ML16327A378
| ML16327A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/2016 |
| From: | Bradley Davis Reactor Projects Branch 7 |
| To: | Lippard G South Carolina Electric & Gas Co |
| References | |
| IR 2016007 | |
| Download: ML16327A378 (21) | |
See also: IR 05000395/2016007
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE NE, SUITE 1200
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257
November 22, 2016
Mr. George Lippard
Vice President
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
P.O. Box 88
Jenkinsville, SC 29065
SUBJECT: VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05000395/2016007 AND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Lippard:
On October 13, 2016, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a problem
identification and resolution inspection at your Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. On
September 15, 2016, the NRC inspection team discussed the preliminary results of this
inspection with you and other members of your staff. Following completion of additional
inspection of the findings, a re-exit was held by telephone with Mr. R. Justice of your
staff on October 13, 2016, to discuss the final results of the inspection. The results of
this inspection are documented in the enclosed inspection report.
The NRC inspection team reviewed the stations corrective action program and the stations
implementation of the program to evaluate its effectiveness in identifying, prioritizing, evaluating,
and correcting problems, and to confirm that the station was complying with NRC regulations
and licensee standards for corrective action programs. The team identified two findings in
problem identification, implementation of the process for prioritizing and evaluating these
problems, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to resolve these problems.
The team also evaluated the stations processes for use of industry and NRC operating
experience information and the effectiveness of the stations audits and self-
assessments. Based on the samples reviewed, the team determined that your staffs
performance in each of these areas adequately supported nuclear safety.
The team also evaluated the stations processes for use of industry and NRC operating
experience information and the effectiveness of the stations audits and self-assessments.
Based on the samples reviewed, the team determined that your staffs performance in each of
these areas adequately supported nuclear safety.
Finally the team reviewed the stations programs to establish and maintain a safety-conscious
work environment, and interviewed station personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of these
programs. Based on the teams observations and the results of these interviews the team found
no evidence of challenges to your organizations safety-conscious work environment. Your
employees appeared willing to raise nuclear safety concerns through at least one of the several
means available.
G. Lippard 2
The team documented one NRC-identified finding of very low safety significance (Green) and
one citied Severity Level (SL) IV violation in this report. Both of these findings involved
violations of NRC requirements. The NRC evaluated these violations in accordance Section
2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement Policy, which appears on the NRCs Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. We determined that one
violation did not meet the criteria to be treated as an NCV because compliance has not been
restored. Specifically, the licensee failed to ensure that conditions adverse to fire protection
was promptly corrected as noted in a previous NRC-identified Severity Level IV (SLIV) NCV,05000395/2016001-01, Failure to Implement Adequate Administrative Controls Following a
Departure from NFPA 80-1973 and Provide NRC Staff Complete and Accurate Information. As
of the end of this inspection, compliance had not been restored.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) when preparing your response. If you have additional
information that you believe the NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to
the Notice. The NRCs review of your response to the Notice will also determine whether further
enforcement action is necessary to ensure your compliance with regulatory requirements.
If you contest the violations or the significance of the violations, you should provide a response
within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington DC 20555-0001; with
copies to the Regional Administrator, Region II; the Director, Office of Enforcement, United
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC Resident
Inspector at the V.C. Summer station.
If you disagree with a cross-cutting aspect assignment or a finding not associated with a
regulatory requirement in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date
of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator,
Region II; and the NRC resident inspector at the V.C. Summer station.
This letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available for public inspection
and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document
Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for
Withholding.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Bradley J. Davis, Acting Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 7
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No.: 50-395
License No.: NPF-12
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation
2. Inspection Report 05000395/2016007
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
cc Distribution via ListServ
ML16327A378 SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE FORM 665 ATTACHED
OFFICE RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:DRP RII:EICS RII:DRP
SIGNATURE NLS2 via email RJR1 via email RCT1 via email CDJ1 via email CBS via email /RA/ /RA/
NAME NStaples RRodriguez SNinh CDykes SSeaton MKowal BDavis
DATE 11/1/2016 11/22/2016 11/1/2016 11/ /2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016 11/22/2016
E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
Letter to George Lippard from Bradley J. Davis dated November 22, 2016
SUBJECT: VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05000395/2016007 AND NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
DISTRIBUTION:
S. Price, RII EICS
S. Maxey, RII EICS
OE Mail
RIDSNRRDIRS
PUBLIC
RidsNrrPMStLucie Resource
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) Docket No. 50-395
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 License No. NPF-12
During an NRC inspection conducted between August 29, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,
the violation is listed below:
Operating Licensee Condition 2.C.(18) states, in part, that the South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company (SCE&G) shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire
protection program that comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as specified in the
licensee amendment request (LAR) dated 11 /15/11 (and supplements dated 1/26/12, 10/10/12,
2/1/13, 4/1/13, 10/14/13, 11/26/13, 1/9/14, 2/25/14, 5/2/14, 5/11/14, 8/14/14, 10/9/14, and
12/11/14) and as approved in the safety evaluation report dated 02/11/15.
