IR 05000395/1996099

Refers to 961216 Meeting Re NRC SALP Rept 50-395/96-99,dtd 961206,for Plant.List of Attendees & SALP Presentation Encl

ML20141G199
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	06/25/1997
From:	Belisle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Gabe Taylor SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
References
50-395-96-99, NUDOCS 9707030326
Preceding documents:	ML20198T487 (17 April 1997)
Download: ML20141G199 (12)

Text

-. . - ~ . - - - . . - . . . . - . - . . ~ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . - - . . - -. .

'

,

l

.. .o

.

i l

l June 25,1997

I South Carolina Electric & Gas Company l ATTN: Mr. Gary Vice President. Nuclear Operations Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

'P. O. Box 88.

Jenkinsville, SC 29065 SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY - SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE V. C. SUMMER DOCKET N0. 50 395

.

Dear Mr. Taylor:

i This' refers to the December 16, 1996, meeting held to discuss the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for your V. C. Summer facility. Our report. 50 395/96 99, dated December 6, 1996, had been previously sent to you. Enclosure 1 contains a list of attendees and l Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the SALP presentation. '

In accordance with Section 2.790(a) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

No reply to this letter is required; however, if you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us. -

Sincerely,

!

'

Original signed by George A. Belisle George A. Belisle. Chief Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50 395 License Nos. NFP 12 Enclosures: 1. List of Attendees 2. SALP Presentation cc w/encis. (See page 2)

\

9707030326 970625 (

PDR ADOCK 05000395 e PM ,

• '

,!!fff aer

. . , . _ _ - _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ . . ~ . .

'

I

.

,

,

)

i SCE&G~ 2 l

l cc w/er.cls: l R.'J. White 1 Nuclear Coordinator (Mail Code 802) )

S.C. Public Service Authority '

c/o Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station P. O. Box 88

,

Jenkinsville, SC 29065 J. B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.

Winston and Strawn-1400 L Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20005 3502 Chairman Fairfield County Council P. O. Drawer 60 Winnsboro, SC 29180 Virgil R. Autry, Director Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of' Solid and Hazardous Waste Management S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control .,

2600 Bull Street .

i Columbia, SC 29201 R. M. Fowlkes, Manager  ;

Operations (Mail Code 303)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer' Nuclear Station P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 April Rice, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Operating Ex wrience (Mail Code 830)

Sout1 Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 290r Distribution w/encls: See page 3 l.

l

[

!

i

!

V . . - -- . -

.- -.

. .-. - - - . - - . - - . - - -.-...~ .. . _ . - - - - . . - . .

,-

],

. .

SCE&G 3 Distribution w/encisi r L. Garner, RII

, 'A. Johnson, NRR R. Gibbs, RII

!. P..Fillion, RII .j

!. D.-Jone.s RII-  ;

W. Stansberry RII

.

'

R.'Aiello, RII PUBLIC

i <

l l l

a i

i '. ,

!

i

!

a i

'

.

i

l

"

r

,

l4 3 1

'

l

'

i i

l i

.

t

4

,

f*

'0FFICE RIf:0RP

$1GNATIRE [k NAME LGarner alt DATE % /gaf / 97 06 / / 97 06 / ' / 97 06 / / 97 06 / /b M/ / 97 COPY 7 @' NO YES NO YE$ NO YES NO YES NO YES NO UFlIGI& EcLUKU LUVT UULUMLNi NAM , G:\MT5UPMT1.5UM

.

