ML18152A231
| ML18152A231 | |
| 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.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001100061 | |
| Download: ML18152A231 (45) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1989016
Text
NOV 2 7 1989
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281
. License Nos. DPR~32, DPR-37
- VirQinia 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
This letter transmits to you the final NRC's Systematic Assessment of Ucensee
Perfonnanc_e (SALP) Report for your Surry facility for the period covering May 1,
1988 through June 30, 1989.
Enclosures 1 through .4 contain the pertinent
. comments related to the proceedings leading up to the fonnalization of the final
SALP report.
The SALP Board was reconvened on November 14, 1989, to review and discuss the
comments in your letter of November 1, 1989 which responded to the SALP fin.dings.
The SALP Board did not find your information persuasive and, therefore, did not
change any of the SALP functional area. ratings.
The Board did agre~ that new
initiatives have been undertaken which, *if effectively implemented, offer the
promise -0f ;~proved performance.
The Boa~d ~lso made a change to the wording
to make it more accurate (see Enclosures 1 and. 4).
I h_ave noted the corrm-ent in
your re_sponse related- to the failure of the NRC staff to *effectively communicate
the staff's concerns about the conduct of the remedial exercise and will take
action to minimize this in our future activities.
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.
Virginia Power comments on SALP
Report (Ltr dtd November 1, 1989)
4.
Errata Sheet
cc w/encls:
(See page 2)
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Stewart D. Ebneter
Regional Administrator
. ~
.
/;Uo
-- /
1/r
- -
'* -.._ .:_:_"-~-.
- , *
- ':~-~- - *. I.
-- ~:.-
.Virginia Electric and Power Company
cc w/encls:
- W. R. Ca.rtwri ght
Vice President - Nuclear Operations
Virginia Electric & Power Company
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Allen, VA
23060
J. P. O'Hanlon
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 All en, VA
23060 -
Sherlock Holmes, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Surry County
Surry County Courthouse
Surry, vA* 23683
W. T. Lough
Virginia Corporation Convnission
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
rH"lV 2 7 1989
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. Nuc*1ear Regulatory Commission {
Rou~e 1; Box 166
Surry, VA
23883
RII;f~~
PEFi;d'ri ckson: er
llrytl89
- ~
11~9
RI~
Mvf;ntfk1e
),-
111),0/89
RII:DRS
JMilhoan
11/i,.~89
N -sY"'
Qv"'
~ /
Q~o
3
NOV 2 7 1989
RII:fl!5,
JPd6~r
11P489
_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 Power
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 Pr~sident - Engineering
.
J. P. 0 1Hanlon, 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, plant operators,
maintenance personnel, and r~presentatives from va~io~s plant staffs.
This large turnout was beneficial to the SALP.process and is highly
recommended for future presentations.
C.
NRC Attendees
D .
S. D. 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
SALP Meeting Slides
See Ericlosure 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 Units 1 and 2.
We appreciate your efforts in
developing the detailed comments.
The initiatives addressed in your SALP
response to impro.ve 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 chang~ 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 l problems and numerous viol at ions, your actua 1
performance during the assessment period appears to be a SALP 3 Category.
However, we do recognize that the programmatic enhancements initiated
during the assess~ent 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 be 1 i eves th.at
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 9f 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, "minimally
challenging," is not an accurate description of the remedial 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 action for the event classification
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 short 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 o~ly 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 that, al 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 ar~a 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 ori
November 15, 1989.
ENCLOSURE 2
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY .
COMMISSION
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF
.*
. '
.LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
(SALP)
VIRGINIA* ELECTRIC
'
AND POWER COMP ANY
_ MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, 1989
SURRY UNITS 1 & 2
OCTOBER 4, 1989
SURRY, VIRGINIA
I
SAlP PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
1. IDENTIFY TRENDS IN LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
2. PROVIDE A BASIS FOR ALLOCATION
OF NRC RESOURCES
3. IMPROVE NRC REGULA TORY PROGRAM
BECION II OBCANIZATION
PUIJC AFFAIRS
STAFF
mR.*
K. a.ARK
DfflllGI.
ll&CIOI PIOBffl
DIL
L IIYES
DEPU1Y
C. tEI.
ADMINISTRATOR S. EiiNE.IER
DEPUTY J. IAHOAN
REGIONAL
COUNSEL
- -".
