ML18152A158
| ML18152A158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1989 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A160 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912130093 | |
| Download: ML18152A158 (45) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1989016
Text
,. i n \\/ ri ,~. 1 C 8 ("\\
I\\ ~ u \\ '/ /
I .
I
Y,
{,J
'
- ....
...,
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281
Virginia Electric and Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. W. L. Stewart
Senior Vice President - Power
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
REPORT NOS. 50-280/89-16 AND 50-281/89-16
OFFiCIAL COPY
This letter refers to the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) Report for your Surry facility, which was sent to you on September 22,
1989; our meeting of October 4, 1989, at which we discussed this report; and
your written comments in a letter dated November 1, 1989, relative to the
report.
Enclosure 1 contains the meeting summary and the NRC response to
your written comments of November 1, 1989.
Enclosure 2 contains the slides
presented at our October 4, 1989 meeting.
Enclosure 3 is a copy of your letter
dated November 1, 1989 providing comments to the SALP report.
Enclosure 4
contains an errata sheet and a page change for the SALP report.
After receipt of your November 1, 1989 letter, the SALP Board was reconvened
on November 14, 1989, to review and discuss your written comments.
Based on
the review, the Board finds that no changes to the SALP report are warranted.
No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have questions
concerning these matters, I will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Enclosures:
1.
October 4, 1989 Meeting Summary
and NRC response to written
comments
2: October 4, 1989 SALP Slides
3.
Va. Power comments on SALP Report
(Letter dated November 1, 1989)
4.
Errata Sheet
ct w/encls:
(See page 2)
8912130093 891127
ADDCK 05000280
s__:O=--------* _P_N_U ______ ~)
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Stewart D. Ebneter
Regional Administrator
-. -. .-----*-~-
.
-r--
-
.
.
v
Virginia Electric and Power Company
cc w/encls:
W. R. Cartwright
Vice President - Nuclear Operations
Virginia Electric & Power Company
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
J. P. 0 1Hanlon
Vice President - Nuclear Services
Virginia Electric & Power Company
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
M. R. Kansler
Station Manager
Surry Power Station
P. 0. Box 315
Surry, VA
23883
R. F. Saunders, Manager
Nuclear Licensing
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
Sherlock Holmes, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Surry County
Surry County Courthouse
Surry, VA
23683
W. T. Lough
Virginia Corporation Commission
Division of Energy Regulation
P. 0. Box 1197
Richmond, VA
23209
Michael W. Maupin
Hunton and Williams
P. 0. Box 1535
Richmond, VA
23212
C. M. G. Buttery, M.D., M.P.H.
Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA
23219
(cc w/encls cont'd - see page 3)
2
NOV 2 t7 1989
l
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(cc w/encls cont'd)
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
101 North 8th Street
Richmond, VA
23219
Commonwealth of Virginia
bee w/encls:
Document Control Desk
NRC Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Route 1, Box 166
Surry, VA
23883
RII;f~~
PE~~ickson:er
111),)89
~
11~9
RI!: DRS
JMilhoan
111:2 ... ra9
N ~~
QV'
~ /
Qt>o
3
. RII:J~
JPsl6~r
11pt,ts9
ENCLOSURE 1
I. Meeting Summary
A.
A meeting* was held at 10:00 a.m. on October 4, 1989, with Virginia*
Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power), at the Surry
Nuclear Information Center, to discuss the Systematic Assessment
of Licensee Performance* (SALP) Report for the Surry facility.
B.
Licensee Attendees
W. W. Berry, Chairman, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
T. E. Capps, Vice Chairman, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
W. T. Roos, Board of Directors, Virginia Po*wer
J. B. Adams, Jr., Board of Directors, Virginia Power
A: R. 'Inskeep, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
A. B. James, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
S. S. Pierce, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
I. M. Moszer, Board of Directors, Virginia Power
J. T. Rhodes, President, Virginia Power
W. L. Stewart, Senior Vice President - Power*
W. R. Cartwright, Vice President - Nuclear Operations
F. K. Moore, Vice President - Engineering
J. P. O'Hanlon, Vice President - Nuclear Services
M. R. Kansler, Station Manager, Surry
G. E. Kane, Station Manager, North Anna
J. L. Wilson, Asst. Vice President - Nuclear Operations
The list of licensee attendees above does not include the large
number of Virginia Power employees that were present at the SALP
presentation.
The personnel were supervisors, pl ant operators,
maintenance personnel, and representatives from various plant staffs.
This large turnout was beneficial to the SALP process and is highly
recommended for future presentations.
C.