_J

- .. _

. .

i LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC Attendees:

S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)

J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII F. Reinhart, Acting Director, Project Directorate II 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation G. Belisle, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 5, DRP, RII B. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector Summer Nuclear Station R. Hannah, Public Affairs Officer, RII Licensee Attendees:

W. Timmerman, President, SCANA L. Gressette, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, SCANA J. Skolds, President South Carolina Electric & Gas Com]any (SCE&G)

M. Chaplin, Vice President, Generation, South Carolina )ublic Service Authority (SCPSA)

R. White, SCPSA Representative, Nuclear Coordinator G. Taylor, Vice President, Nuclear Operations Division S. Byrne, General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operation D. Lavigne, General Manager, Nuclear Support Services B. Williams, General Manager, Engineering Services T. Taylor, General Manager, Engineering Services (INP0 loanee)

K. Nettles, General Manager, Strategic Planning and Development Local Official Attendees:

J. Jesse, South Carolina De3artment of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)

W. Corley, South Carolina DiEC W. Huckins, South Carolina Emergency Preparedness Division G. Sox, Richland County Emergency Preparedness (EP)

T. Barber, Newberry County EP W. Frick, Fairfield County N. Ellis, Lexington County M. Kirkland, Fairfield County -

\

ENCLOSURE 1 i

- --__ __ -

. .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSISON

/4 47

%

E SYSTEM ATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (S AL P)

V. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT APPRAIS AL PERIOD: J ANUARY 29, 1995 THRO UG H OCTOBER 26, 1996 PRESENTATION DECEMBER 16,1996'

ENCIOSURE 2

.

..

-- - - . . . - _ - -.

,

,

SALP PROCESS -

l Resident ,

-> Inspector t

Program \

'N Region \

x i

'

'

__, Based

Inspections \ /

[s / .

!

N

"*'"9 N.fxBOARD SALP REGIONAL ADMINISTRATO R >

SALP

,

'

special / j initiatives

'

,

/

/

Event / d Roviews ,[.-

Master  :

Inspection Plan

- - . - _ - -

. . - - -- . - . - - .

1 i

. .

L i i

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY RATINGS r CATEGORY 1. LICENSEE ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ,

! FOCUSED ON SAFETY AND RESULTED IN A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF PERFCRMANCE. LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES HAVE PROVIDED i

EFFECTIVE CONTROLS. THE LICENSEE'S SELF-ASSESSMENT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMERGENT ISSUES. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TECHNICALLY SOUND, l

!

COMPREHENSIVE, AND THOROUGH. RECURRING PROBLEMS ARE j

j ELIMINATED, AND RESOLIITION OF ISSUES IS TIMFt.Y. ROUT CAUSE

! ANALYSES ARE THOROUGH.

I CATEGORY 2. LICENSEE ATTEKTION AND INVOLVEMENT ARE NORMALLY WELL FOCUSED

. AND RESULTED IN A GOOD LEVEL OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE.

LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES NORMALLY PROVIDE THE i I

t

NECESSARY CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES, BUT DEFICIENCIES MAY EXIST, THE LICENSEE'S SELF-ASSESSMENTS ARE NORMALLY GOOD, ALTHOUGH

! (

ISSUES MAY ESCAPE IDENTIFICATION. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE l l

'

USUALLY EFFECTIVE, ALTHOUGH SOME MAY NOT BE COMPLETE. ROOT l

) CAUSE ANALYSES ARE NORMALLY THOROUGH.

i CATEGORY 3. LICENSEE ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE. HOWEVER, LICENSEE PERFORMANCE MAY EXHIBIT ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING l CHARACTERISTICS. LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES HAVE NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES IN IMPORTAKT AREAS. THE LICENSEE'S SELF-ASSESSMENT EFFORTS MAY NOT OCCUR UKTIL AFIER A POTENTIAL PROBLEM BECOMES APPARENT. A CLE*R j UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT l ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED. NUMEROUS MINOR ISSUES COMBINE TO INDICATE THAT THE LICENSEE *S CORRECTIVE U TION IS NOT THOROUGH. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES DO NOT PROBE DEEP EN0 UGH, RESULTING IN THE INCOMPLETE RESOLUTION OF ;

,

ISSUES. BECAUSE THE MARGIN TO UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE IN 1 IMPORTAKT ASPECTS IS SMALL, INCREASED NRC AND LICENSEE !

