IR 05000280/1980037
| ML18139B085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139B084 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-80-37, 50-280-80-38-01, 50-281-80-41, 50-338-80-34, 50-339-80-32, NUDOCS 8102230874 | |
| Download: ML18139B085 (18) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
. 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Rep6rt Nos.: 50-280/80-37, 50-281/80-41, 50-338/80-34~ and 50-339/80-32 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 32361 Facility Name: North Anna and Surry Docket No~. 50-338, 50-339, 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. NFP-4, NFP"".7, DPR-32 and DPR-37 Meeting at VEPCO Corporate Offices, Richmond, VA Attending Personnel: ret:ils Approved by: £. C,
~~
- R. C. Lewis; Acting Chief, RONS Branch SUMMARY Meeting conducted October 8, 1980 z/z/81 Date.Signed This special, announced management meeting was conducted to discuss the results of. NRC' s-evaluation of VEPCO' s regulatory performance as concluded in the System-atic As.sessment of. Licensee Performance (SALP) progra Results A summary of the licensee performance evaluation was presented.. Areas of concern were discussed with corporate management. VEPCO' s performance. is considered to be accept,able although two areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis.
. s102230~1t/.
DETAILS Personnel Attending Meeting Virginia Electric and Power Company B. R. Sylvia, Manager, Nuclear O&M J. T. Rhodes, Manager Nuclear Technical Services E. A. Baum, Executive Mgr., Licensing and QA W. L. Stewart, Director O&M Services W.R. Cartwright, Station Manager, NAPS J. L. Wilson, Station Manager, Surry E. R. Smith, Director, Safety Evaluation Nuclear Regulatory Commission F. J. Long, Acting Deputy Director, Region II R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch P. J. Kellogg, Chief, RPS #3, RONS Branch L.B. Engle, Project Manager, NRR J. D. Neighbors, Project Manager, NRR NRC Resident Inspector E. H. Webster D. J. Burke M. Davis A. Tattersall Areas Discussed A brief summary of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) was presented to include the basis for the evaluation and its purpose.. The results of the SALP evaluation of the licensee's performance were discusse VEPCO's performance to date is considered acceptable; al-though two areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis by the NR The SALP evaluations are contained in Enclosures 1 through 3 to this repor Items, of concern were discussed with corporate management to include those* areas where the NRC considers additional licensee management attention may be* warrante The licensee indicated concerns in the following areas: Increased workload on licensed operators due to changes being made as a result of TMI may become detrimental to safe operation These changes in plant operation and training requirements are requiring operators to spend more than a reasonable amount of time in training to comply with these requirement *
-2-Requiring senior operators to have an engineering degree may reduce plant operating experience leve The vast majority of personnel having a degree are not interested in a long term commitment to shift work and will normally move on to a non- '
shift work position after one to two year Requiring senior operators to obtain a degree may cause a reduction in plant operating experience due to this tendency to look *upon shift work as undesirabl These areas have been brought to NRC management attention and will continue to receive close monitoring by NRC management to ensure safety of operation is not reduced below an acceptable level.
Enclosure 1 SYSTEMATIC-ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
1-1 UTILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Utility: Virginia Electric and Power Company Uni ts :
North Anna 1, 2 Surry 1, 2 Region II North Anna 3, 4 (No construction activity ~uring audit.period.)
Appraisal Period: April 1,. 1979* - August 31, 1980 Review Board Members::*
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branca P. J. Kellogg, Chief Reactor Projects Section 3 C. M. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear. Support Section 2 A. Dromerick,. Licensing Project Manager NRR L. Engles,. Licensing Project Manager NRR*
D. Neighbors*, Licensing Project Manager NRR*
- By Telephone
- Backgroun SALP evaluations*. for:- each: site were. generated as prerequisites to. the* NRC-identi-fying the general performance: level of each utility with an. NRC license.. These evaluations: are forwarded to. aa interoffice review board. formed of senior members from alL Offices; of the:-NRC involved. in.. licensed activities. The board will, by virtue of. receiving all SALE evaluations.>, form.. a. national. perspective of licensee perfo:cmance.. Addi:tiona*ll.y, the evaluations. will provide a means for highlighting areas. of NRC:-programs that may* require* changes or redirection-.
In developing. thee site evaluation& it was,. determined that. an. overall evaluation.,
of the utility's perfo:cmance in its. nuclear activities was desirable.. Additional'
enclosures: document. the. individual. site:* evaluation The utility and site evaluations were presented in a* meeting with senior corporate-management in order to provide* the decision. makers, of. each utility with. the*
NRC' s; evaluation. of* its overall. performance in nuclear activitie Areas of Good Performance VEPCO is generall.y* responsive*. to NRC regulations and to findings of noncom-plianc Corporate, and. site*reorganizations have-occurred~ :These changes should improve:management attention to the sites. These organizations have already demonstrated improved ons;Lte communication The reorganizations included a split of nuclear and fossil managers at the corporate level up to the executive vice presiden Additional management positions at. the sites-, and related personnel changes have improved management controls at the site Areas. Where Improved. Performance is Warranted VEPCO has: had. several. cases of commitments to NRC not being accomplished by*
the due dates.. Their corporate commitment tracking system has been upgraded..
Improvement in-this area is expecte Many items reported as LER's appear to be avoidable if more attention were given. to. closely* monitoring. operating. trends and thereby being able to take--
corrective action, prior to-entering a Limiting Condition for Operation Action. statement-Additionall.y '" prompt. issuance: of procedural. changes could avoid Technical Specification violations that occur. due to tjie-use of procedures containing-outdated 1.imit These areas appear to -have been degraded. due t*o the-increased staff workloads required by IK Bulletins. and changing-, requirements:..
C:.,
OveralL Evaluation:*
VEPCO is-,. in * general", responsive, to NRC. requirements*, findings* of noncompliance*,
and. information-requests from. the NR VEPCO' s reliance* on subcontractors:
and. their Architect~Engineers is detrimental. sometimes* to* their: providing; rapid.responses: to:NRC concei:ns'. althougJt: they apparently make a good effor to do so.. Their performance is evaluated to be slightly below-average: fo Region. II.-
Howeve:c,. their reorganization. appears to be improving their performance-... A continuation:, of. this up_trend. is expecte Enclosure, SYSTEMATIC: ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR-
. NORTH*.ANNA. UNITS: 1 AND 2*
'-.-
- 2~1 LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Facility:
North Anna Power Station Licensee:
Virginia. Electric and.Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No~
50-338 50-339 Reactor Information NSSS::
MWr License No./Date of Issuance NPF-4/November 26, 1977 NPF;;..7 / April 11, 1980 Unit 1 Westinghouse*
2775 Region II Unit N Unit Westinghouse*
277S
2 Appraisal Period:: May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980. These dates were used. to provide a. comparable basis. for all. op.erating reactors in Region II. Significant events or enforcement items* occw:ring: after these dates were considered. in arriving at the indicatedi conc~usions~
Appra:isal Completion: Date::'. September-19, 1980 Review Board Members::_
R. c_ Lewis - Acting Chief, RONS Branch P. Kellogg:- Chief, Reactor Projects Section_ 3 A. Dromerick - Licensing Project Manager L-Engles - Licensing Project Manager (By telephone on 9/4)
A. Johnson: - Proj,ect Coordinator:
E. Webster - Senior Resident Inspector (By telephone)
M*. Kidd* - Past Senior Resident Inspector (By telephone, on:. 9 / 4) Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items WoncompLiance Category:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Violations
0 Infractions
5 Deficiencies
0 Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 1 Unit 2 (List Areas as Required)
(Points)
(Points)
Reporting 2 Procedures
0 Security
0 Training
0 Plant Operation
30 Revie Administration 16-O*
Quality'Assw:ance 108
Surveillance-
0 Desig Total Points 310*
100 The board considered the* number of noncompliance items in the: quality assur.-
. ance area.* as. significant. but not. indicative of poor performance. This is an_ average result. of the-inspections performed by the quality assurance group. at all. Region. IT facilities-utilizing the team concept. Future inspec:--
tion. results in. this.. area,. compared with. these. results, will. be more indica:-
tive: 0£ both. re1-ative and. absolute performanc Additionall.y, it was: noted that. an increased potential for noncompliance may*
be observed' during. the: startup period of Unit 2. Significant differences, in the Technical Specifications, between: the two units may result. in. operator confusion and misunderstanding* of: some-specifications. This may also lead to increased LER' s in. the area of surveillanc The number of items concerning surveillances. on Unit 1 is attributed to the unit completing its; first refueling. outage*. Many problems are associated. with the first. performance. of some surveillances.
