ML18152A459
| ML18152A459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1994 |
| From: | Buckley B, Engle L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9407120135 | |
| Download: ML18152A459 (34) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555--0001 June 30, 1994 Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 and 50-338, 50-339 LICENSEE:
Virginia Electric and Power Company FACILITY:
Surry and North Anna Power Stations
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 7, 1994 MEETING On June 7, 1994, a meeting was held with representatives of the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) in Rockville,.Maryland.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss current and future licensing actions for the Surry and North Anna Nuclear Facilities. A list of attendees and meeting handouts are enclosed.
VEPCO's presentation briefly addressed:
(1) management perspectives; (2)
Surry core uprate status; (3) cost-beneficial licensing actions; (4) other licensing issues; and (5) quality assurance reorganization/self assessment.
A summary of the discussions of the most pertinent issues *is provided below.
- 1.
Management Perspectives VEPCO discussed a series of actions designed to contain costs further, continue efficient operations, and prepare the company for changes in the electric utility industry.
- 2.
Surry Core Uprate Status The current licensed core power level is 2441 megawatts thermal (MWt), or 822 megawatts electric (MWe).
The SURRY CORE UPRATE report would propose uprating the core power level to 2546 MWt or 856 MWe.
The 856 MWe core uprate power is equal to the original plant design "stretch" power.
The above-cited report submittal date has slipped from July to August 1994.
- 3.
Cost-Beneficial Licensing Actions (CBLAs)
VEPCO continues to express a keen interest in regulatory requirements that may, in their view, result in marginal safety enhancements when weighed against the financial burden involved.
The topics discussed in this area are as follows:
3.1 10 CFR 73 Security Exemption By submittal dated May 27, 1994, VEPCO requested an exemption from the requirement that authorized individuals not employed by VEPCO receive a picture badge upon entrance into a protected area and
"{ *:i. (...... r. tr..,
.,..................... vc,<..,.:;
-~9407120135 940630 PDR ADOCK 05000280 p
- return the badge upon exiting the protected area. This exemption request is based on an alternative which utilizes a hand geometry biometrics system in the process of gaining access to the protected areas at the Surry and North Anna Power Stations, in lieu of manual picture badge verification. Similar exemptions have been granted for the St. Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear facilities. The NRC staff informed VEPCO that review of the requested exemption will commence in the near future.
3.2 10 CFR 50, Appendix J VEPCO indicated that they are deliberating whether to submit an exemption from Appendix J to defer the Type A containment leak rate test to the refueling outages immediately following the next scheduled refueling outages of March 1995 and May 1995 for Surry, Unit 2, and North Anna, Unit 2, respectively. The NRC staff indicated that the approval of such an exemption request would be unlikely.
3.3 Emergency Preparedness (EP} Staff Augmentation Revision By submittal dated February 18, 1994, VEPCO requested revisions to*
the Surry and North Anna Emergency Preparedness Plans regarding timely staff augmentation of emergency response* capability by proposing an alternate methodology to achieve the same objective to meet NRC guidance on minimum staffing levels during the early stages of an emergency response.
VEPCO was informed that this request is being reviewed by Region II staff.
3.4 Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee (SNSOC} and the Management Safety Review Committee (MSRC} Review Respons i bil iti es By amendment application dated December 27, 1993, VEPCO proposed changes to the Surry and North Anna Technical Specifications (TS) that would modify the SNSOC and MSRC review responsibilities.
SNSOC is currently required to review all procedure changes.
The revised TS would require SNSOC to review procedure changes based on safety significance, i.e., changes that require a safety evaluation. The non-safety significant procedure changes, i.e., not requiring~
safety evaluation, would be reviewed by cognizant management.
The MSRC review of safety evaluations would be performance-based rather than on the current requirement to review all safety evaluations and would apply a graded sampling criteria of procedures depending on the risk significance of the issue. The NRC staff had several questions regarding these amendment requests and had previously scheduled a meeting which occurred on June 14, 1994, in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss these amendment requests in further detail.
- t---
I
- 4.0 Other Licensing Issues 4.1 Seismicity Research and Seismic Walkdown Based on their review of NRC Information Notice 94-32 "Revised Seismic Hazards Esti~ates," VEPCO is considering submitting a request that would extend the completion dates for the SQUG and IPEEE issues. The current scheduled completion dates for North Anna and Surry, with respect to SQUG, are March 1996 and February 1997, respectively. The proposed completion dates, if submitted, would be August 1997 and October 1998.
Similarly, the completion dates for the IPEEE efforts would be extended from December 1995 to May 1997 for North Anna, and from November 1996 to July 1998 for Surry. If this request were acceptable to the NRC, it would allow VEPCO to complete these efforts using VEPCO staff, with minimal consultant assistance, resulting in a savings of approximately $400,000.