...,,. unrr
la
A CIBII
IIJIUIY t IDSOaF
STATE All> GOV'T,
DFtwDl'NT Mm
STAFF
INDiiiA1DI
COCIDll1DI STAFF
[It R. TROJAN<MSKI
DIR.
G. JDl<INS
DIVISION OF IDUICE
YAIIASOfFIIT ,.
ADMJNlfflllDI
IIR.
R. WilY
DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS
ORGANIZATION
I
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 1
CHIEF
D. VERREW
PllO.ICTS SECTION
NO. IA
QEf H. IWa:
~
_HNfE
ROEINS<*
FARLEY
GRAND GULF
. SUMMER
. DMSION Of
- REACTOR PROJECTS
DIR.
L REYES
DEPUTY
C. HEHL
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 2
CHIEF
M. SINKUU:
PIIO.ICIS SECTIGI
NO. 2A
atEF P. AIIRa(S(lt
NORTH ANNA
SURRY
. PIIOETS m:nall
...
-
ST. WCI£
CRYSTAL RNER
nJRKEY POINT
I
REACTOR PROJECTS
BRANCH NO. 3
- CHIEF
A. HERDT
PIIOEl'S SECTION
NO. M
QIEF II. 9f'1II.OQ(
CATAWBA
McGlR
OCCHE
PllO.ICTS SECTION
NO.. *
CHEF
K. BR0<>3Wt
HATOi
YOG1lE
NRR ORCANIZATION
I
OF'FICE Of' .
NUa.EAR REACTOR
REGULATION
DIR.
THOMAS E. MURLEY
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
SPECIAL PROJECTS
PROJECTS
-
DIVISION OF *
TVA PROJECTS
-DMSION OF
- COMANCHE PEAK
J. PARTLOW
DMSION Of
IIEACrOI PIO£IS 1/1
S. YMIA. Da. 1/1
-
H. .... 11111-2*
L IIUCKLE'f, PICM. ...
-
SUIIY
PIDCIUM IWWDEIT,
- . POUCY IEWI.OPIIJfT,
I ANALYSIS STAFr
I
ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR
INSPECTION I
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
I
DIV. OF ENGINEERING
AND SYSIEM
-
TEctltOLOGY
DIV, OF
OPERATIONAL EVENTS -
ASSE~
DIV. OF R£ACTOR
INSPECTION All>
~
SAfEGUARDS
IIV. r, UDIA11GII
PID1BTIIII -
-
FM1mlCY PIIPMDIEII
- IJCEIIIII
KiiiilUICE -
~
QUMJIY L'WUIA1DI
,
NRC
SALP PROGRAM
REVISIONS
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
- Emphasis on Analysis
.. e
.PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS
.
.
FOR OPERATING REACTORS
A. PLANT OPERATIONS
B. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
C. MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE
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 oil 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 function al area is to address the
technical adequacy and completeness of the licensee's
approach toward a vo,.iety 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 asse~sments, 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 anomalous performance in monitoring the
- overall performance of the plant.
,.
PERFORMANCE RATING CATEGORIES
- Expanded discussion intent
- Redefinition of the categories to clarify
their meaning
L
AREA PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY 1
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT
ARE READILY EVIDENT AND Pl.ACE EMPHASIS ON SUPERIOR
-
PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OF SAFEGUARDS
ACTMIES.WITH 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
BEING ACHEIVED. REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE
APPROPRIATE *
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 PLANT
AND PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE ,IS BEING ACHEIVED. NRC
ATTENTION MAY BE MAINTAINED AT NORMAL LEVELS .
'
AREA* *pE*RFORMANCE
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 SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEED THAT NEEDED
TO MEET MINIMAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE
RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STRAINED OR NOT EFFECTIVELY
USED. NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE INCREASED ABCNf.
NORMAL LEVELS.
EVALUATION CRITERIA*
. 1. MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING QUAUlY
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
FROM A SAFElY STANDPOINT
3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES *
4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTABLE EVENTS
- s. STAFFING (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT)
7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND QU,AJJFICATION
,
VIOLATION SUMMARY
MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, 1989
II
Ill
V
SURRY 1
0
0
9
19
2
SURRY 2
0
0
9
17
2
REGION II AVE. *
0
0
1
1 6
2
PER UNIT
JO
21
20
~ II
0
~
0
5
~ 10
it:
l&J m
2
- J z I
OPERATIONS PHASE VIOLATIONS/OPERATING REACTOR
,
MAY 1, 1988 through- JUNE 30, 1989
LEGEND
~
Rll AVG
SURRY
- ~
UTILITIES
o,-
SURRY FPC GPC DPC FPL Rll AVG CPL SERISCE&G N>C
UTILITY
21*
II
II
en "
z
0 -...