Section 4.7.3 of the LAR states, in part, that Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) will
implement a revised quality assurance program to ensure compliance with section 2.7.3 of
NFPA 805 and the revised fire protection quality assurance program is based on Regulatory
Position 1.7, Quality Assurance, in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.189, Rev. 2, Fire Protection for
Operating Nuclear Power Plants.
Section 1.7.8 of RG 1.189 states, in part, that conditions adverse to fire protection, such as
failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective components, uncontrolled
combustibles materials, and non-conformances are promptly identified, reported, and corrected.
Contrary to the above, as of October 13, 2016, the licensee failed to ensure that conditions
adverse to fire protection as noted in a previous NRC-identified SL IV NCV, 05000395/2016001-
01, Failure to Implement Adequate Administrative Controls Following a Departure from NFPA
80-1973 and Provide NRC Staff Complete and Accurate Information, were promptly corrected.
Specifically, the licensee failed to implement corrective actions and restore compliance in a
timely manner for (1) the noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.9 to provide staff complete and
accurate information and (2) fire doors DRIB/105A&B currently do not meet self-closing
requirements in accordance with the current NFPA 805 licensing basis and no actions were
specified in licensees corrective action program to restore compliance.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Section 2.2.2.d)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, SCE&G is hereby required to submit a written
statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document
Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II,
and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within
30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should
be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include: (1) the reason for
the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the
corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will
be taken, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the
correspondence adequately addresses the required response.
NOV 2
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a
Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where
good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or
safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction. If
personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response,
then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that
should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you
request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response
that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g.,
explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for
withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described
in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days of receipt.
Dated this 22nd day of November 2016
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket No.: 50-395
License No.: NPF-12
Report No: 05000395/2016007
Licensee: South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Company
Facility: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
Location: P.O. Box 88
Jenkinsville, SC 29065
Dates: August 29 - October 13, 2016
September 12 - 15, 2016
Inspectors: N. Staples, Senior Project Inspector, Team Leader
C. Dykes, Reactor Inspector, Region II
R. Rodriguez, Sr. Reactor Inspector, Region II
S. Seaton, Project Inspector, Region II
S. Ninh, Senior Project Engineer, Region II
Approved by: Bradley J. Davis, Acting Branch Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 7
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR 05000335/2016007, 08/29/2016 - 10/13/2016; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; Biennial
Inspection of the Problem Identification and Resolution Program.
The inspection activities described in this report were performed between August 29 and
October 13, 2016, by a senior project engineer, a senior project inspector, a project inspector,
and a reactor inspector. One Green non-cited violation and one cited Severity Level (SL) IV
violation are documented in this report. The significance of inspection findings are indicated by
their color (i.e., greater than Green, or Green, White, Yellow, Red) and determined using
Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process, (SDP) dated
April 29, 2015. The cross-cutting aspects were determined using IMC 0310, Aspects Within
the Cross-Cutting Areas, dated December 4, 2014. All violations of NRC requirements were
dispositioned in accordance with the NRCs Enforcement Policy dated February 4, 2015. The
NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is
described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 6.
Identification and Resolution of Problems
The NRC inspection team reviewed the stations corrective action program and the stations
implementation of the program to evaluate its effectiveness in identifying, prioritizing, evaluating,
and correcting problems to confirm that the station was complying with NRC regulations and
licensee standards for corrective action programs. The team identified two findings in problem
identification, implementation of the process for prioritizing and evaluating these problems, and
the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to resolve these problems.
The team also evaluated the stations processes for use of industry and NRC operating
experience information and the effectiveness of the stations audits and self-
assessments. Based on the samples reviewed, the team determined that your staffs
performance in each of these areas adequately supported nuclear safety.
The team also evaluated the stations processes for use of industry and NRC operating
experience information and the effectiveness of the stations audits and self-assessments.