ATTENTION IS RE0'iiG. t i

.

. . - - - . _ . . _ .

,

! -

3 ANT 03ERK IONS

_

CATEGORY 1 t

STRENGTHS:

! e OPERATOR PERFORMANCE DURING SHUTDOWNS AND

STARTUPS

!

l e ASSESSMENT OF PLANT RISK e CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO UNIT OPERATIONAL l DECISIONS e SOUND OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES AND PROGRAMS

e MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR SELF ASSESSMENT

ACTIVITIES i

CHALLENGES:

o PERFORMANCE DURING IN-PLANT FUEL HANDLING AND TAGGING ACTIVITIES e SELF-CHECKING PROGRAMS s

j

_

.

MAIhTENANCE l

'

CATEGORY 1 l

STRENGTilS:

!

e MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND SUPPORT

,

e INSPECTION AND TESTING PROGRAMS ,

.

• TECHNICIANS QUESTIONING AliITUDES l

!

! e STRONG SELF-ASSESSMENTS l

e PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE j

. * MANAGING ON-LINE MAINTENANCE ,

!

i i CHALLENGES:

e ATTENTION'TO DETAIL IN USING AND REVISING j

,

PROCEDURES

l

!

)

i i

!

l i

l

._ __ -. .. -.

. .

ENGINEERING CATEGORY 1 ,

!

STRENGTHS: i l

.

• DESIGN CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OF LICENSING

BASIS

'

e CONTROL OF ENGINEERING WORKLOAD

'

'

e SUPPORT TO PLANT OPERATIONS I e ENSINEERING - MAINTENANCE INTERFACE e SELF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES i e LICENSING SUBMIllALS

,

CHALLENGES:

!

e MAINTAIN EXCELLENT LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

!

l

_ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ . _ . -__

. .

4 P _AN~~ SU 3 30 F CATEGORY 2

i STRENGTHS:

r

e RADIOLOGICAL DOSE CONTROL PROGRAM e EFFLUENT CONTROLS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING e CHEMISTRY PROGRAM i e PHYSICAL SECURITY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

,

CHALLENGES:

o CONTROL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL

,

e DEVELOPING CHALLENGING EMERGENCY EXERCISE

,

SCENARIOS

,

o HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS IN FIRE PROTECTION i

,  ;

-

l

-

4 4 i

i i

! 1

!

SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT j

! SALP RATING SUMMARY

'

!

j i

.

i

i

i

1

! l .

l FUNCTIONAL RATING RATING l l AREA THIS PERIOD LAST PERIOD l PLANT OPERATIONS 1 i 1

'

MAINTENANCE 1 , 1

i  !

ENGINEERING 1 2 \

i

, PLANT SUPPORT 2 1

i l

i

!

i I

!

!

!

'

o UNITED STATES

/p Ho ,%,4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. % T EGION 11 7 I P # S 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 ( /'[ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199

%l. W

. . -

%/

Decenber 6, 1996 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company ATTN: Mr. Gary i

'

Vice President, Nuclear Operations Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 SUBJECT: SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) l (INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50 395/96 99) l l

'

Dear Mr. Taylor:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for the Summer Nuclear Plant.

The facility was assessed in four functional areas for the period of January 29, 1995, through October 26, 1996. The results of the assessment are documented in the enclosed SALP report which will be discussed with you at a public meeting at the Summer site on December 16, 1996, at 1:00 p.m.

Summer Nuclear Plant performance was assessed in four functional areas: Plant Operations Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support. Performance in Operations and Maintenance remained superior. Performance in Engineering improved and is now considered superior. Performance in Plant Support declined but remains good.