NRC Attendees
S. 0. Ebneter, Regional Administrator
L. A. Reyes, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)
P. E. Fredrickson, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DRP
H. N. Berkow, Director, Project Directorate II-2, NRR
R. W. Borchardt, Regional Coordinator, EDO
B. C. Buckley, Project Manager, NRR
D. J. Roberts, Intern, NRR
L. E. Nicholson, Resident Inspector, Surry
J. W. York, Resident Inspector, Surry
M. S. Lewis,. Project Engineer, Section 2A, DRP
D.
SALP Meeting Slides
See Enclosure 2
Enclosure 1
2
II. NRC Response to Licensee's Comments
The NRC has reviewed your letter dated November 1, 1989, concerning the
NRC
SALP for Surry Uni ts 1 and 2.
We appreciate your efforts in
developing the detailed comments.
The initiatives addressed in your SALP
response to improve the overall performance at the Surry station are
definite indicators of a positive change in management approach to plant
operations.
With respect to your specific comments in the area of Radiological
Controls, we do not believe that your response provides any substantive
new information which would warrant a change in rating for this functional
area.
The standard by which we determine the category rating is actual
performance.
Based on this criterion, as measured by several radiation
area access contra 1 problems and numerous vio 1 at ions, your actual
performance during the assessment period appears to be a SALP 3 Category.
However, we do recognize that the programmatic enhancements initiated
during the assessment period, if fully and effectively implemented, should
result in significant performance improvements.
In fact, these efforts
contributed greatly to the SALP Board recognizing an improving performance
trend in this area.
As stated in the SALP report, and at our October 4
meeting, a performance trend is only used when the Board believes that
continuation*of the trend may result in a change of performance level.
We
believe that performance in the area of Radiological Controls was improving
toward the end of the assessment period and continues,to improve.
In the Emergency Preparedness functional area, the information you
provided was not persuasive; thus, we believe that the Category 3 rating
is appropriate.
We also agree that the phrase used in the SALP,
11minimally
cha 11 engi ng,
11 is not an accurate description of the remedi a 1 exercise
scenario.
We have revised the wording to focus on the limited scope of
the exercise, which was to address the corrective action for the previously
identified weaknesses.
In this regard, we agree that the remedial exercise
demonstrated effective corrective act ion for the event c 1 ass if i cat ion
problem but, more importantly we believe, the remedial drill revealed that
you had not taken effective corrective action for the emergency response
facility (ERF) augmentation time problem.
The change is noted in the
errata sheet to the SALP report in Enclosure 4.
Although we recognize that
your threshold of ERF activation is more conservative than NRC guidance,
this enhancement has minimal impact on ERF augmentation times for events
that are sufficiently fast-moving in severity that the unit does not
necessarily enter the event at the Unusual Event or Alert classification,
but can either enter immediately at a higher level or enter and exit the
lower level in a relatively snort period.
With* respect to actual
performance, you state that the ERF facilities have been challenged and
were implemented sucessfully once at Surry and twice at North Anna.
It is
important to point out that only one of the events (a tube leak at North
Anna) took place during the current SALP cycle.
In addition, this event
occurred during day shift, when sufficient resources were already on site
to react to the event.
We do want to emphasize thats a 1 though your
performance was not judged to be improving enough to warrant an improving
Enclosure 1
3
trend at the end of the assessment period, your aggressive management
attention in this- area subsequent to the end of the period indicates to
us that actual substantive improvement is now taking place .. We note that
you successfully implemented your emergency plan, subsequent to the
assessment period, during the recent full participation exercise on
November 15, 1~89.
---, *----**.* --------:----
' .. ---.----; .
. **.
- ---*____,,.--....,...-*-**~- ........ --.- -~.:* .-*-. **x***** ---:-* -
- .~ . ."* *- *:-
,-...
.
ENCLOSURE 2
. * UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR- REGULATORY
COMMISSION
'
'
e
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
-.*
(SALP)
I
I
' *
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC
AND POWER COMP ANY
MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE. 30, 1989
SURRY UNITS* 1 & 2
OCTOBER 4, 1989
SURRY, VIRGINIA
.
.
..
'
.
-***--;:*.,..
.. '.-. *..
.
-
,;-*,.*.~-::-~
... _. ~""~-~ ~--: .....
... *: *-:~ ... *. ~ ..... ~
... * ... \\.
- . ..
.
... .
- SAlP -PBOCBAAI OBJECTIVES
1. IDENTIFY TRENDS IN LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
2. PROVIDE A BASIS FOR ALLOCATION
OF NRC RESOURCES
4
3. IMPROVE NRC REGULATORY PROGRAM
-*-*-* --.-*-~--:--*-::;-.:---:---,-.** ~_.
~
,*:_
...-., . .