~ 12
~
~ ..
la.
0
f5 I
m
2 :, z I
'
l
ALLEGATIONS PER UTILITY /SITE
MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, * 1989
.., ..
GPC
SERI
APC
FPIL
RH AVG
SCEIG
UTILITY
LEGEND
- ~ RH AVE.
m
UTILITIES
LERs PER UNIT
..
MAY 1. 1988 through JUNE 30. 1989
LEGEND
~
NATL AVE.
SURRY
~
PLANT~
II
I
- ------SURRY
BW
PLANT lYPE
70
.,
so
10
.a
,SURRY LERs
- MAY 1, 1988 through JUNE 30, 1989
67.
22
PLANT
PERSONNEL *
LEGEND
D PERSONNEL (TOTAL)
II PERSONNEL ( OPERATING) .
~
PERSONNEL (MAINTENANCE)
PERSONNEL (TEST /CAUB)
~
PERSONNEL (OTHER) .
~
CONST/FAS/INST
II DESIGN
. Iii COMPONENT FAIWRE
fl OTHER
14.50
1JJl5
11.IO
10.15
(I) C,
~ z 1.71
iii~
b.
0 C,
7.25
o::~
WGj
m_
~o uo
- , l&J
.
zo::
1.e
FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPARISON
FOR REGION II SITES
SALP CYCLE 7
.
-
..
..
,,
,,
,,
..
- ..
..
N ..
RAD
M/S
SEC E/TS SA/W
FUNCTIONAL AREA
LEGEND
CATEGORY 1
CATEGORY 2
~
CATEGORY 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
PLANT OPERATIONS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
PROPER MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL WERE NOT EVIDENT DURING THE
FIRST.HALF OF THE*ASSESSMENT PERIOD
MANAGEMENT SENSITIVITY TOWARDS PROPER OPERATION OF THE
STATION AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING OPERATOR. ATTENTION TO
DETAIL WERE
NOT EVIDENT UNTIL THE LATTER HALF OF* THE
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
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
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 ANO
APPROPRIATE SCHEDULING OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
0
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLANT STATUS LOG APPEARED TO HAVE A
POSITIVE
IMPACT
ON
SAFE
OPERATION
WITH
REGARDS
TO
CONFIGURATION CONTROL
0
0
0
OPERATIONS STAFFING LEVELS WERE IMPROVED WITH THE REQUIREMENT
OF THREE SR0
1S 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
0
0
0
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AFFECTED PERFORMANCE EARLY IN THE
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
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
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING (CON'T)
0
NEW INITIATIVES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OF
PERFORMANCE
HAVE
RtSUL TED IN IMPROVED HP SUPPORT, .HOWEVER, NUMEROUS PROBLEMS
WERE
OBSERVED
IN STATION WORKERS
I
COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS
0
0
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
MA~AGEMENT OF COLLECTIVE DOSE
0
'
0
-
0
0
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE - CATEGORY 3
PROCEDURE. INADEQUACY
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ADEQUATE
PROCEDURAL CONTROL CONTINUED TO BE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES
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
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
0
0
0
0
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE - CATEGORY 3 (CON'T)
INADEQUACIES WERE IDENTIFIED REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION,
PROCUREMENT, AND STAGING OF PARTS
SIGNIFICANT AND 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-MAlNTENANCE TESTING
PROGRAM WAS A WEAKNESS
TS SURVEILLANCE TESTS WERE GENERALLY PERFORMED IN THE
REQUIRED' TIME FRAME,
BUT MAJOR
PROBLEMS REVEALED SOME
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES
0
0
MAINTENANCE/SURVEILLANCE"'. CATEGORY 3 (CON
1 T)
. THE IS! TEST PROGRAM AND THE NOE PROGRAM WERE GENERALLY SOUND
AND EXTENSIVE
MAINTENANCE
PREDICTIVE
ANALYSIS
FEEDBACK
INTO
THE
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS A STRENGTH
0
POST~REFUELING
STARTUP
PHYSICS
TEST ACTIVITIES
WERE
APPROACHED IN A SOUND MANNER
0
SECONDARY SYSTEM CORROSION PRODUCT MONITORING AND TRENDING
HAS IMPROVED WITH THE ADDITION OF COMPUTERIZED DATA LOGGING
0
0
0
SECURITY - CATEGORY 1
EXCELLENT SUPPORT WAS PROVIDED WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
APPROVED PLAN
THE DAILY PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY FORCE AND ITS ON-SITE