Plant Operations superior performance was characterized by stable power operations, strong operator knowledge and ability, and effective management self-assessment activities. Superior performance in Maintenance was sustained by strong management support, a firm commitment to inspection and testing programs and well trained and knowledgeable personnel. Engineering achieved superior performance due to an improved design control process, strong maintenance of the licensing basis, and effective support to other organizations. Plant Support performance declined to a good level based on challenges in control of contaminated material, maintaining awareness of emergency siren system status, developing challenging emergency exercise scenarios, and human performance errors in the fire protection area.

, Initiatives that contributed to superior performance in the majority of functional areas were strong management support for benchmarking and self-assessment activities including avjiting and rotations of personnel. This i included both staff and management in order to improve station self assessment l and quality verification activities.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

M Mloh 3h 3y4 'lN

. , _ _ _ , _ . _ . . _ - . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ - . _ . _

, . .

SCE&G 2 l i Should you have any questions or comments I would be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely

.

~

' d j

,

Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator i-

'

Docket No. 50 395 License No. NPF 12

Enclosure

SALP Report I

I

.

cc w/ enc 1:

'

R. J. White Nuclear Coordinator (Mail Code 802)

'

S.C. Public Service Authority c/o Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

-

P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 J. B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.

Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW l Washington, D. C. 20005-3502

'

Chairman Fairfield County Council P. O. Drawer 60 Winnsboro. SC 29180 Virgil R. Autry, Director Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 cc w/enci continued: See page 3 Y

. . --- - . - . .= - . . - .__ - .. .- .. ..

.

. .

"

SCE&G 3 cc w/ enc 1: Continued l R. M. Fowlkes, Manager ,

'

Operations (Mail Code 303)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsv111e, SC 29065

April Rice, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Operating

. Ex>erience (Mail Code 830)

'

Sout1 Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

P. O. Box 88 j Jenkinsville, SC 29065

-

INP0

!

.

I

,

_m -

- .

.. ._ -- ~. . - .- - . - -

,. .

,

l

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT l l

SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT l

l 50-395/96-99 l

! I. BACKGROUND The SALP board convened on November 13, 1996, to assess the nuclear safety performance of the Summer Nuclear facility for the period January 29, 1995, through October 26, 1996. The board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of

,

I Licensee Performance." Board Members were J. R. Johnson (Board Chairperson), Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, and F. M. Reinhart.

Acting Director. Project Directorate II 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.

II. PLANT OPERATIONS This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities I directly related to operating the facility. It includes activities such j

'

l as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and response to transients. It also includes initial and requalification training programs for licensed operators.

Overall aerformance in the Plant Operations area remained superior l during t1e assessment period. Unit performance was characterized as a i

'

very stable period of power operations with relatively few transients, no plant trips, generally consertative decision making, and a good focus on safety, j

,

Operator performance was very good during the relatively few shutdowns j and startups conducted. A special steam generator moisture carry over J test was well controlled. Senior Reactor Operators demonstrated i excellent supervisory skills, and strong operator knowledge and ability l was demonstrated during plant evolutions as well as during '

l requalification training. Rotation of licensed control room operators to auxiliary building tours was effective. Auxiliary building operators were thorough in maaitoring and recording system parameters during their l rounds and were generally knowledgeable of their duties. l

l i

l Performance during in plant fuel handling and tagging activities and in response to' support system aanel alarms remained a challenge. Locked in alarmt 3n the control room iVAC panel and untimely resolution of a fuel handl,9 building differential pressure condition demonstrated a need to imprc a questioning attitudes. Self-verification programs were

.

E'dCLOSURE ,

l

>

_ _ _ . _ _ - __- - .

.

.

,

l 2 )

,

generally adequate; however, two significant events during the most recent refueling outage indicated a need for improved self-checking to assure operation of designated equipment and to assure completeness of i procedures prior to use. l Plant operations management demonstrated a commitment to assessing plant risk during planning and scheduling activities as well as during special

,

system configuration in a refueling outage. Station management provided .

l excellent risk information in the control room in the form of operator l l

aids listing special refueling conditions, abnormal operating

'

procedures, applicable boration flow paths, and time-to boil in the

! spent fuel pool. Management provided the operations staff a " safety function matrix" to assist shift supervisors and the operations L

scheduling staff to evaluate the impact on plant risk of approving l

preventive maintenance activities on line.

