC Bulletins have been closed or found acceptable for fuel load.
There are no open allegations for Unit 2 and three allegations-for Unit 1.
All technical issues have been resolved concerning the Unit 1 allegations.
There is only one Unit 1 enforcement issue that remains to be resolved. This issue is an 01 investigation of a security matter involving potential willful coverup, and the staff's initial conclusion is that the evidence dcas not warrant additional enforcement action.
Also, there are two pend"c 01 investigations for which all field work has been completed. The final reports are in the 01 review process.
Briefing by 01 on these matters indicates there will be no further action required.
Region 11 staff was asked in Regional Office Notice 0502 dated October 19, 1988, to bring any issues which could impact licensing of VEGP Unit 2 to the atte.ition of their division directors.
No issues were identified.
The Region II, Division Directors inspected the facility on January 10, 1989.
A Division Director panel reviewed the module completion, open items list, status of licensee letter of completion, SALP evaluation, enforcement history, staff query, 01 investigation, allegations, and any outstanding items or.
January 11, 1989.
The panel recommend an operating license based upon satisfactorily resolution of the open items at that time.
All items have now been resolved.
These above items form the basis for this recommendation. Additionally, other initiatives by the licensee which add to this assessment include:
The licensee has conducted a " lesson learned" program to incorporate the resolution of problems experienced in Unit 1.
A total of 3236 " lessons learned items'.' were formally tracked and incorporated.
This effort has helped lower the reject rate and improve the overall quality.
This was evident by the reduced number of NRC open items and licensee QA items.
GPC performed a readiness program for VEGP Unit 1 and Unit 2.
The program was a systematic and disciplined review of the implementation of design, construction, and operational readiness processes to increase the level of assurance that quality programs at Vogtle were accomplished in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Work activities were divided into modules.
Twenty-two modules were performed for Unit 1.
Module 22 was an independent design review of the design process and design adequacy performed by Stone and Webster Engineering Company.
For Unit 2 eleven modules were performed which incorporated " lessons learned" from Unit 1.
The NRC participated in the readiness review program with Region 11 performing review and inspection of the modules with Headquarters concurrence.
In general, the NRC inspectors found that GPC reviews had identified licensing problems and instituted corrective actions that would
)
have potentially been discovered much later without the readiness review.
j J
KB 0 7 W Thomas E. Murley 3
I The licensee has an aggressive employee quality concern program for j
identification of quality concerns.
This program is believed responsible
'i for keeping the number of allegation to the NRC to a minimum. Three NRC inspections and a third party audit for GPC of the program have found the i
program well supported by GPC management.
Since licensing of Unit 1, all ten training programs have been certified q
by INP0.
The licensee has certified the plant specific simulator. These items and the use of experienced Unit 1 operators for Unit 2 should provide a more experienced operations staff for startup.
In conformance with past practice, the Region 11 staff will augment its routine inspection effort. during evolutions such as initial fuel loads, initial criticality, and zero power testing to ensure the licensee is carrying out activities in a deliberate and safe manner.
At this time, I find that the construction of VEGP, Unit 2, has been substan-tially completed in accordance with Construction Permit CPPR-109, the VEPG FSAR, and NRC regulatory requirements.
I also find that the licensee is capable of operating the plant safely at low power.
I further find that the applicant has conducted staff training and has developed suitable procedures to oper. ate the facility in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Sincerely, Malcolm L. Ernst Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
VEGP, Unit 2, USNRC, Region II Assessment of Plant Completion and Operational Readiness 2.
GPC Letter dated January 17, 1989, P. D. Rice to USNRC, " Certification to Requirements of 10 CFR 20, 50, 51, and 100."
3.
GPC Letter dated January 30, 1989 Seismic Qualification: Statement of Completion 4.
GPC Letter dated January 30, 1989 Environmental qualification:
Statement of Completion 5.
GPC Letter dated January 31, 1989 Statement of Completion and Request for Low Power Operating License 6.
GPC Letter dated February 7, 1989, Update of Statement of Completion and Request for Low Power Operating License cc w/er.cls:
(See page 4)
. {..s Thomas E. Murley 4
FEB 0 7 889 cc w/encis:
J. Hopkins, NRR D. Matthews, NRR bec w/encls:
Document Control Desk State of Georgia l
RII RII RII Ril O Sinkule IHerdt bkReyes N
CPatterson C#02/,/89 2/m /89 2/9/89 2/,/89 I
i l
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _