ML18009A617

Summary of 900612 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md Re Recent Pilot Electrical Distribution Sys Functional Insp of Plant. List of Attendees Encl

ML18009A617
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/26/1990
From:	Becker R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9008060110
Download: ML18009A617 (11)

Text

~gS ARCS~

~c~'p0 0

r+/p (N

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 July 26, 1990 Docket No. 50-400 LICENSEE:

Carolina Power

& Light Company FACILITY:

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1

SUMMARY

OF THE JUNE 12, 1990, MEETING REGARDING LICENSEE FEEDBACK RELATED TO THE RECENT PILOT ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION OF THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POllER PLANT, UNIT 1 A meeting was held at the request of Carolina Power

& Light Company (CP&L) on June 12, 1990, in Rockville, Maryland.

The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for CP&L to give the NRC feedback on the recent pilot Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspection (EDSFI) at the Shearon

. Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, (Harris) and the presentation of the results.

The meeting was attended by CP&L and other interested parties.

The attendance list is included as Enclosure 1.

The meeting agenda is included as Enclosure 2.

After the opening introduction and following the enclosure 2 agenda, CP&L discussed their perceptions of the EDSFI and related inspection report.

The meeting structure was more "round table" give and take discussion.

Before addressing the body of the agenda, CP&L noted that they had requested the meeting because the Harris EDSFI was essentially the pilot inspection for the EDSFI program of inspections at other plants and that the NRC had requested industry feedback at the recent Regulatory Information Conference held in Washington, D.C.

CP&L felt that the EDSFI concept was good, covered the correct areas and they did not dispute any specific findings.

However, they felt that the level of inspection depth was excessive and, in some cases, not justified.

In order to avoid this problem, CP&L felt that a p're-inspection level of adequacy needed to be established.

CP&L believed that because the Harris plant is a

new and recently licensed facility with sound, quality programs and because the Harris staff had provided well organized and comprehensive guidance on the known safety significant concerns in the Electrical Distribution System (EDS), the inspection team spent time pursuing potential problems of non-or low-safety significance.

CP&L further felt this was a very resource intensive activity for which the utility ultimately pays and that the lack of established

(

9008060110 900726 PDR I-"IDOCK OSOnOOOD PDC pL

I '

pre-inspection level of adequacy would result in very uneven applications at other plants.

For example, in older plants with lower quality programs or with more undisclosed safety concerns, the inspection team would probably never arrive at the same level of detail at the same expenditure of resources.

The NRC noted in the course of discussion on inspection approach that the inspection process was, of necessity, a sampling approach dictated by time and resource limitations.

Years of experience with team inspections, such as the safety system functional inspections (SSFI),

had demonstrated that the finding of multiple lesser problems was often symptomatic of larger programmatic problems.

NRC also noted that each plant is inspected on its own basis and not with respect to any other plant.

With respect to the presentation of inspection results, i.e. the inspection

report, CP&L had three major concerns:

(I) The enumeration of assorted

minor, low or non-safety concern items collectively portrayed the Harris EDS and EDS engineering support functions in a negative, unbalanced manner; (2) The tone of the report did not reflect the tone of the exit meeting held at the conclusion of the inspection; and (3) The unbalanced reporting perception may negatively and unfairly influence the next Harris SALP appraisal in Engineering Support.

With respect to balance, CP&L was concerned that the positive aspects of the EDS and engineering support programs were identified only with the description of "adequate" whi le a lengthy enumeration of problems, which were mainly minor, gave an overall negative perception.

CP&L noted that they had been contacted informally by others in the industry to determine why Harris had received such a negative EDSFI.

NRC and CP&L discussed several report specific items that CP&L felt contributed to the unbalanced perception.

In the course of the discussion, the NRC responded that an inspection is a

sampling process and the word,"adequate" is generally used to indicate that the expected threshold

'.evel of quality appears to have been observed consistent with the inspection resources expended and the nature of the inspection process.

Further, to be of value for reporting and follow-up purposes, enumeration of the disclosed problems in the inspection report is necessary.

With respect to the differing tone between the exit meeting and the inspection

report, NRC staff who had been present at the exit meeting stated that the report accurately reflected not only the discussions during the exit meeting but also later discussions on specific unresolved items.