SUPERVISION ANO MANAGEMENT WERE PROGRAM STRENGTHS
CORPORATE QA ANNUAL AUDITS OF THE SECURITY PROGRAM WERE
AGGRESSIVE
0
_ PROCEDURES WERE CLEARLY WRITTEN AND READILY AVAILABLE FOR
. REGULATORY TRACKING PURPOSES
0
0
0
TRAINING AND REQUALIFICATION CONTINUED TO BE STRONG POINTS
THE
SECURITY STAFF'S IMPLEMENTATION OF A PERSONALIZED
BRIEFING OF PERSONS WHO WERE BADGED ~OR 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 AND MAINTENANCE WAS NEEDED
0
-0
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS - CATEGORY 3
THE ANNUAL EMERGENCY EXERCISE IDENTIFIED ~VENT 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 PREPAR~DNESS - CATEGORY 3 (CON 1T)
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
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,
CONTRIBUTING TO
THE SIGNIFICANT MOV
PROBLEM
SELF-ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY WAS LACKING, AS EVIDENCED BY A
LARGE BACKLOG OF ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
0
WEAKNESSES WERE EVIDENT IN PLANT EWR PROCEDURE QUALITY AND
TECHNICAL REVIEWS
0
NRC IDENTIFIED SSFI AND AIT FINDINGS RESULTED IN MANAGEMENT'S.
RECOGNITION OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN ENGINEERING AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
0
0
0
ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT - CATEGORY 2 (CON 1T)
-
ENGINEERING STAFF WAS REORGANIZED . AND INCREASED TO FOCUS
APPROPRIATE RESOURCES TO THE NEEDS OF THE STATION
ENGINEERING suePORT TO THE EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM
WAS GOOD
A DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTATION PROJECT WHICH ENCOMPASSES 80
PLANT SYSTEMS .WAS INITIATED
0
AN
ENGINEERING
COMMITMENT
OF
RESOURCES WAS NOTED IN
PREPARATION FOR UNIT l AND UNIT 2 RESTART
0
OPERATOR TRAINING WAS EFFECTIVE AND TRAINING FACILITIES
CONTINUED TO BE A STRENGTH
L
. * SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY VERIFICATION - CATEGORY 3 IMPROVING
0
0
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
0
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 REVIE_W 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
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 PERIOD, INCREASED MANAGEMENT
SENSITIVITY WAS NOTED AS CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BECAME MORE
THOROUGH,
SAFETY ASSESSMENT IMPROVED AND THE ROOT CAUSE
ANALYSIS EFFORT INCREASED
OVERALL FACILITY EVALUATION
0
OVERALL PERFORMANCE WAS MIXED AND DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
EXCEED MINIMAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
0
.
.
PROBLEMS CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT PERIOD DUE TO
INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT, SELF-ASSESSMENT DEFICIENCIES
AND AN INEFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
0
MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO EMPHASIZE THE PROCEDURE UPGRADE PROGRAM
AND RELIABILITY OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR PLANT OPERATIONS
0
0
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
0
0
0
OVERALL FACILITY EVALUATION (CON
1T)
IMPROVEMENTS
TO
THE HP
PROGRAM MUST ENSURE PERSONNEL
ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURES
MANAGEMENT SHOULD EMPHASIZE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MAINTENANCE PM
PROGRAM, THE PARTS PROCUREMENT PROGRAM AND POST-MODIFICATION
TESTING
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE IDENTIFIED
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE EP PROGRAM
THE EXCELLENT QUALITY or SECURITY PERSONNEL, PROCEDURES AND
TRAINING ARE DEFINITE PROGRAM STRENGTHS
0
PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL SUPPORT AREA WAS
POOR EARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD.
0
- MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO CONTINUE ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
, CLOSELY MONITOR PROGRESS
0
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 .