___:___:__*_"~ ',*:
,,, ** -~ :*
,* *,,
,*;
~. ,r *** ,*
~
- *'
_ _:_ ~
--
~*-
_ _:_
\\
-
_* __
_*__
- -*
',**
'*
NEC/ON II ONCANIZATION
PUllJC AFFAIRS
STAFF
mR.
K. aJRK
....
maoa...,.
DIL
L lllES
DEPUIY
C. IEtL
ADIINISTRATOI S. EINETER
DEPU1Y J. MIHOAN
REGIONAL
COUNSEL
R. GOOOMD
ilfi ...
lllallllllff
Ill.
A. .....
-
IIPUIY E. IDIHlf
STATE AND GOV'T"
l1l'Gln'IJff .*
STAFF
IMSIIIA1III
CIGIIDIIA1III sr>>1
tit R.' TROJANOWSICI
Cit
G. JOIQNS
DDIIIII II
DMS1G11 o, IIESUCI
UDlmGII llllff
IIMWIVFNT MD
BD WICUBDI
ADMINISIIA11GN
la. L STtHt
la
R. IIM1Y
i
DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS
ORGANIZATION
' *
I
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 1
CHIEF
D. VERREllJ
PIUCTSB11CM
- I& IA
CHEF H. IWII:
BRll61fta(
HARRIS
ROIINS(Jt
FARLE.Y
GRAND GULF
SUMMER
DMSION Of
REACTOR PROJECTS
DIR.
L REYES
DEPUTY
C. HEHL
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 2
CHIEF
... SINl(lJLE
PIOEIS SECIIII
NO. 2A
CH&' P. F1IDICKSClt
NORTH ANNA
SURRY
ST. WCIE
CRYSTAL RMR
TURKEY POINT
I
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 3
CHIEF
A. HERDT
I
PI08TS SECIDI
. NO. IA
QIEF II. SIMIDCX
CATAWBA
. UcGI.R
OCOtE
PIOBrS SECTION
NO. *
QIEF
IC. BROaC.WM
I
I
I
- -- *- . - . ~ -- . - -
-
-
,-
- Y*---., .... -
- r-.----*--;:-*-,..---:--r-~*-i**----.... --~---.~
.... .---~~--, --*-
.
~ ~.,.. -~
,
_
. __
. --~~~
NRR ORGANIZATION
I
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
SPECIAL PROJECTS
...
- --
Imo
DIVISION OF *
TVA PROJECTS
DMSION OF
... COMANCHE PEAK
OFFlCE OF'
NUCWR REACTOR
REGUUTION
DIR.
THOMAS E. MURLIY
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
PROJECTS
J. PARMW
DMSIOII Of
IIDCIUI PIO.BIS 1/1
S. YMIA. Ill. 1/1
- H. .... 111 *2
L IUCICll'f, PIOL R
SIIIIY
lrtml fl
- Ul1II P&ll:IS 1/N/V
PmAM IWI\\COEO'u
-
PGUCY IIDDJllllllT s
I ANALYSIS Sf llF
I
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
INSPECTION I
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
I
DIV. OF ENGUERING
AND S'tS I flt -
TECtltOLOGY
IIV. OF
OP£RATIONAL EWJCTS -
ASSESSMENT
DIV. OF REACTOR
INSPECTION All> -
SAFEGUARDS
IIVe Of IUIIIA1III
PID'IBIIII *
~
DIIIENC'f .....
IIVc * UIIIIIII
NllllaMII -
CIUUY lWWA1IIII
~~~~---.*.*.
__c~_ .* :
..
- .. -*.---
-*-
..
,
i
.
)
NRC
SALP PROGRAM
- REVISIONS
.
.
.*
- '.
- ** -
',,
"T"" .... ;
- ****
,
-
-
.---c--,,-~--~ .... ----.---~~--***--*-.-*--*****-* ....... ~--. - .
.
, . *
MAJOR CHANGES TO THE
SALP PROGRAM CONSIST OF ...
- Redefinition of Functional Areas
- Reduction in Number of Separate
Functional Areas
- Two New Functional Areas
- * Engineering/Technical Support
- Safety Assessment/Quality Verification
- Attributes Addressing Human Performance
and Self-Assessment
e * Emphasis on Analysis
.PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS
FOR OPERATING REACTORS
- )
A. PLANT OPERATIONS
B. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
C. MAINTENANCE/ SURVEIIUNCE
E. SECURITY
F. ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT
. G. SAFETY ASSESSMENT / QUAIJTY VERIFICATION
- --.--.,--*--~- ****.-*-.... * -** .. ~- ~-
... - . - ..
.
- *=--=-
_* --
-.-_
-
. . .
--.. -
,
--;- - ~.