Based on the samples reviewed, the team determined that your staffs performance in each of
these areas adequately supported nuclear safety.
Finally the team reviewed the stations programs to establish and maintain a safety-conscious
work environment, and interviewed station personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of these
programs. Based on the teams observations and the results of these interviews the team found
no evidence of challenges to your organizations safety-conscious work environment. Your
employees appeared willing to raise nuclear safety concerns through at least one of the several
means available.
Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems
- Green. The inspectors identified a non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, for the failure to correct a condition adverse to quality
associated with a previously issued NCV,05000395/2012004-02, Inadequate Installation
of Unit 1 Service Water Piping and Related Pipe Support. The licensee entered the
issue in the correction action program as condition report (CR)-16-04621.
3
The PD is more than minor because if left uncorrected, the reduction in design margin of
the pipe support could affect the Unit 1 SW systems ability to mitigate a seismic event.
Specifically, Unit 1 service water (SW) piping and support had been impacted by the
reduction in design margin and without formally updating the associated drawings and
calculations or restoring to the original design, future modifications to the system could
impact the systems ability to mitigate a seismic event. Using Manual Chapter 0609
Attachment 04, Initial Characterization of Findings, Table 2, dated October 07, 2016,
the finding was determined to adversely affect the External Event Mitigating Systems.
The inspectors screened the finding using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609,
Appendix A, Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings at-Power, dated
June 19, 2012, and determined that it screened as Green (very low safety significance)
because the service water system maintained its functionality to mitigate a seismic
event. The inspectors determined that the finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area
of PI&R because the licensee did not take effective corrective actions to address this
issue in a timely manner [P.3]. (Section 4OA2)
SLIV. The inspectors identified a cited Severity Level (SL) IV violation of Operating Licensee
Condition 2.C.(18) for failure to ensure that conditions adverse to fire protection as noted
in a previous NRC-identified SLIV NCV,05000395/2016001-01, Failure to Implement
Adequate Administrative Controls Following a Departure from National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 80-1973 and Provide NRC Staff Complete and Accurate
Information, were promptly corrected. Specifically, the licensee failed to implement
corrective actions and restore compliance in a timely manner for (1) the noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50.9 to provide staff complete and accurate information and (2) fire doors
DRIB/105A&B currently do not meet self-closing requirements in accordance with the
current NFPA 805 licensing basis and no actions were specified in licensees corrective
action program to restore compliance. The licensee entered the issue in their corrective
action program as condition report (CR)-16-04701.
The inspectors determined that the performance deficiency was more than minor
because it impacted the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight function
and was dispositioned using traditional enforcement. Because the licensee failed to
implement corrective actions and restore compliance in a timely manner, this violation is
being treated as a cited violation, consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC
Enforcement Policy. This violation involved traditional enforcement and a cross-cutting
aspect was not assigned to this violation.
REPORT DETAILS
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution
.1 Corrective Action Program Effectiveness
a. Inspection Scope
The team reviewed the licensees corrective action program (CAP) procedures which
described the administrative process for initiating and resolving problems primarily
through the use of condition reports. To verify that problems were being properly
identified, appropriately characterized, and entered into the CAP, the team reviewed a
sample of Condition Reports (CRs) that had been issued between August 2014 and
August 2016, including a detailed review of selected CRs associated with the following
risk-significant systems and components: Electrical (7.2Kv and 480VAC), Safety
Injection (SI), Residual Heat Removal (RHR), and Service Water (SW). To help ensure
that samples were reviewed across all cornerstones of safety identified in the NRCs
Reactor Oversight Process (ROP), the team selected a representative number of CRs
that were identified and assigned to the major plant departments, including
organizational effectiveness, health physics, chemistry, emergency preparedness and
security. These CRs were reviewed to assess each departments threshold for
identifying and documenting plant problems, thoroughness of evaluations, and adequacy
of corrective actions. The team reviewed selected CRs, verified corrective actions were
implemented, and attended meetings where CRs were screened for significance to
determine whether the licensee was identifying, accurately characterizing, and entering
problems into the CAP at an appropriate threshold.
The team conducted plant walkdowns of equipment associated with the selected
systems and other plant areas to assess the material condition and to look for any
deficiencies that had not been previously entered into the CAP. The team reviewed
CRs, maintenance history, completed work orders (WOs) for the systems, and reviewed
associated system health reports. These reviews were performed to verify that
problems were being properly identified, appropriately characterized, and entered into
the CAP. Items reviewed generally covered a two-year period of time; however, a five-
year review was performed for selected systems for age-dependent issues.