! Operations management demonstrated a conservative approach to unit l operational decisions. Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for ;

i Operation were properly entered when equipment was degraded and during a

<

critical temporary system realignment. Power reductions were conducted prior to several planned maintenance activities as a contingency to assure that reactor conditions would remain stable if secondary plant ,

transients occurred. A station wide standdown was conducted to review l

safety procedures as a preventative measure and not in response to any special event.

t Operational procedures and programs were fundamentally sound and

'

resulted in good adherence. Operator workarounds were well managed with causes and corrective actions identified, responsibilities assigned, and completion dates scheduled.

Management self assessment activities were generally effective. Monthly operations monitoring included a trend of personnel errors by shift and a performance annunciator panel assessment of personnel, program, and equipment performance indicators. Support for benchmarking observations by other utilities was strong and the licensee was active in initiatives with other utilities to learn and share good practices. This was demonstrated by several rotations in management positions, implementation of good practices from other utilities, and a human performance critique of a wrong component operation by an outside utility.

The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.

!

l III. MAINTDIANCE This functional area includes activities associated with diagnostic,

'

predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems and components: maintenance of the physical condition of the plant; and training of the maintenance staff. It also includes surveillance testing, in-service inspection and testing, instrument

,

. . . . -. . - -. . .

. . 1

3 calibration, operability testing, post maintenance testing, post outage testing, containment leak rate testing, and special testing.

Management demonstrated strong commitment to and support of maintenance activities. Coordination with Engineering to resolve related technical issues was excellent. Overall, the licensee demonstrated superior performance in implementing the station maintenance program and in l resolving related technical issues.

Diagnostic, preventive, and corrective maintenance was well performed in that resolution of technical issues and actions to repair heat exchanger head flange leaks on the residual heat removal and spent fuel pool cooling systems were effective.

The licensee continued their excellent performance in inspection and testing programs. Surveillance activities were planned, conducted in a professional manner, and reculted in a high degree of confidence that the tested components would perform as designed. In addition, surveillance activities satisfactorily demonstrated equipment operability. In service inspection and testing programs were effectively implemented. Instrument calibrations were performed within required calibration due dates. Outage and post maintenance testing was .

i performed well, especially with regard to station modifications to accommodate an approved power uprate accomplished during the last refueling outage in the Spring of 1996. Containment leak rate testing was well performed on containment penetrations. The containment purge supply and exhaust isolation valves, with resilient seals which require frequent testing, were well within the leakage acceptance criteria.

The licensee provided strong supervision, and technicians demonstrated aggressive questioning attitudes. Work packages were thorough and complete, and the backlog of work items was well managed.

Self-assessments, root cause analyses, and trending remained strong and effective. In this regard, an excellent licensee initiative replaced the Off-Normal Occurrence reporting system with an in depth Condition Evaluation Report system that focused on system trending. These trends will be evaluated by quality assurance personnel.

Maintenance personnel performing work were experienced, well trained, and very knowledgeable of plant procedures and equipment. Work areas were orderly and well maintained. Material stored in maintenance storage areas was properly identified and protected. Working relationships within the maintenance department and among other departments were supportive and constructive.

PIant management at all levels was well versed on the details of the maintenance rule. Personnel were able to demonstrate comprehensive i

knowledge of the rule in their appropriate area of responsibility. In

, support of the maintenance program, as an excellent initiative. the licensee developed a " safety function matrix" to assist in evaluating

-

and managing the impact of on line maintenance with regard to plant

.

l l

,

!