- ENGINEERING /TECHNICAL SUPPORT
The purpose of this functional area
is to address the adequacy of technical
and engineering support for all plant
activities. It includes all Licensee
Activities associated with the design
of plant modifications; engineering and
technical support for operations, outages.
maintenance, testing, surveillance; and
procurement activities; training; and
configuration management *(including
maintaining design *bases and safety margins).
-~* -~- -,----------------;-:--~
..
-._-.-* **-.*--.---,:----;--**.
- . - .. *:--
.
- -
.
-,*
SAFETY ASSESSMENT /QUALITY VERIFICATION
The purpose of this functional area is to address the
technical adequacy* *and completeness of the licensee's
approach toward a variety of activities associated with
, the implementation of licensee safety policies and
licensee activities related to amendment requests, exemption
requests, relief requests, response to generic letters,
bulletins, and information notices, and resolution of TMI
items and other regulatory initiatives. It * also includes
licensee activities related to the resolution of safety
issues, 10 CFR 50.59 reviews, 10 CFR 21 assessments, safety
committee and self *assessment activities, analysis of
industry's operational experience, root cause analyses of
plant events, use of feedback from plant quality assurance/
quality control(QA/QC) reviews, and participation in self*
improvement programs. It includes the effectiveness of the
licensee's quality verification function in identifying
substandard or anomal'ous performance in monitoring the
overall performance of the plant.
- . :-
~. *--* ... -,
~ .--...
PERFORMANCE RATING CATEGORIES
- Expanded discussion Intent
.
- * Redefinition of the categories to clarify
their meaning
. -
- .. ----.-:,:------~------~~-- -------,-----~-----,*, --,--... ~-.-~~-------.-**~~-- ---- -
- ---
-,- ... - ..
- -----
.. -*--* ----~-~---
-
- -
AREA PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY 1
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT AITENTION AND INVOLVEMENT
ARE READILY EVIDENT AND PLACE EMPHASIS ON SUPERIOR
,,
PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OF SAFEGUARDS
ACTIVTIES1WITH THE RESULTING PERFORMANCE SUB-
STANTIALLY EXCEEDING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE
RESOURCES ARE AMPLE AND EFFECTIVELY USED SO THAT
A HIGH LEVEL OF PLANT AND PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS
4
. * BEING ACHEIVED. REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE *
.
. . . .
APPROPRIATE *
-
.
**.**-.-
-*-*-*--***-*-*-***.*,*_***-~,~-------- .. -. __ --._-:_~ _ _:_*~-----'--~~-~=-'. ___ :._-:_:-
.--..* 0.-, .* _.
--_ ** ..,.
--
...
- ** _-.--
... ~.:
-~_-' __ : _____ ____:____:__****,,***---- ...........
---*-
e
AREA PE,RFORMANCE
CATEGORY 2
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT AITENTION AND INVOLVEMENT
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OR SAFEGUARDS
ACTMTIES ARE GOOD. THE LICENSEE HAS ATTAINED A
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ABOVE THAT NEEDED TO MEET
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE RESOURCES ARE
ADEQUATE AND REASONABLY ALLOCATED SO THAT GOOD PL.ANT*
AND PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS BEING ACHEIVED. NRC
AITENTION MAY BE MAINTAINED AT NORMAL LEVELS *
-- _-. -_._.,
..
'._C
0*::=--::_-_* -*~~* ..... ,.~. ~-. -ci~****. ,._ ..... * .*.. -.
-
.****
.-
-
..
.
.
..
AREA* *PE'l?FORMANCE
I*
I
i
-"CATEGORY J
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT AITENTION AND INVOLVEMENT
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OR SAFEGUARDS
ACTMTIES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT. THE LICENSEE'S
PERFORMANCE DOES NOT SIGNIACANTLY EXCEED THAT NEEDED
TO MEET MINIMAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE
RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STRAINED OR NOT EFFECTIVELY
4
USED. NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE INCREASED ABOVE
NORMAL LEVELS.
'
- - --.--. -
-. *: ** ., ...** ***.**.,,.. --* *.. -. o_. -----------....-.-- ****-*-----,.--*--:-*---~ ...... --.-----*.--,----------.,----:-*.----. *--::***-----*-.---- ,----
--*.**.
.
.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. MANAGEMENT INVOLV~MENT IN ASSURING QUALITY
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
FROM A SAFEIY STANDPOINT
3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES
4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY .
5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTABLE EVENTS
6e STAFFING (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT)
7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS ANO QUNJFICATION
- -~. - . *-----;---:---------,----r----, ~~- . ...-- .. ,.*-.
. -... * - ~
.
-.------
. *-
--*.--
- -
-
.
I
SURRY 1
SURRY 2
- VIOLATION SUMMARY
MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, 1989
II
Ill
V
o
- o
0
0
9
19
9
17
2
2
REGION II AVE.