B *.
Number and Nature-of Licensee Event Reports:
Type: of. Events.::*
Personnel. Error Design
_
Defective Procedure Casual. Events: - Linked:
Component Failure-Other Unit 2 23*
7 6c-
25 Uni Licensee*. Event Reports Reviewed. (Report Nos. ).
Unit 1 LERs 79-48 through 80-37 (143 reports)
No Unit 2 LERs during this perio The board's review of LERs identified three areas worthy of mentio These areas are* secondary steam generator chemistry controls, instrumentation, and electrical problem In. the steam. generator chemistry controls area. it was noted that excessive tube corrosion had occurred. during the first operating* cycle-apparently due to resin intrusions and the failure to recognize the effects of this problem~
The*licensee is closely monitoring this problem area and we* would expect no further problems of this type*.
In the* area of electrical problems. associated with. the emergency dieseL generators, the 0 licensee has, been successful in identifying and correcting the problem With respect to solid state* protection system and individual rod position indication: drift, these* problems appear-to be-comparable to* other plants with similar equipmen Escalated Enforcement Actions:.
Civil: Penalties Non Orders None-*. *
Immediate: Action Letters:
February-26*,. 1980. -* concerning-testing-, and report of abnormalities-of loose pa,rts.: insid*e-* the reactor coolant system:... Westinghouse-recommendation were-carried out prior to,. and: during: power operation of: Unit. Management Conferences, Held. During Past Twelve Months None~. F. **
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency/Scope (See evaluation sheets)
Item 16* -The, area of quality control. is recommended for increased. inspection frequency*..
This** area-has just been. taken over by VEPCO from a contractor fo:c:: bot,h. U'Jnts;. at North. Anna. an&,. as: such,, is a new. progranr.... Earl.y inspection:
in this;. are~ should: provide valuable:.. input to, this;- program,~
C-omparison:: of Unit l. With. Unit. 2 A. comparison.: "of: Unit 2 preoperational and startup programs-with.Unit 1 indicates slightly improved performance: on: Unit 2.. This. smal1 improvement is less ~n normal1y expected for. a second unit with dual. licensed operator i
2-4 The reason. for the. only sl:i,ght improvement appears to be caused by the differences-in. Technical Specification. between. the unit Unit 2 has more*
restrictive specifications than Unit Further improvement. in Unit 2 operations, is expected during the. first cycle of operation Overall Evaluation The licensee's performance of licensed activities is considered to be acceptabl Problems identified during the appraisal period are not considered to be abnormal for a facility's fir.st year of operation or for unit conducting* preoperational and startup test program The* licensee. i generally* responsive to NRC findings and. requests fo:c. informatio The licensee's: performance* is. evaluated* to be average as compared to other Region II plant Appendix A - Functional. Area Appendix B - Action.. Plan (Internal Use Only)
'... *
8.
..
1.
13-.
1.
1.
Appendix A 2~A-T FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operalions)
FUNCTIONAL AREA Management Control Plant Operations Ref~eling Operations and Activities Maintenance
-
Surveillance and Preoperational Testing Training Radiation Protection Environmental Protection Emergency Planning Fire* Protection Security and Safeguards Design Changes and Modifications Reporting QA Audits Committee Activities Quality Control Procurement Inspection Frequency and/or Scope Increase No. Change Decrease X
X X
X'
X X
X' X X
X X
-
X X'
y-X
~-C~
r I\\ J-
~
--. *--;.