4.2 Upgraded TS VEPCO is planning to upgrade both the Surry and North Anna TS focusing on the NRC TS line-item improvements and the NRC policy to facilitate plant-specific implementation.
The submittal date is scheduled for fall 1994.
(Original Signed By)
Bart C. Buckley, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page Distribution See next page OFC LA:PDII-2 PM:PDll-2 NAME ETana tj'-r BBuckl ey Sincerely, (Original Signed By)
Leon B. Engle, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor *Regulation OFFICIAL RECORD COPY - FILENAME: A:\\SU TG.SUM
Virginia Electric & Power Company cc:
Mr. William C. Porter, Jr.
County Administrator Louisa County P.a.* Box 160 Louisa, Virginia 23093 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation P.0. Box 1197
_Richmond, Virginia 23209 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 4201 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 78 Mineral, Virginia 23117 Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5850.Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P.O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Regional Administrator, RII U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W, #2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. J. A. Stall, Manager North Anna Power Station P.O. Box 402 Mineral, Virginia 23117 Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. Michael R. Kansler, Manager Surry Power Station Post. Office Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, Virginia 23683
f
-~
Memorandum Dated __
J_un_e_3_0_, _1_99_4 __ _
Distribution Docket File NRC & Local PDRs PDll-2 Reading File W. Russell/F. Miraglia L. Reyes S. Varga G. Lainas H. Berkow E. Tana B. Buckley L. Engle OGC E. Jordan ACRS (10)
L. Plisco, EDO RII D. Verelli, RII
Name L. Engle L. N. Hartz M. L. Bowling L. Girvin H. Berkow B. Buckley J. Chen G. Bagchi D. Sommers
- s. Varga G. Lainas R. Hernan R. Latta SURRY/NORTH ANNA VEPCO MEETING MANAGEMENT MEETING JUNE 7, 1994 ATTENDEES Office PDII-2/NRR VEPCO VEPCO VEPCO PDII-2/NRR PDII-2/NRR NRC NRC VEPCO NRR/DRPE NRR/ADR2 NRC/PDI-4*
NRC/RPEP ':
- I I.
II.
Ill.,
IV.
V.
NRC/VIRGINIA POWER MEETING Management Meeting June Z, 1994 AGENDA Management Perspectives Surry Core Uprate Status Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions A.
1 O CFR 73 Security Exemption
- 8.
Appendix J Rulemaking C.
EP Staff Augmentation Revision D.
SNSOC & MSRC Review Scope TS Change E.
Others Other Licensing Issues A.
Seismicity Research & Seismic Walkdown Schedules B.
Upgraded Techical Specification C.
Graded QA Pilot QA Reorganization/Self Assessment L. M. Girvin M. L. Bowling M. L. Bowling/
D. A. Sommers i'*
D. A. Sommers M. L. Bowling L. N. Hartz L. N. Hartz
SURRY CORE UPRATE STATUS NSSS SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE BOP SYSTEMS ARE ACCEPTABLE WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO UPRATED OPERATION ACCIDENT REANAL VSIS AND RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE EVALUATIONS MEET DESIGN CRITERIA CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY ANALYSES IN PROGRESS -
INCREASE IN MARGIN EXPECTED STEAM GENERATOR. LEVEL OSCILLATION ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED SEPARATELY FROM CORE UPRATE ACTIVITY e1
SURRY CORE UPRATE PLANT MODIFICATIONS COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS STEAM GENERATOR MOISTURE CARRYOVER MODIFICATIONS ON 1A, 18, 1C, AND 2A PLANNED MODIFICATIONS FIFTH POINT FEED tlEA,TER DRAIN NOZZLE REINFORCEMENT DURING 1995 REFUELING OUTAGES
- *POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS STEAM GENERATOR MOISTURE CARRYOVER MODIFICATIONS ON 2~ AND 2C, SUBJECT TO TESTING PROTECTION AND CONTROL SETPOINT REVISIONS
COR~ UPRATE SCHEDULE COMPLETION OF VALIDATION AND REANAL VSIS BY JUNE 1994 SUBMITIAL OF LICENSE AMENDMENT PLANNED FOR AUGUST 1994
- ,)
I IMPLEMENTATION AT POWER (AS WAS DONE FOR.