0
0
1
1 6
2
PER UNIT
l
,* -, , -... ,.o-.-.-----r,-,.:----,
A*.~-*."
- '* :*.
- **,:.
- ,'* *.
-~*
0 *,"
.*" **'*,' *'
- ,,*
,~. -,
- -~---:-.,
- O
-
- ,
- , *
,*~,-
- *-******-~***-****-*--***,*
31
21
! II
0 j
0 s:
~ II
I:
ILi m
2 :,
z I
OPERATIONS PHASE VIOLATIONS/OPERATING REACTOR
MAY 1. 1988 through JUNE 301 1989
LEGEND
~
RH AV@
SURRY
~
UTILITIES
- -
.
.
SURRYFPC GPC DPC FPLRII AVGCPl. SERISCE&GAPC
UTIUlY
- -
---.-..---~--,-. --**-***
. --* --
--..* '.
-*'
-
..... --
- - .. .
--- -*-**- .
21
II
II
en
z
0 -...
~ 12
~
~ ..
8= I
w
m
2 :, z *
'
l
ALLEGATIONS PER UTILITY /SITE
MAY 11 1988 through JUNE 301 1989
... ..
...
LEGEND
~
RII AVEo
UTILITIES
11
Kt(tl
GPC
SERI
F'PC
CPL .
APC
F'Pll.
RH AVG
SCEIG
UTILITY
---*****-
~--* - - *-*--- **:*
- --~
- -**
---*-
-*--*---,---
LERs PER UNIT
. .
MAY 1. *1988 through JUNE 301 1 ~89
LEGEND
~
NATL AVE.
34
11
I .
,~
SURRY
BW
P~NT lYPE
67 .*
ID
10
SURRY LERs
MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, 1989
22
LEGEND
D PERSONNEL (TOTAL)
II PERSONNEL (OPERATING)
~
PERSONNEL (MAINTENANCE)
PERSONNEL (TEST /CAUB)
~
PERSONNEL (OTHER)
~
CONST/FAB/INST
II DESIGN
ii COMPONENT FAIWRE
BOTHER
PLANT
PERSONNEL
- - .
-
. . . .... - - --
. . ,
...
. . ****.
........ --- ------
.. --***----.--
..... -**
- -**-**----.-, *- ...... -.-
.... , ... -
.*: ***--
-
14.50
11.IO
Ul.15
2.IO
, .*
FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPARISON
FOR* REGION II SITES
SALP CYCLE 7
..
.
p
..
p
LEGEND*
CATEGORY i
CATEGORY 2
~
CATEGORY 3
,, ............
OPS RAD
M/S
SEC E/TS SA/fN .
FUNCTIONAL AREA
.
- -. *-*- ~-~~~~--:,-:-:-
... ,..,.,.......-,
.*. -~--
, * .....-r-,. ~-~
.* -..,.,.,._. ~~--~*-***~.*.-
.* ,~
.. -.* ,,
.* , .*... **. '7'* ............ '.
-
.. -.-****-
0
PLANT OPERATIONS.- CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
PROPER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL WERE NOT EVIDENT DURING THE
FIRST HALF OF THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD
0
MANAGEMENT SENSITIVITY TOWA~DS PROPER OPERATION OF THE
STATION AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING OPERATOR ATTENTION TO
DETAIL WERE NOT EVIDENT UNTIL THE LATTER HALF OF THE
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
0
0
0
0
LACK OF PROPER MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE
EVALUATION OF THE UNIT 1 REACTOR CAVITY SEAL EVENT
OPERATING
PROCEDURES
WERE
IDENTIFIED
REQUIRING
IMPROVEMENT.
THIS WAS A CONTINUING PROBLEM FROM THE PREVIOUS
ASSESSMENT PERIOD.
DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED WITH ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING
ISOLATION TAGOUTS OVER THE LONG OUTAGES. . IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE COMPUTERIZED TAGOUT PROGRAM SHOULD HELP IMPROVE THIS
AREA.
A TENDENCY OF OPERATORS TO TOLERATE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS AND
WORK AROUND THEM EXISTED EARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD
.. -.** , ... *,-.-*-: -~ - ... - -::*. *.- ~- , ... ,. '. -
0
0
0
0
0
0
-PLANT OPERATIONS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING-(CON'T)
MANAGEMENT CHANGES MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD RESULTED
IN IMPROVED SENSITIVITY TO SAFETY
A COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONAL READINESS ASSURANCE PROGRAM WAS
INITIATED IN RESPONSE TO A LACK OF CLEAR DIRECTION AND
APPROPRIATE SCHEDULING OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLANT STATUS LOG APPEARED TO HAVE A
POSITIVE
IMPACT
ON SAFE OPERATION WITH
REGARDS
TO
CONFIGURATION CONTROL
OPERATIONS STAFFING LEVELS WERE IMPROVED WITH THE REQUIREMENT
OF THREE SRO'S PER SHIFT
A THREE-YEAR TECHNICAL PROCEDURES UPGRADE PROGRAM WAS
INITIATED DUE TO POOR CONDITION_ OF PROCEDURES, BUT SCHEDULE
APPEARED TO BE OPTIMISTIC
FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM CONTINUED TO BE EFFECTIVE
- -~-
.,.-,.,-*****~-,.--,-~ _~_'__*_* .,*,
. -~ ... .\\ * ., *.*
.*!