Control room walkdowns were also performed to assess the main control room (MCR)
deficiency list and to ascertain if deficiencies were entered into the CAP. A sample of
operator workarounds and operator burden screenings were reviewed and the team
verified compensatory measures were implemented for deficient equipment.
The team conducted a detailed review of selected CRs to assess the adequacy of the
root-cause, apparent-cause, and condition evaluations of the problems identified. The
team reviewed these evaluations against the descriptions of the problem described in
the CRs and the guidance in procedures SAP-1356, Cause Determination, and SAP-
0999, Corrective Action Program. The team assessed if the licensee had adequately
determined the cause(s) of identified problems and had adequately addressed
operability, reportability, common cause, generic concerns, extent-of-condition, and
extent-of-cause as required.
5
The review also assessed if the licensee had appropriately identified and prioritized
corrective actions to prevent recurrence for significant conditions adverse to quality. The
team reviewed site trend reports to determine if the licensee effectively trended identified
issues and initiated appropriate corrective actions when adverse trends were identified.
The inspectors attended the CR Review Team (CRT) virtual meetings, where CRs were
screened for significance, to determine whether the licensee was identifying, accurately
characterizing, and entering problems into the CAP at an appropriate threshold. The
team attended various plant meetings to observe management oversight functions of the
corrective action process. These included Management Review Team (MRT) and
Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) meetings. Documents reviewed are listed in the
Attachment.
b. Assessment
Problem Identification
The team determined that the licensee was generally effective in identifying problems
and entering them into the CAP and there was a low threshold for entering issues into
the CAP. This conclusion was based on a review of the requirements for initiating CRs
as described in licensee procedure SAP-0999, Corrective Action Program,
managements expectation that employees were encouraged to initiate CRs for any
reason, and the relatively few number of deficiencies identified by the team during plant
walkdowns not already entered into the CAP. Trending was generally effective in
monitoring equipment performance. Site management was actively involved in the CAP
and focused appropriate attention on significant plant issues. Based on reviews and
walkdowns of accessible portions of the selected systems, the team determined that
system deficiencies were being identified and placed in the CAP.
Problem Prioritization and Evaluation
Based on the review of CRs sampled by the inspection team during the onsite period,
the team concluded that problems were generally prioritized and evaluated in
accordance with the licensees CAP procedures as described in the CR severity level
determination guidance in procedure SAP-0999. Each CR was assigned a priority level
at the CR Review Team and adequate consideration was given to system or component
operability and associated plant risk.
The team determined that station personnel had conducted root cause and apparent
cause analyses in compliance with the licensees CAP procedures and the assigned
cause determinations were appropriate, considering the significance of the issues being
evaluated. A variety of formal causal-analysis techniques were used depending on the
type and complexity of the issue consistent with SAP-1356.
6
Effectiveness of Corrective Actions
Based on a review of corrective action documents, interviews with licensee staff, and
verification of completed corrective actions, the team determined that generally,
corrective actions were timely, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues,
and effective, in that conditions adverse to quality were corrected. For significant
conditions adverse to quality, the inspectors determined corrective actions directly
addressed the cause and effectively prevented recurrence through a review of
performance indicators, CRs, and effectiveness reviews demonstrated that the
significant conditions adverse to quality had not recurred. Effectiveness reviews for
CAPRs were sufficient to ensure corrective actions were properly implemented and were
effective.
c. Findings
1. Failure to implement corrective actions and restore compliance for previous NRC-
identified Severity Level (SL) IV non-cited violation (NCV),05000395/2016001-01.
Introduction: The inspectors identified a cited SL IV violation of Operating Licensee
Condition 2.C.(18) for failure to ensure that conditions adverse to fire protection as noted
in a previous NRC-identified SLIV NCV,05000395/2016001-01, Failure to Implement
Adequate Administrative Controls Following a Departure from NFPA 80-1973 and
Provide NRC Staff Complete and Accurate Information, were promptly corrected.