, ,

i

safety. The matrix helped to maximize plant safety by managing the combinations of equipment simultaneously taken out-of service on each train and by preventing planned simultaneous work on opposite trains, j i

While maintenance procedures were generally of high quality, attention to detail in using and revising the procedures was a challenge. ;

While the material condition of the plant was good, additional challenges included reducing some water and oil leaks. j l

The Maintenance area is rated Category 1. j i

IV. ENGINEERING This functional area addrestes activities associated with the design of plant modifications and engineering support for operations, maintenance, i surveillance and licensing activities. l i

>

The licensee's performance in the areas of design control and i maintenance of the licensing basis was strong. The engineering workload

,

l

- was well managed, the turnover of design activities previously performed l by their primary architect / engineer was well planned, and procedures for !

'

reviewing changes to the facility were sufficiently detailed to ensure i compliance with 10 CFR 50.59. An Engineering Design Control Board was established and was effective in prioritizing design changes and disseminating design information to the appropriate staff. Several 1 I

errors in the design control process were identified by the licensee.

Root causes were identified and appropriate corrective actions were l im31emented. This performance was a noted improvement over the last 1 SA_P period.

Engineering provided effective support to Plant Operations. Challenging i design issues, including high moisture carryover from the new steam ;

generators and an unexpected neutron flux tilt, were resolved to improve 1 plant performance. The backlog of engineering work was well managed enabling timely response to problems identified by operators. Operator workarounds were aggressively pursued. j Maintenance problems were resolved in a timely manner. Engineering !

worked closely with Maintenance on several design changes that improved i plant reliability. Problem identification and root cause analysis of ;

equipment issues supported timely, effective resolution. l l

The licensee's performance in the area of self assessment directed toward engineering was good. The Engineering organization initiated frequent contacts with other licensees to identify opportunities for i improved performance. The Quality Assurance organization contributed by !

performing an in depth audit of the design control program. )

l l

l l

i

. --_ _ . . . . .. - .

. -

l 5 I l i

l Technical engineering submittals made to the NRC were of high quality l with well prepared safety evaluations. l l

The Engineering area is rated Category 1.  !

V. PLANT SUPPORT This functional area addresses all activities related to the plant i

'

l support function, including radiological controls, radioactive effluents, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection, l and housekeeping.

The radiological control program was effective in protecting the health and safety of plant workers and members of the public. The onsite radiation arotection program controlled internal and external radiation exposures )elow regulatory limits. Site ALARA and personnel contamination control measures were generally successful throughout the period although some decline was noted. Specifically, contamination and I contaminated material were found outside control boundaries. Control of contaminated material is a challenge.

Offsite radiation exposure to members of the public was substantially below regulatory limits. The environmental monitoring program confirmed l

effective effluent controls in that only trace amounts of radioactivity l were detected in the environs of the plant.

l Effective chemistry programs were implemented to inhibit degradation due to corrosion of components in both primary and secondary systems. The program for handling, packaging and transport of radioactive materials functioned very well.

l The emergency preparedness program was generally effective in maintaining site readiness to respond to emergencies. However, actual

! response indicated some decline in performance. Challenges were noted i in developing challenging emergency exercise scenarios and in maintaining awareness of siren system status in order to make timely reports. Several improvements were made to the Alert and Notification System sirens to make them more reliable. Preparations for a hurricane minimized the risks and potential damage to plant facilities from rain and high winds.

l The licensee continued to implement and support the Physical Security Plan, procedures and associated programs in an outstanding manner. The security program was strong and well managed. The protected area access control equipment was reliable and effective. Station management was active in identifying and correcting potential problems.

The Fire Protection program performance declined but was generally implemented in an adequate manner during this period. Human performance errors persisted throughout the aeriod and caused deficiencies in the r implementation of the program. iaintenance and testing of fire

.

protection systems were satisfactory. Organization and staffing changes were made late in the period in a effort to improve performance and some improvement was evident. Quality assurance audits were thorough and corrective actions were timely. Housekeeping was satisfactory but additional improvements could be made in some areas.

The Plant Support area is rated Category 2.

.