The NRC staff noted that there had been interactions between the NRC and CP&L after the exit meeting on some unresolved issues which later became significant safety concerns because of the licensee's inability to reach satisfactory resolution prior to issuance of the inspection report.

Further, CPItL noted a few minor technical errors in the report which they will formally address with future correspondence.

Since this was a feedback

meeting, no conclusions were reached.

Original Signed By:

Enclosures:

As stated Richard A. Becker, Project Manager Project 'Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc w/enclosures:

See next page "OFC LA'PD2 DR R: P/1: PD21: DRPR D:

1:RP A\\WW 0 W

~ 0 W&

%%A NANE

'DATE ocumen R

SOll 7/ 0/90: 7/ 2 90 me:

EAde sam

~ W 7/

/90 W

~ I WWW

~

~

I

,4 e

tk I(

M 8' t I T

n ~

>}, "f,

~

~

)\\

I S

I

~ P

- II

" lr l ~

$f I

Mr. L. ll. Eury Carolina Power 5 Light Company Shearon Harris CC:

Mr. R. 'E. Jones, General Counsel

'arolina Power 5 Light Company

- P. 0.

Box 1551

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr. R.

B. Richey, Manager Harris Nuclear Project Harris Nuclear Plant P. 0.

Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr.'. A. Cole Special Deputy Attorney General State of North Carolina P. 0.

Box 629

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. C. S. Hinnant Plant General Manager Harris Nuclear Plant P. 0.

Box 165 New Hi 11, North Carolina 27562 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Director Division of Radiation Protection N.

C. Department of Environmental, Commerce 5 Natural Resources P. 0.

Box 27687

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

ENCLOSURE 1

ATTENDEES NRC-CPSL EDSfI MEETING TITLE ORGANIZATION Dick Becker Charles Wi 1 lbanks D. Tibbits A. Cockerill C. S. Hinnant George Gaydos Eve Fotopoulos

'1 John Eads Jeff Jacobson Anil S.

Gautam Bob Gramm Steve Guthrie E.

G. Adensam Gene Imbro Thomas Hick Brian Grimes (part time)

Gus Lainas Steve Varga Project Manager Asst. to VPSGM Mgr. Reg.

Compliance Project Engineer Plant Gen.

Mgr.

Proj.

Eng. Licensing Operations Eng.

Sr. Operation,Eng.

Act. Section Chief Section Chief Dir., PDII-1 NRR/DRIS Sect.

Chief Senior Engineer NRR/DRIS Asst. Director-RII Director NRC/NRR NUS Corp CPKL CPSL CPSL SERCH/Licensing (Bechtel)

SERCH/Licensing (Bechtel)

CPSL NRR NRR NRR NRR NRC STS INC NRR NRR/DRPI/II NRR/0RP I/II

ENCLOSURE 2

EDSFI CP &LNRC MEETING NE 12 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE A. Pilot Inspection Feedback and Concerns B. Regulatory Information Conference Request for Feedback DISCUSSION TOPICS

'. General Observations

1. Inspection Focus

2. EDSFI Report Tone and Conclusions

3. Industry Perception of Report B. Specific Concerns with Report

1. Design Control

2. Calculation Update

3. Test Control

4. Root Cause Determination &Corrective Action

SUMMARY

V DISTRIBUTION

. Facility:; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket=Fi-.le NRC PDR

'ocal PDR T. Hurley F. Miraglia E. Adensam P. Anderson R. Becker OGC E. Jordan J. Jacobson A. Gautam B.

Gramm S. Guthrie G. Imbro Brian Grimes G. Lainas S.

Varga ACRS (10)

B. Borchardt PD21 Plant Fi b

le (Harris) 12-G-18 12-G-18 14-B-20 14-B-20 14-B-20 15-B-18 NNBB-3302 9-A-1 9-A-1 9-A-1 9-A-1 9-A-1 9-A-2 14-H-3 14-E-4 P-315 17-G-21

C

"' j r j 'C C" (g

I I.vS 1

Ij Jcd <f..')s', '1C

~

li '

f.

g

.S Cf'C~C v

C 6'

f I j

~

~

Ij s

,e