Description: On May 11, 2016, the NRC issued a SL IV NCV of 10 CFR 50.9(a) as05000395/2016001-01, Failure to Implement Adequate Administrative Controls
Following a Departure from NFPA 80-1973 and Provide NRC Staff Complete and
Accurate Information. In NRC inspection report 05000395/2016001, the inspectors
determined that the fire doors were installed in a back to back configuration to provide a
pressure barrier function in addition to the fire barrier function, but were not self-closing
as required by NFPA 80-1973. The associated engineering evaluation relied on
inadequate administrative controls to ensure the associated replacement doors were
kept closed as a basis for not following NFPA 80-1973 which required the fire doors be
self-closing. The inspectors determined that the licensee failed to provide complete and
accurate information regarding a deviation from NFPA 805, Performance-Based
Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001
edition, which requires that fire doors conform to NFPA 80. Specifically, DRIB/105A&B
lack self-closing mechanisms as required by NFPA 80. This information and the
associated engineering evaluation were not provided as part of amendment request
(LAR)-06-00055, which was material because licensing decisions were made in the
development of the operating license.
The inspectors reviewed CRs 15-04027, 16-00242, 16-02705 and the apparent cause
evaluation (ACE) associated with this SL IV NCV and discussed with licensee staff.
Based on review of these CRs and apparent cause evaluations (ACE), the inspectors
determined that the licensee failed to implement corrective actions and restore
compliance in a timely manner for (1) the noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.9 to provide
staff complete and accurate information and (2) fire doors DRIB/105A&B currently do not
meet self-closing requirements in accordance with the current NFPA 805 licensing basis
and no actions were specified in licensees corrective action program to restore
compliance. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operating license and quality
7
assurance program and determined conditions adverse to fire protection are required to
be identified and corrected per Section 1.7.8 of RG 1.89.
Analysis: Failure to ensure that conditions adverse to fire protection as noted in
previous NRC-identified non-cited violation (NCV), SLIV NCV,05000395/2016001-01,
were promptly corrected was a violation. This violation was more than minor because it
impacted the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory oversight function and was
dispositioned using traditional enforcement. Because the licensee failed to implement
corrective actions and restore compliance in a timely manner, this violation is being
treated as a cited violation, consistent with Section 2.3.2a of the NRC Enforcement
policy. This violation involved traditional enforcement and a cross-cutting aspect was
not assigned to this violation.
Enforcement: Operating Licensee Condition 2.C.(18) states, in part, that SCE&G shall
implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program
that comply with 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as specified in the licensee
amendment request dated 11 /15/11 (and supplements dated 1/26/12, 10/10/12, 2/1/13,
4/1/13, 10/14/13, 11/26/13, 1/9/14, 2/25/14, 5/2/14, 5/11/14, 8/14/14, 10/9/14, and
12/11/14) and as approved in the safety evaluation report dated 02/11/15.
Section 4.7.3 of LAR states, in part, that VCSNS will implement a revised quality
assurance program to ensure compliance with section 2.7.3 of NFPA 805 and the
revised fire protection quality assurance program is based on Regulatory Position
1.7,Quality Assurance, in RG1.189, Rev. 2, Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear
Power Plants.
Section 1.7.8 of RG 1.189 states, in part, that conditions adverse to fire protection, such
as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective components, uncontrolled
combustibles materials, and non-conformances are promptly identified, reported, and
corrected.
Contrary to the above, as of October 13, 2016, the licensee failed to ensure that
conditions adverse to fire protection as noted in a previous NRC-identified SL IV NCV,05000395/2016001-01, Failure to Implement Adequate Administrative Controls
Following a Departure from NFPA 80-1973 and Provide NRC Staff Complete and
Accurate Information, were promptly corrected. Specifically, the licensee failed to
implement corrective actions and restore compliance in a timely manner for (1) the
noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.9 to provide staff complete and accurate information and
(2) fire doors DRIB/105A&B currently do not meet self-closing requirements in
accordance with the current NFPA 805 licensing basis and no actions were specified in
licensees corrective action program to restore compliance.
Because the licensee failed to implement corrective actions and restore compliance in a
timely manner, this violation is being treated as a cited violation, consistent with Section
2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement policy. A Notice of Violation is included with this report:
VIO 05000395/2016007-01, Failure to implement corrective actions and restore
compliance for previous NRC-identified SLIV NCV 05000395/2016001-01.
2. Failure to correct a condition adverse to quality associated with a previously issued
8
Introduction: A Green NCV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action,
was identified by the NRC for the failure to correct a condition adverse to quality
associated with a previously issued NCV,05000395/2012004-02, Inadequate Installation
of Unit 1 Service Water Piping and Related Pipe Support.