~.,,~
"*
(BRANCH CHIEF)
I z./zt;/80 (DATE)
- Enclosure 3 SYSTEMATIC.ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR SURRY POWER. STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 *
3-1 Licensee Performance Evaluation (Operations)
Facility:
Surry Power Station Licensee:
Virginia Electric and*Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket N Reactor Information License No. /Date of* Issuance*
DPR-32/May 25,. 197 DPR-37/January 29, 1973 Unit 1 Westinghouse, 244:t Region II Unit No *.
Unit 2 Westinghouse*
2441
2
- .
Appraisal. Period: May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980. * These dates were used to provide-a: comparable-basis for all operating reactors in Region II. Significant events or enforcement items. occurring after these. dates were considered in ar-riving at: the-indicated: conciusion&-
Appraisal. Completion Date-:: September* 14,. 1980 *
Review:Board,Members:
R *. c::.. Lewis,. Acting-Chief, RON$ Branch:
D *. Burke*,. Senior Resident. Inspector (Telephone)
c.*. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear Support Section //2 A *. Johnson,,.. Project Coordinator P. Kellogg,, Chief~. Reactor Projects: Section. 3 D~ N"eighbo*rs.,. Licensing:: Proj"ect Manager (Contacted by telephone for input *on September 3.,,. 1980) Number* and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance: category::
Violations; Infractions:
Deficiencies~-
Unit 1 "
s:.
Unit 2 *
Areas. of Noncompliance:.
(List.l\\reas as.Required)
Maintenance*
Security Plant Operation Fire Protection Radiation Protection Quality Assurance Surveillance* Pre-op Testing Design and Modifications TOTAL. POINTS*
Unit 1 (Points)
22
10
22
10 210 Unit 2 (Points)
30 1 The board in its deliberation of noncompliance items reviewed the results of previous regional audits,: and concluded that no adverse trends with respect to noncompliance. are indicate The board reached the general conclusioIL that. Surry has. been. responsive to NRC. regulations. and. to.finding of noncomplianc The, recent reorganization at. the corporate and site levels appear to be providing increased responsiveness to regional concerns *
Additional items which the board considered in recommending * the enclosed ac.tioIL plan:. are.- the recent startup program on. Unit 2; attention to operating trends;* and attention. to new systems operation and procedures.. Specifically, it was,: the. board's; determinatioIL that~ a:. majority: of the* problems associate with: the: Unit 2 startup might have-been: precluded by-the: implementation* of an. improved preoperational. test progra Several items reported*. in. LERs-as* operating in* degraded modes,. such. as-boric acid concentrations* being out of. specification, appeared to be *
avoidable if. more* attention was given to reviewing, operating* trends. and correcting.procedural deficiencies;. Several items stemming from conducting operations OIL revised/new. systems. without. revised or new procedures appeared to be avoidabl Closei: attention is. recommended for these areas. for a plant recovering: from a:. maj oi: maintenance outage*.- Number-and Nature* of Licensee Event Reports Type of Events :
Eersonnel errors:
Design Defee.ti ve procedures-:-
Component failure'.
Casually- - linked", event Other Unit. 1
18.
Unit..
0
.I'
Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report Nos.)
Unit 1 LERs 79-12 through. 80-20 (48 Reports)
Unit 2 LERs 79-11 through_S0-1 (4 Reports)
It was noted during this review that many LERs were the result of violating revised: limit In some cases, the revised limits stemming from T. changes were not promptly transferred into procedural changes resulting in the-out-of-specification readings. In other cases, the revised limits were taxing the capabilities of the installed instrumentation (i.e., maximum limits very close* to minimum limits on tanks levels). It was felt the-licensee was. making* a determined effort to identify these types of items and correct them:.. However,_ the staff workload required by IE Bulletins and changing. requirements has adversely impacted these corrective effort Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties May 14, 1980 - $8,000 based on a_radioactive shipment on April 14, 1980, which was not properly surveye Orders Show Cause-Orders issued March 13, 1979,- suspending facility operation pending seismic:. reanalysis:: and necessary-modification of large bore-safety-related piping were-effective* for* both: Units. l and These Orders were issued before* the. period covered by this audi On August 22, 1979, the Order was. lifted for Unit I and on March 2T, 1980, the-Order _was' lifted* for Unit 2*.