NORTH ANNA)
10 CFR 73 SECURITY EXEMPTION FOR USE OF BIOMETRICS HAND GEOMETRY SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY BADGED WORKERS MODELED AFTER FP&L's EXEMPTION REQUEST STAGED IMPLEMENTATION INSTALLATION MID-1995 SECURITY PLAN REVISION FOLLOWING NRC EXEMPTION REQUEST APPROVAL
APPENDIX J RULEMAKING FINAL RULEMAKING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 1995 NAPS UNIT 2 TYPE A TEST NO TEST FAILURES LAST TEST PERFORMED IN 1990 COINCIDENT WITH 10 YEAR ISi REFUELING OUTAGE NEXT TEST SCHEDULED FOR MAY 1995 SPS UNIT 2 TYPE A TEST 5 TESTS IN LAST 11 YEARS
'i'.J EARLY TEST FAILURES ASSOCIATED WITH TYPE B & C PENALTIES NEXT TEST SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 1995
EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION STAFF AUGMENTATION PROPOSED CHANGES FOR TIMELY AUGMENTATION AND MINIMUM STAFFING 10 CFR 50.47(8) REQUEST (ALTERNATE METHODOLOGY)
ALTERNATE APPROACH.FOCUSES ON. OVERALL EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY I
MSRC REVIEW AND SAMPLING OF SAFETY EVALUATIONS PERFORMANCE BASED APPROACH TO REVIEW OF SAFETY EVALUATIONS GRADED SAMPLING CRITERIA BASED ON RISK SIGNIFICANCE
- 1
SNSOC REVIEW OF PROCEDURE CHANGES SNSOC REVIEW OF PROCEDURE CHANGES BASED ON SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE-CHANGES THAT REQUIRE A SAFETY EVALUATION NON-SAFETY SIGNIFICANT PROCEDURE CHANGES REVIEWED BY COGNIZANT MANAGEMENT - CHANGES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A
- SAFETY EVALUATION e!
CBLA FOCUS ITEMS
.I ITEM ACTION DECREASE FIRE PUMP TEST COMMITMENT FREQUENCY CHANGE POST ACCIDENT SAMPLING
CHANGE
CBLA FOCUS ITEMS I
ITEM ACTION NAPS TURBINE VALVE TS CHANGE FREEDOM TESTING BRUSH CLEARING UNDER TS CHANGE 500 KV POWER LINES DECREASE RPS/ESF *.
TS CHANGE FUNCTIONAL TESTING FREQUENCY ELIMINATE CHARGING PUMP CC SUBSYSTEM
.,:, ~
TS CHANGE
Potential Items for Regulatory R~duction APPENDIX R / APPENDIX A EMERGENCY LIGHTING COMMITMENTS EDG TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (OVERHAUL AND ACCELERATED TESTING),.
REMOVAL OF THERMAL.STRATIFICATION MONITORING NAPS U2 STEAM GENERATOR. REPLACEMENT - NRC INSPECTIONS CONTAINMENT PERSONNEL HATtH'oPEN DURING REFUELING REDUNDANT S/G TUBE PLUGGING REPORTS
Potential Items for Regulatory Reduction (cont'd)
NAPS RCS LOOP STOP VALVE INTERLOCKS REDUCE RADIATION MONITORS HOT PARTICLE CONTROLS HYDROGEN ANALYZER CALIBRATION FREQUENCY QUALIFICATION OF QA RADWASTE INSPECTORS REQUEST ELIMINATION OF NRC CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS IN~PECTION
.I
SQUG AND IPEEE SCHEDULES NRC GUIDANCE NRC APPROVED PROPOSED SQUG NAPS MAY 1995.
~
l
. MAR 1996 AUG 1997 SPS NOV 1995
- . DEC 1995 MAY 1997 e
SPS JUNE 1995 NOV 1996 JULY 1998 J
PERFORMANCE BASIS FOR MODIFIED SCHEDULE WALKDOWNS ARE ON SCHEDULE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT (38%)COMPLETE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS IDENTIFIED OUTLIER AND DEVIATION RESOLUTION ONGOING MOST RELAY EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED EFFORT TO DATE PROVIDES REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT NO GENERIC SEISMIC SAFETY CONCERN EXISTS e1
RISK BASIS FOR MODIFIED SCHEDULE SEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK COMPLETED BY LLNL CONCLUDED THAT THE SEISMIC RISK IS SMALL EPRI SEISMIC HAZARDS CURVES AND THE RECENT LLNL HAZARDS CURVES INDICATE THAT THE SEISMIC HAZARD IS SMALL AT OUR SITE*
NUREG-1150 PRA, WHICH ADDRESSED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT INCLUDING WALKDOWNS,*CONCLUDED SEISMIC RISK AT SURRY IS SMALL
- i);
/***
.I
.i
IPEEE REDUCED SCOPE RESULTS OF NUREG-1488 INDICATE THAT THE MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD IS LOWER THAN ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED WALKDOWN REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCED SCOPE REMAIN THESAMEASFOCUSEDSCOPEPROGRAM INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT WALKDOWNS HAVE ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED SEISMICALLY DEFICIENT
.I COMPONENTS REDUCED SCOPE WILL REDUCE THE EXTENSIVE ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF A FOCUSED SCOPE
UPGRADED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISCREPANCIES OR ISSUES WITH NAPS OR SPS TECH SPECS RECENT COMPLETION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SURVEILLANCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM OPERATIONS STAFF EXPERIENCE WITH CURRENT STYLE OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FULL MERITS IMPLEMENTATION IS EXPENSIVE AND RESOURCE INTENSIVE TECH SPEC LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENTS AND NRC POLICY STATEMENT FACILITATE PLANT SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION INCREMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH PROVIDES BETTER