Description: On November 7, 2012, the NRC issued NCV,05000395/2012004-02,
against 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"
for failure to accomplish the installation of Unit 1 service water (SW) piping and supports
in accordance with prescribed drawings. The finding was of very low safety significance
and was entered into the licensees CAP as CR-12-00771. An engineering information
request (EIR) was completed, which concluded that the pipe support was acceptable as
is. However, no additional action was taken to complete an engineering evaluation, per
ES-120, to formally disposition the pipe support accept as is, or update related
drawings and calculations and CR-12-00771 was closed. As a result of NRC
questioning during the biennial problem identification and resolution (PI&R) inspection,
the licensee opened CR-16-04621, which determined that the degraded condition was
neither corrected nor formally dispositioned as accept as is. A work order, WO 1613458, was in the process of being developed to fix the pipe support.
Analysis: The licensees failure to correct a non-conforming condition of Unit 1 Service
Water Piping and Related Pipe Support, was a performance deficiency (PD). The
inspectors reviewed inspection manual chapter (IMC) 0612, Appendix B, Issue
Screening, dated September 7, 2012, and determined that the PD is more than minor
because if left uncorrected, the reduction in design margin of the pipe support could
affect the Unit 1 SW systems ability to mitigate a seismic event. Specifically, Unit 1
service water (SW) piping and support had been impacted by the reduction in design
margin and without formally updating the associated drawings and calculations or
restoring to the original design, future modifications to the system could impact the
systems ability to mitigate a seismic event. Using Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial
Characterization of Findings, Table 2, dated June 19, 2012, the finding was determined
to adversely affect the External Event Mitigating Systems. The inspectors screened the
finding using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Appendix A, Significance
Determination Process (SDP) for Findings at-Power, dated June 19, 2012, and
determined that it screened as Green (very low safety significance) because the service
water system maintained its functionality to mitigate a seismic event.
Using IMC 0310, Aspects within the Cross-Cutting Areas, dated December 4, 2014, the
inspectors determined that the finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of PI&R
because the licensee did not take effective corrective actions to address this issue in a
timely manner (P.3, Resolution).
Enforcement: 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, states in part
that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as
failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and
non-conformances are promptly identified and corrected. Contrary to the above, as of
October 13, 2016, the licensee failed to correct a nonconforming condition of Unit 1
service water piping and related pipe support from a previous issued NRC Green NCV,05000395/2012004-02. Because the finding is of very low safety significance and it was
entered into the licensees CAP as CR-16-04621, this violation is being treated as a
Green NCV, consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy: NCV
9
05000395/2016007-01, Failure to correct a condition adverse to quality associated with
a previously issued NCV.
.2 Use of Operating Experience
a. Inspection Scope
The team examined licensees use of industry operating experience (OE) to assess the
effectiveness of how external and internal operating experience information was used to
prevent similar or recurring problems at the plant. In addition, the team selected
operating experience documents (e.g., NRC generic communications, 10 CFR Part 21
reports, licensee event reports, vendor notifications, and plant internal operating
experience items, etc.), issued since February 2014 to verify whether the licensee had
appropriately evaluated each notification for applicability to the VC Summer site, and
whether issues identified through these reviews were entered into the CAP. Documents
reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment
Based on a review of documentation related to the review of operating experience
issues, the team determined that the licensee was generally effective in screening
operating experience for applicability to the plant. Industry OE was screened by the
corporate OE coordinator and relevant information was then forwarded to the sites OE
coordinator. OE issues requiring action were entered into the CAP for tracking and
closure. In addition, operating experience was included in all root cause evaluations in
accordance with licensee procedure SAP-1356.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Self-Assessments and Audits
a. Inspection Scope
The team reviewed audit reports and self-assessment reports, including those which
focused on problem identification and resolution, to assess the thoroughness and self-
criticism of the licensee's audits and self-assessments, and to verify that problems
identified through those activities were appropriately prioritized and entered into the CAP
for resolution in accordance with licensee procedure SAP-1350, VC Summer Nuclear
Station Assessment Program. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment
The team determined that the scopes of assessments and audits were adequate. Self-
assessments were generally detailed and critical, as evidenced by findings consistent
with the inspectors independent review. The team verified that CRs were created to
document all areas for improvement and findings resulting from the self-assessments,
and verified that actions had been completed consistent with those recommendations.
Generally, the licensee performed evaluations that were technically accurate.
