ML20147B012

Ack Receipt of 871026 & 1125 Supplemental Responses to Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-424/87-35.Responses Discussed at 871209 Meeting in Atlanta,Ga.Meeting Summary & List of Attendees Encl

ML20147B012
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	01/05/1988
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8801150124
Download: ML20147B012 (5)

See also: IR 05000424/1987035

Text

,

/1

,

.' . ado

JAN 0 51988

Docket No. 50-424

License No. NPF-68

Georgia Power Company

ATTN: Mr. James P. O'Reilly

Senior Vice President-

Nuclear Operations

P. O. Box 4545

Atlanta, GA 30302

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-424/87-35

Thank you for your supplemental responses of October 26, and November 25, 1987,

concerning activities conducted at your Vogtle facility.

The supplemental responses were discussed during a meeting at your Atlanta,

Georgia office. A summary of the meeting and a list of attendees are enclosed.

It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial and led to a better

understanding by the NRC of your responses. It should also lead to

improvements in your responses to the NRC.

We will examine your corrective actions during a future inspection. Your

cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

J. Nelson Grace

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Meeting Summary I

w/ Attachment

l

cc w/ encl: (See page 2)

I

8801150124 880105

PDR

I

0

ADOCK 05000424 /ll 1

DCD I lc e! l

-

.

.

-

. .

Georgia Power Company 2

cc w/ enc 1:

P. D. Rice, Vice President, Project

Director

C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality

Assurance Manager

G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager,

Nuclear Operations

L. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety

and Licensing

J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing

Manager

B. W. Churchill, Esq., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge

D. Kirkland, III, Counsel,

Office of the Consumer's Utility

Council

D. Feig, Georgians Against

Nuclear Energy

bec w/ encl:

E. Reis OGC

M. Miller, NRR

M. Sinkule, RII

DRS Technical Assistant

NRC Resident Inspector

Document Control Desk

State of Georgia

?

I

/ ,

g gf

MSinkule.LReyes

RWeddington CHosey 111ns JPS thhr , in

12/ 87

12/f6/87 12//7/87 12h M 87 12/jj/87 12/ 8- 12p87 l[3dT

.. _ . _ .

.

-

, ,'

.

I

ENCLOSURE

<

Meeting Sumary

-

Licensee: Georgia Power Company

Facility: Vogtle

Docket No.: 50-424

Subject: Georgia Power Company's (GPC's) October 26, 1987,

Supplemental Response to Violation 50-424/87-35-01 and

November 25, 1987, clarification of their July 23, 1987,

response to Violation 50-424/87-35-02

,

A meeting was held at Georgia Power Company's Corporate office in Atlanta,

Georgia on December 9,1987, to discuss Georgia Power Company's October 26,

1987, supplemental response to Violation 50-424/87-35-01 and their November 25,

. 1987, clarification of their July 23, 1987, response to

,

Violation 50-424/87-35-02. The attendance list is attached.

a

l Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-35, issued on June 23, 1987, contained a

violation for failure to perform an adequate startup shield verification

l survey. The licensee stated in their July 23, 1987, response to the violation

that Startup Test procedure 1-600-15, Radiological Shield Survey had been

changed to include the survey methodology of ANSI /ANS 6.3.1-1980. During tha

week of August 31,1987 (Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-52) an inspector

conducting an ensite inspection attempted to verify '.he implementation of the

licensee's stated corrective actions. Licensee representatives stated that the

procedure change had not been made but had been incluced in a pre-job briefing

j instead. During the exit interview or September 4, the . inspector stated that

i

the plant staff had informed him that de procedure change had not been made.

Licensee management did not dispute this finding and stated that there had been

an oversight and lack of attention to detail. The September 24, 1987, NRC

letter transmitting Inspection Report No. 50-424/87-52 contained a paragraph

stating the NRC's concern that the licensee had failed to take full corrective

actions for the violation and requested a supplemental response.

The licensee responded in a letter dated October 26, 1987, by stating that a

procedure change had been made and the discrepancy between the NRC findings and

their documentation appears to have resulted from a misunderstanding when the

referenced change was reviewed by the NRC.

During the meeting NRC representatives stated that it appeared that the '

licensee's response did not fully reflect the facts as they actually occurred i

since the licensee had told the inspector during the inspection there was no i

procedure change and the inspector's statements at the exit interview and other

meetings with the licensee during the inspection were not disputed. Licensee

.

..

Enclosure 2

3

representatives stated that the procedure change was available during the

inspection and they thought it had been reviewed by the inspector. NRC

representatives emphasized the importance of making information known to the

inspector, especially when the absence of that information had been

specifically raised as an issue.

The licensee's October 26, 1987, response also stated that they had decided not

to extrapolate low dose rates measured at low power levels to estimate the

radiation levels to be encountered at full ,ower and the fact that

extrapolation was unnecessary was discussed witn the NRC inspector during the

visit of August 31-September 4, 1987, and no questions were raised. During the

inspection of August 31 - September 4, 1987, the inspector had raised the issue

that there was no documentation of the evaluation performed after the

50 percent survey which provided the bases for elimination of survey points for

the 100 percent power survey, NRC representatives stated that it appeared that

the licensee's position that extrapolations wre unnecessary was inconsistent

since the licensee had used extrapolations aa the bases for elimination of

survey points. Contrary to the GPC letter of October 2 6,1987, this issue was

discussed by the inspector and documented in Inspection Report

No. 50-424/87-52, j

NRC representatives discussed the documentation of the licensee's shield  !

surveys that was reviewed during the inspection the week of August 31, 1987, by l

the inspector and NRC management. Licensee representatives stated annotations i

to the original survey records were made several months after the surveys were

completed by restructuring the original survey with those personnel who had

performed the reasurements. This action was taken in response to the NRC

concerns that the bases for elimination of survey points wasn't adequately

documented and anomalies in the data explained. NRC representatives stated

that improvements in documentation of the shield survey were needed.

NRC representatives discussed the licensee's letter of November 25, 1987, which

clarified their July 23, 1987, response to Violation 50-424/87-35-02 which

concerned failure to adequately document radiological deficiencies. The

licensee's July 23 response stated that their Procedure 00150-C, Deficiency

Control, had been changed to clarify the proper treatment of radiological

deficiencies and that plant personnel had been trained on the procedure

revision. An onsite inspection during the week of November 2,1987, noted

that only health physics technicians had been trained on the procedure change.

The licensee's response stated that they had intended "plant p: esonnel" to mean

appropriate health physics personnel and not all plant personnel. NRC

representatives stated that it was determined during the inspection (Report No.

50-424/87-61) that there was a continuing problem with failure document

problens and that training beyond just the health physics group was indicated.

Licensee representatives stated that additional training had been performed and

other actions had been taken that were not described in their response to

Violation 50-424/87-35-02. However, the corrective actions had been provided

to the NRC in response to coucerns with the plant's deficiency reporting system

raised by other NRC personnel. They stated that they would inform the NRC of

other GPC letters to the NRC that addressed this issue,

"

• *

, ,

's: .

ATTACHMENT

Meeting Attendees

,

Georgia Power Company

L. Gucwa, Nuclear Licensing Manager

W. Burns, Vogtle Licensing Coordinator

S. Ewald, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager, Plant Vogtle

M. Puckett, Nuclear Licensing Assistant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

D. Collins, Chief. Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch '

(EPRP), Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)

C. Hosey, Chief, Facilities Radiation Protection Section, EPRP, DRSS

M. Sinkule, Chief, Projects Section 3B, ivision of Reactor Projects

R. Weddington, Senior Radiation Specialist, EPRP, DRSS

!

I

i

l

ll