.,..
c--c-*-c **-~, --* .... , .-
- ..
- .
..
C'
...
.... , ..
........ -
.,1
. ~-
. -----*
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
0
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AFFECTED PERFORMANCE EARLY IN THE
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
0
0
INABILITY TO ADEQUATELY CONTROL PERSONNEL EXPOSURE
CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT PERIOD
PERFORMANCE BY RADIATION PROTECTION DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
WAS
INADEQUATE,
DIRECTLY
RESULTING
IN
NUMEROUS
VIOLATIONS
ALTHOUGH- AMOUNT OF CONTAMINATED AREA HAS BEEN REDUCED, TOTAL
AREA IS STILL HIGH
A LACK OF MANAGEMENT ATTENTION WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE LIQUID
AND GASEOUS EFFLUENT MONITORING PROGRAM
0
0
0
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING (CON'T)
NEW INITIATIVES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OF PERFORMANCE
HAVE
RESULTED IN IMPROVED HP SUPPORT, HOWEVER, NUMEROUS PROBLEMS
WERE
OBSERVED
IN STATION WORKERS'
COMPLIANCE WITH HP
REQUIREMENTS
A DOWNWARD TREND WAS NOTED IN PERSONNEL CONTAMINATION EVENTS,
ATTRIBUTED TO THE DECONTAMINATION EFFORT AND INCREASED
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION
SIGNIFICANT ALARA PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF COLLECTIVE DOSE
.* .*.....,-" ~~,;.
. * ~
.* **
- '
... ~*~
.. ,**r;
-
--,
,a,
'**
~ ....
-
.*
--
-
-- --
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE - CATEGORY 3
PROCEDURE
INADEQUACY
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ADEQUATE
PROCEDURAL CONTROL CONTINUED TO BE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES
0
DEFICIENCIES IN THE ABILITY TO CORRECT LONG-STANDING PROBLEMS
WERE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE
LACK OF A FORMAL CHECK VALVE
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND INEFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE ROOT CAUSE
AND TRENDING PROGRAM
0
0
0
A LARGE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG EXISTED DURING THE PERIOD
DURING THE
PERIOD,
THE
PROGRAM
WAS INEFFECTIVE,
CONTRIBUTING TO SEVERAL LARGE-SCALE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS
MAINTENANCE-SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
WERE
NOT
ROUTINELY
USED
TO
EVALUATE
MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
. **.
- .*'*.~: ~~-- '*:":. -* ..*
-~ ..* _ :r'------- ..
-:::_::___:_:___*
~::- '!,
-
.:_ _*
..
. . ; . : .. ' ~ ; . *.,.
.
0
0
0
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE - CATEGORY 3 (CON'T)
INADEQUACIES WERE IDENTIFIED REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION,
..
PROCUREMENT, AND STAGING OF PARTS
SIGNIFICANT ANO NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WERE IDENTIFIED REGARDING
THE MAINTENANCE OF MOVs.
A MAJOR REWORK EFFORT WAS INITIATED
LATE IN THE PERIOD
THE OVERALL MATERIAL CONDITION OF VARIOUS SYSTEMS IMPROVED,
BUT NOT UNTIL THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DEGRADE TO A POINT WHERE
PERFORMANCE WAS IN QUESTION
THE LACK OF A FORMAL, COMPREHENSIVE POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING
PROGRAM WAS A WEAKNESS
0
TS SURVEILLANCE TESTS WERE GENERALLY PERFORMED IN THE
REQUIRED TIME FRAME,
BUT MAJOR PROBLEMS REVEALED SOME
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES
.
.
...,-*~*****
-~~~~~~...,...,....,.,~,--,-~~~-*~* *
.- .