10
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.4 Safety-Conscious Work Environment
a. Inspection Scope
During the course of the inspection, the team assessed the stations safety-conscious
work environment (SCWE) through review of the stations Employee Concerns Program
(ECP) and interviews with various departmental personnel. The team reviewed a
sample of ECP issues to verify that concerns were being properly reviewed and
identified deficiencies were being resolved and entered into the CAP when appropriate.
b. Assessment
Based on the interviews conducted and the CRs reviewed, the team determined that
licensee management emphasized the need for all employees to identify and report
problems using the appropriate methods established within the administrative programs,
including the CAP and ECP. These methods were readily accessible to all employees.
Based on discussions conducted with a sample of plant employees from various
departments, the team determined that employees felt free to raise issues, and that
management encouraged employees to place issues into the CAP for resolution. The
team did not identify any reluctance on the part of the licensee staff to report safety
concerns.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
On September 15, 2016, the inspectors presented the preliminary inspection results to
Mr. G. Lippard and other members of the site staff. The inspectors confirmed that all
proprietary information examined during the inspection had been returned to the
licensee. Following completion of additional inspection of the findings, a re-exit was held
by telephone with Mr. R. Justice of your staff on October 13, 2016, to discuss the final
results of the inspection.
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel:
G. Lippard, Vice President Unit 1
B. Thompson, Licensing Manager
R. Perry, Licensing
W. Martin, Licensing
M. Moore, Licensing Supervisor
G. Kelley, ECP
V. Pearson, OD&P
J. Wasieczko, Manager OD&P
R. Justice, Plant General Manager
NRC personnel:
James Reece, Senior Resident Inspector
Anthony Masters, Chief, Branch 7, Division of Reactor Projects
LIST OF REPORT ITEMS
Opened
05000395/2016007-01 VIO Failure to Implement Corrective Actions and
Restore Compliance for Previous NRC-
Identified SLIV NCV (Section 4OA1.C.1)
Opened and Closed
05000395/2016007-02 NCV Failure to Correct a Condition Adverse to
Quality Associated with a Previously Issued
NCV (Section 4OA1.C.2)
Attachment
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Procedures:
0-PME-50.12, Periodic Battery Charger Component Replacement, Rev. 2
0-PME-50.15, Non-Appendix R Lighting Inspection and Maintenance, Rev. 4
0-NOP-67.05 Refueling Operations, Rev. 18
1-OSP-99.08A, A Train Quarterly Non Check Valve Cycle Test, Rev.11
ADM-17.08, Implementation of 10 CFR 50.65, The Maintenance Rule, Rev. 27
ADM-17.32_MRULE Structure Monitoring, Rev 3
EN-AA-202-1001, Engineering Change and Scope, Rev.7
CDG-01, Cause Determination Guidelines, Revision 17
EOP 2.2, ES-1.3, Transfer to Cold Leg Recirculation, Revision 17
ER-AA-100-2002, Maintenance Rule Program Administration, Rev. 2
ES-120, Operability or Functionality Recommendation Development, Revision 1
ES-0514A, Maintenance Rule - Scoping, Revision 0
ES-0514B, Maintenance Rule - SSC Risk Determination. Revision 0
ES-0514C, Maintenance Rule - Performance Criteria Selection, Revision 0
ES-0514D, Maintenance Rule - Performance Monitoring, Revision 0
ES-0514E, Maintenance Rule - (a)(1) and (a)(2) Transitioning, Revision 0
ES-0514F, Maintenance Rule - MRule Expert Panel Roles and Responsibilities, Revision 0
ES-0514G, Maintenance Rule - Periodic (a)(3) Assessment, Revision 0
FPP-015, Shift Inspection, Revision 7
MSP-100.01, Protective Coating Surveillance Program, Revision 10
OAP-102.1, Conduct of Operations Scheduling Unit, Revision 8
OAP 103.2, Emergency Operating Procedure Setpoint Document, Rev. 1
OAP-113.1, Operator Workaround and Dark Board Program, Revision 4