- . CONTROL OF RESOURCES AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT
I SPLIT IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH ANNA e
1 EVALUATE LCOs RELATIVE TO THE FOUR CRITERIA CONTAINED IN THE NRC's POLICY STATEMENT LCOs MEETING ANY ONE OF THE CRITERIA WILL BE RETAINED LCOs NOT MEETING ANY OF THE CRITERIA WILL BE RELOCATED NO CHANGES PLANNED FOR RELOCATED MATERIAL AT THIS TIME SUBMITTAL PLANNED FOR FALL 1994
Upgraded Technical Specifications Cost Estimate for Full MERITS Implementation*
- Virginia Power North Anna MERITS Implementation Value/Impact Assessment *
- Estimated Total Conversion Cost
- Virginia Power license Application and Review Support
- NRC Review Fees
- Training and Site Procedures
- Training and Site Procedures Estimates Assumed the Use of Contractors
$3.3 million
$0.4 million
$0.1 mllllon
$2.4 million
Virginia Power Graded QA Presentation el
1/IRGINIAPOWER PT202.1
Why Virginia Power Is Participating In The NEI Sponsored Graded QA Pilot
- NRC Endorsement
- Graded Program Focuses On Safety Significance
- Resources Made Available To Focus On Problem Areas In A Timely Manner
- Cost Savings From Reduction Of Emphasis On Non-Safety Significant Efforts
- Virginia Power Is Well Positioned To Make The Next Step In Achieving Excellence
- Good Operating Performance
-Good Regulatory Performance
~ Management Support For Qua I ity Programs PT202.3
- 1
Positioning Virginia PoWer Organization For Graded QA Pilot
- Establish Management Oversight Team Representatives From QA,- Licensing, Engineering, Station Organizations
- Establish Working Level Task_Team
- Evaluate Processes For Application Of Pilot
- Establish Internal Review Process PT202.4 e1
Virginia Power On-Goiflg Efforts Related To Graded QA
- Grading Of Q-List Using Deterministic Methodology
- Grading Of Procurements Based On Q-List
- Grading Of Design Modifications Through A Tiered Modification Program
- Change In Audit Frequency Allowing Resources '10 Be Applied To Flexible Performance Based Assessment And *Monitoring,:\\ctivities
- Reorganization Of QA Department Into Functional Areas
- Reduction Of Independent Review Requirements
- Station Nuclear Safety And Operating Committee Review Of Procedures
.fl PT202.5
Potential Obstacles For Successful Pilot
- Differentiating Between Safety Related And Safety Significant
- Pilot Organization Going Back To What They Are Comfortable With Because Of Insufficient Guidance
- Scope Becoming Too Large
- Waning Regulatory Or Management Support
- Inadequate Monitoring Or Self-Assessment Programs PT202.8
QUALITY PLAN MISSION STATEMENT In striving for excellence in nuclear power plant operations, the individuals within the various line and support organizations are responsible for the quality of the work project.
Pride of craftsmanship and the desire to accept nothing less than a quality product shall be the goal of the worker and the supervisor.
Management is to ensure that line and support groups are constantly aware of their responsibilities to quality and have the necessary resources to carry them out. Management develops the initiative to strengthen line responsibilities for achieving quality.
The Quality Assurance organization has the responsibility for planning and performing activities to verify implementation of the quality assurance programs.
This includes responsibility for identifying program deficiencies, assessing performance and effectiveness of management controls, adhering to regulations, and other requirements.
The role of the Quality Assurance organization is as specified:
Audit and inspect to ensure th~t the overall operation of the nuclear power station is carried out in accordance with Technical Specifications, applicable codes and standards, NRC guides and regulations, company policies and commitments.
Serve as a tool for station and system management personnel, illuminating problem areas, detecting precursors
.and
- trends, and providing recommendations regarding solution of problem areas when applicable.
Assess overall nuclear operation in an effort to identify items that would contribute to improved performance utilizing elevated standards.
Provide all levels of management with an independent source of information regarding the quality aspect of station operations, maintenance and modifications activities.
Operations I
Maintenance Station QA Engineering Plant Support tr
'r
Supervisor - Quality (Vendor Audits)
Manager - Quality
- Assurance (Corporate)
Supervisor - Quality (Vendor Surveillance)
Secretary Coordinator (Steam Gen. Replacement)
Coordinator (Admin: Svcs.)
.~