..-
-" __ _: -__ **-** *******c***'"-
0
0
0
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE - CATEGORY 3 (CON 1T)
THE !SI TEST PROGRAM AND THE NOE PROGRAM WERE GENERALLY SOUND
AND EXTENSIVE
.*
MAINTENANCE
PREDICTIVE
ANALYSIS
FEEDBACK
INTO
THE
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS A STRENGTH
POST-REFUELING
STARTUP
PHYSICS
TEST ACTIVITIES
WERE
APPROACHED IN A SOUND MANNER
SECONDARY SYSTEM CORROSION * PRODUCT MONITORING AND* TRENDING
HAS IMPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF COMPUTERIZED DATA LOGGING
--:-.,:--
. ~":~*-*.,** *. . .. .
. ..
- .* ,._ .** .. *:-;-.. *:~.
. ~*-**: .. *_-*,.*.
.-~~
.... ..,.<::".-.-
... - *. *---~--.,..-
..... _-.... **:
- .. -
..
.
'
0
SECURITY - CATEGORY 1
EXCELLENT SUPPORT WAS PROYIDED WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
APPROVED PLAN
0
THE DAILY PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY FORCE AND ITS ON-S*ITE
SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT WERE PROGRAM STRENGTHS
0
0
0
0
0
.,
CORPORATE QA ANNUAL AUDITS OF THE SECURITY PROGRAM WERE
AGGRESSIVE
PROCEDURES WERE CLEARLY WR I TIEN ANO READILY AVA! LAB LE FOR
REGULATORY TRACKING PURPOSES
TRAINING AND REQUALIFICATION CONTINUED TO BE STRONG POINTS
THE SECURITY STAFF'S IMPLEMENTATION OF A PERSONALIZED
BRIEFING OF PERSONS WHO WERE BADGED FOR UNESCORTED ACCESS TO
THE STATION WAS VERY POSITIVE
ONE WEAKNESS WAS NOTED WITH REGARDS TO THE TIMELINESS OF
SECURITY EQUIPMENT REPAIR.
BETTER COORDINATION BETWEEN
SECURITY ANO MAINTENANCE WAS NEEQED
_--.---~
... ~.-~~
., .............. ,-
. -~-_-**
-*
.
.
0
0
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS - CATEGORY 3
THE ANNUAL EMERGENCY EXERCISE IDENTIFIED EVENT CLASSIFICATION
AND AUGMENTATION TIMELINESS AS SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM AREAS,
THUS NECESSITATING A REMEDIAL DRILL
INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND
INVOLVEMENT WAS NOT
EXHIBITED DURING THE CONDUCT OF THE REMEDIAL DRILL
THE CLASSIFICATION PROBLEM WAS CORRECTED, BUT OVERALL
AUGMENTATION TIMELINESS PROBLEM CONTINUED
A MINIMALLY CHALLENGING SCENARIO WAS INAPPROPRIATELY
CHOSEN
CONTAMINATION ACCESS CONTROL TO THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
- . FACILITIES WAS IDENTIFIED AS A PROBLEM
~,;--.-..,.._....,--:----.--.:~--
- *~*-,
-~~ .. -.
_ _,........_ ... _ ._ ... '
....... -
- '
-
.
.
.-*.
...
.
- .-
-*-**. --;-:--~- *--*-------.-~- --*-* .. ,*-**;
.. --. **-:
0
0
0
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS - CATEGORY 3 (CON'T)
IMPROVEMENT WAS NOTED IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CLASSIFICATION
PROCEDURES LATE- IN THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD
IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOTED IN THE UTILIZATION OF A COMPUTERIZED
SYSTEM TO TRACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING AND THE UPGRADES
TO THE EARLY WARNING SIREN SYSTEM
ONLY LIMITED PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS WERE ACTUALLY OBSERVED BY
THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD
--~- -*-..--.... -.-.. *-.~-----.~ -...., -.
,---. __ ...-~
. -----.,--
- *-** .*
~
,.-
. ----
--
-
'
-- .---
........ '
-
-. ,*
- .
1*.-.-
'*,*-:-- - ..*. **--
0
0
0
0
0
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT - CATEGORY 2
POOR ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FAILURE
TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE DESIGN BASIS ADEQUACY OF THE
SERVICE WATER SYSTEM
ENGINEERING
REVIEWS WERE INADEQUATE EARLY IN THE
ASSESSMENT PERIOD, CONTRIBtJTING TO THE SIGNIFICANT MOV
PROBLEM
SELF-ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY WAS LACKING, AS EVIDENCED BY A
LARGE BACKLOG OF ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
WEAKNESSES WERE EVIDENT IN PLANT EWR PROCEDURE QUALITY AND
TECHNICAL REVIEWS
NRC-IDENTIFIED SSFI AND AIT FINDINGS RESULTED IN MANAGEMENT 1S
RECOGNITION OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN ENGINEERING AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
_,.* ... -:"'*~**,****.****.*~ ...
J.*:*
- ,..
.
. .
. . *. *.