PSEG-19, Boric Acid Corrosion Evaluation, Revision 2
PSEG-12, System and Program Health Reports
Plant Health System Report -Safety Injection - 2015 and 2016
PSEG-System and Program Health Reports for SI
PTP101.002, 7.2 KV ESF Bus Breaker Alignment Verification, Revision 2
PI-AA-207-1003-10000, Performance Improvement Trend Codes and Keywords, Rev. 5
PSL-ENG-SENS-06-050 Evaluation of Plant Barriers, Rev. 5
PI-AA-102-1001, Operating Experience Program Screening and Responding to Incoming
Operating Experience, Rev.16
SAP-0143, Preventive Maintenance Program, Revision 1
SAP-0157, Maintenance Rule Program
SAP-209, Operability Determination Process, Revision 1
SAP-297A, Development of Emergency Operating Procedures, Revision 5
SAP-0999, Corrective Action Program, Revision 13, Change C
SAP-0999E, Corrective Action Review Board (CARB)
SAP-1356, Cause Determination, Revision 7
SAP-1350C, Nuclear Safety Culture Monitoring, Revision 5
SAP-1100, Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program, Revision 3
STP 125.001, Electric Power System Weekly Test, Revision 15
3
Condition Reports Reviewed:
11-04585 14-06168 15-03194 15-05900
11-06298 14-06191 15-03654 15-05959
12-00583 14-06336 15-03658 15-06007
12-00771 14-06346 15-03885 15-06171
12-02013 14-06404 15-04027 15-06174
12-02534 14-06422 15-04275 15-06189
12-04908 14-06439 15-04395 15-06199
12-05225 14-06626 15-04480 15-06261
13-00497 14-06646 15-04681 15-06353
13-00566 15-00021 15-04703 15-06446
13-02694 15-00071 15-04704 15-06608
13-03952 15-00242 15-04706 16-00210
14-00233 15-00263 15-04711 16-00550
14-00760 15-00359 15-04712 16-00812
14-01926 15-00435 15-04725 16-00853
14-01930 15-00487 15-04749 16-00972
14-02282 15-00541 15-04804 16-01210
14-03079 15-00591 15-04829 16-01310
14-03806 15-00636 15-04871 16-01351
14-04017 15-00662 15-04872 16-01762
14-04771 15-01015 15-04950 16-01853
14-04946 15-01056 15-05024 16-02005
14-04956 15-01083 15-05043 16-02089
14-05100 15-01324 15-05043 16-02305
14-05412 15-01347 15-05050 16-02504
14-05414 15-01355 15-05055 16-02788
14-05446 15-01494 15-05075 16-02803
14-05542 15-01546 15-05167 16-03099
14-05608 15-01615 15-05186 16-03384
14-05649 15-01648 15-05253 16-03925
14-05676 15-01661 15-05260 16-04396
14-05700 15-01672 15-05276 16-04414
14-05711 15-02031 15-05318 16-04431
14-05737 15-02057 15-05328 16-04440
14-05792 15-02087 15-05497 16-04445
14-05821 15-02674 15-05607 16-04546
14-05864 15-02793 15-05673 16-04579
14-05869 15-02875 15-05722 16-04587
14-05888 15-02875 15-05756 16-04621
14-05897 15-03053 15-05814 16-04695
14-06134 15-03057 15-05897
4
Corrective Maintenance Work Orders
1415007-001
1500007-001
1501650-001
1501880-001
1505697-001
1607787-001
1513705-001
1607042-001
1610285-001
1610285-002
1510413-001
1600730-001
Self-Assessments:
1966524, Pre-NRC Problem Identification& Resolution (PI&R) Inspection Self
Assessment
Work Orders:
38026485-02 40311432-05 40347394 40398236
39021349 40316415 40353053 40454409
40051270 40317485 40353054 40454416
40291617 40321728 40359242 40458771
40297503 40322723 40359243 94011628
40299899 40327300 40360192 381026626
40301755 40331897 40365018 4006440001
40303405 40333771 40365437 4006440201
40306989 40340194 40365438
Condition Reports Generated:
16-04124
16-04444
16-04695
16-04701
Other Documents:
ES-513, MOV PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, REV. 2, 3/2/16
SAP-160, MOTOR OPERATED VALVE PROGRAM, REV. 1, 4/20/16
SYSTEM HEALTH REPORTS
SERVICE WATER SYSTEM, 1-2015-3
SERVICE WATER SYSTEM, 1-2016-1
RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM, 1-2015-3
RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM, 1-2016-1
Drawings:
1MS-22-333, REV. 11
ECR, 50585Y
E-206-005, Simplified Plant Electrical Distribution, Rev.29
E-206-022, Electrical One Line & Relay Diagram 7200V SWGR Busses 1DA, 1DB, 1EA & 1EB,
Rev.16
5
E-206-034, Electrical One Line & Relay Diagram 480/277V SWGR Busses 1DA1, 1DA2, 1DB1,
1DB2, 1EA1 &1EA2, Rev. 21