Immediate-Action:Letter$
December 2I, 1979, - concerning inspection. and testing. requirements for large- - bore-Bergen.-:Paterson.. shock and sway arrestors. on. Unit 1 prior t restart of plan September T, 1979 concerning seismic reanalysis for smaller pipe-and hangers to be completed on Unit 1 following the lifting of the Show Cause Order of.- March. 13, 1979.-
This IAL generally dealt with IE Bulletins 79-02 and. 79-14-.
D~
Management Conferences-Held During Past Twelve Months J"anuary-30, 1980 - at IE:RII concerning;_ investigation.. prompted by* allegations fr.om.* two operators:,. who had. damaged new-fuel at the power. statio April 30-=,. 1980 ~ at ll:RII concerning; inadequate radiological. surveillance*
conducted on a shipment to. Barnwell,. S Notice of Violation transmitted May 28, 1980 levied an $8,000 civil penaJ.t.r Justification 0£ Evaluation_ of Functional. Areas Categorized as Requiring aa Increase in. Inspection Frequency/Scope (See Evaluation Sheets).
Item.2.. - Plant Operations*-* Increased inspection frequency is recommended for this area due to the restart-.of Unit 2 following the major maintenance outage* and the problems that may be experienced due to the length of the outag This will be* accomplished by the* resident inspectors devoting* a major portion of their inspection effort toward this area until the Unit 2 startup program is finished and the-identified problems resolve Comparison of Unit 1 With Unit 2 A. c-0mparison, of Unit-I (in operation) with Unit 2 (in a steam. generator repair outage* (SGRP) is not useful fo~- the period of this evaluatio Unit 2 had*. a greater heal.th physics work load during the outage.. Subsequently more* items were identified. with. respect to that activity. As Unit 1 progresses through their SGRP, which will begin during the* next audit period, an appropriate comparison. will be availabl Overall Evaluation The licensee's performance of licensed activities is considered to be acceptable..
Problems identified during the appraisal period were primarily associated with the: steam generator repair outage. which was the first.of a kind. in the industry_ The* licensee's * performance* is evaluated as being well. below average during: th~ period appraised*.. There* has.0 been, a: marked:. *
improvement in. management-controls, and the* regional inspections: identify continuing improved performanc Appendix.. A:. Functional. Areas; Appendix: B*:: Action.. :elan:..*: (.ln ternal Use Only)
.
....
Appendix A
'
<
_,*'
3... A-T
- --
. FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Freouency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase-No. Change Decrease-Management Control X
-
2~-
Plant Operation X
.. Refuel;ng Operations &. Activities X
. Maintenance-X 5*.
Survei 1 lance:,&,. Preope.ratfonal Testing_
-
X
' Training_
X Radiation Protection X
8.. Environmental Protection I
X I
9. fmergency Plann.ing
..
X. -
l re. Protection X
--
..
ll. Security &: Sa.feguards,
.
x-
~_fgn ChangeS, & ModiHcat;ons X
13~
Reporting X'
1 QA~ Audits X:
1 Co11111ittee-Act.iv.ities
,.*.
X 1 Quality Control
-.
X 1 Procurement X
'
...
ec.~,
,
'. I*.a....____.........:.....
~
(Branch'-* Cnief)_~. '. :~
-*---
-
*~....... ---... -~ -
12./z~/eo Date-
-
..
.
.
... :.. *
- *.... ::*~-~-~--- -.,..._,_
__.,...... ~-4***---... _.