'
- ' .... ,.-.. -
0
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT -
CATEGORY 2 (CON'T)
ENGINEERING STAFF WAS REORGANIZED AND INCREASED TO FOCUS
APPROPRIATE RESOURCES TO THE NEEDS OF THE STATION
0
ENGINEERING SUPPORT TO THE .EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM
WAS GOOD
0
0
0
.,
A DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTATION PROJECT WHICH ENCOMPASSES 80
PLANT SYSTEMS WAS INITIATED
AN
ENGINEERING
COMMITMENT
OF
RESOURCES
WAS
NOTED IN.
PREPARATION FOR UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 RESTART
OPERATOR TRAINING WAS EFFECTIVE AND TRAINING FACILITIES
CONTINUED TO BE A*STRENGTH
0
0
0
SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY VERIFICATION - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES IN PLANT AND CORPORATE LEADERSHIP AND
SKILLS CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT PERIOD
NUMEROUS
EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT'S FAILURE TO TAKE
ADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTION
PROBLEMS REGARDING FAILURE TO PERFORM PROPER SAFETY
EVALUATIONS
INADEQUATE. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF EVENTS, FAILURES,
AND/OR CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY
APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES CONCERNING NRC
BULLETINS WAS NOT CONSERVATIVE NOR THOROUGH
TRACKING OF REGULATORY COMMITMENTS WAS A WEAKNESS
-
.*
.
. . -
-
'
--
.
- --*-*-. -.. --*-***.-*.,.--.---~ **-- ............ , ..
.
.-... ** ....
- -*
0
.,
0
0
0
SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY VERIFICATION -
CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING (CON'T)
A MAJOR WEAKNESS WAS OBSERVED REGARDING THE CORPORATE
INDEPENDENT REVIEW GROUP IN THAT TS REQUIRED REVIEWS WERE NOT
BEING PERFORMED
AMENDMENT AND RELIEF REQUESTS WERE OF GOOD QUALITY AND
SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY MANNER
LATE
IN
THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD,
THE
QA ORGANIZATION
DEMONSTRATED AN IMPROVED CAPABILITY TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS IN
SAFETY-RELATED PLANT ACTIVITIES
THE MAJORITY OF DEFICIENCIES OCCURRED EARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT
PERIOD.
TOWARD THE END OF THE PERIODi INCREASED MANAGEMENT
SENSITIVITY WAS NOTED AS CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BECAME MORE
THOROUGH, SAFETY ASSESSMENT IMPROVED AND THE ROOT CAUSE
ANALYSIS EFFORT INCREASED
-~--
.
0
0
0
0
0
OVERALL FACILITY EVALUATION
OVERALL PERFORMANCE WAS MIXED ANO DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
EXCEED MINIMAL.REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
PROBLEMS CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT PERIOD DUE TO
INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT, SELF-ASSESSMENT DEFICIENCIES
AND AN INEFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO EMPHASIZE THE PROCEDURE UPGRADE PROGRAM
AND RELIABILITY OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR PLANT OPERATIONS
THE RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS FUNCTIONAL AREA IMPROVED, BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY, FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT PERIOD
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RADWASTE FACILITY, REDUCED CONTAMINATION
EVENTS AND DOWNWARD DOSE TREND ARE A POSITIVE INDICATION OF
THE* RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL EFFORT
- ... - .. -*- . * .-
,* - .. ,- , ..
' *'
'
~
0 *. ~,*-***H*,--,**- *----.-*-*** * ---:-
.. -. ..
- * <
0
~
' *
0
OVERALL FACILITY EVALUATION (CON'T)
0
IMPROVEMENTS
TO
THE HP
PROGRAM MUST ENSURE PERSONNEL
ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURES
0
MANAGEMENT SHOULD EMPHASIZE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MAINTENANCE PM
PROGRAM, THE PARTS PROCUREMENT PROGRAM AND POST-MODIFICATION
TESTING
0
0
0
0
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE IDENTIFIED
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE EP PROGRAM
THE EXCELLENT QUALITY OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, PROCEDURES AND.
TRAINING ARE DEFINITE PROGRAM STRENGTHS
PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT AREA WAS
-
.
POOR EARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD.
MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO CONTINUE ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
CLOSELY MONITOR PROGRESS
q ,--
-:---,--,-
-- -_
- 0
0
OVERALL FACILITY EVALUATION {CON'T)
ATTENTION IS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CORRECTIVE ACTION, SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS
PROGRAMS
MANAGEMENT CHANGES RESULTED IN OVERALL INCREASED ATTENTION TO
DETAIL AND IMPROVING TRENDS LATER IN THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD
A NEW SENSITIVITY AND A POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD PERFORMANCE
OF PLANT ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN NOTED.