ML18152A462
| ML18152A462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1995 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504240057 | |
| Download: ML18152A462 (22) | |
Text
.,
April 12, 1995 Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN:
Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- SURRY SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Gentlemen:
This refers to the March 9, 1995, meeting held to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for your Surry facility. O~r report, NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-280/95-99 and 50-281/95-99 dated February 13, 1995, had been previously sent to you.
I have enclosed a list of attendees and a copy of the SALP handout that was used at the presentation.
- Thank you for your response of March 30, 1995, to our SALP Report.
We appreciate your response and attention to the assessment results.
In accordance with Section 2.790(a) of the NRC's "Rules and Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
No reply to this letter is required; however, if You have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.
Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37 Sincerely, Orig signed by Ellis W. Merschoff Ellis W. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
- 1.
List of Attendees
- 2.
SALP Handout cc w/encls:
See page 2 0 -: G r.. '")....
t...,.!.
J~ (
9504240057 950412 PDR ADOCK 05000280
~
"~~
VEPCO cc w/encls:
M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs Virginia Electric & Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060
- David A. Christian Station Manager Surry Power Station P. 0. Box 315 Surry, VA 23883 Ray D. Peace, Chairm'an Surry County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 130 Dendron, VA 23839 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation P. 0. Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23209 Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P. 0. Box 2448 Richmond, VA 23218 Attorney Genera 1 Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, VA 23219 2
VEPCO Distribution w/encls:
G. Hallstrom, RII B. Buckley, NRR PUBLIC NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Surry Nuclear Power Station 5850 Hog Island Road Surry, VA 23883 NRC Resident Inspector U.S.. Nuclear Regulatery Commission Route 2, Box 78-A Mineral, VA 23117 SEND TO PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM?
OFFICE RII 3
NOR
I e
I
:-----n UNITED STATES
- 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT JULY 04, 1993 - JANUARY 2.1, 1995 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE. PERFORMANCE-*
(SALP)
~
1 MEETING 11 ____
M_A_R_*c_*H_** 9_-,_1_-g_*g*s_*,*---~
r ENCLOSURE 2
SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT SALP BOARD MEMBERS J. Philip Stohr,
Director (Chairperson)
Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Region II Ellis W. Merschoff Director Division of Reactor Projects Region II Albert F. Gibson Director Division of Reactor Safety Region II David B. Matthews Director Project Directorate 11-2 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
R11ldent Program
.--....aiN ln1p1ctlon Region Baaed Inspection Licensing Speclal lnltlallve, Ev&nl R&vl&w&
NEW SALP PROCESS e
SALP e
MIP
e PERFORMANCE CATEGORY RATlNGS Category 1.
Category 2.
Category 3.
Licensee attention and involvement have been propeny focused on safety and resulted in a superior leve6 of performance. Licensee programs and procedures have provided effective controls.
The licensee's setf-assessment efforts have been effective in the identification of emergent issues. Corrective actions
.' are technicaUy sound, comprehensive, and thorough.
Recurring problems are eliminated, and resolution of issues is timely. Root cause analyses are thorough.
Licensee attention and involvement are normally waU focused and resulted in a good level of safety performance.
Licensee programs and procedures normaUy provide the necessary control of activities, but deficiencies may exist.
The licensee's self-assessments are normally good. although isau*
may escape identification.
Corrective actions are usually effective, although some may not be compjeta.
Root cause analyses are normally thorough.
Licensee attention and involvement have resulted in an acceptable level of safety performance.
- However, licensee performance may exhibit one or more of the following characteristics.
Licensee programs and procedures have not provided sufficient contrat of activities in important areas.
The licensee's self-assessment efforts may not occur until after a potential problem becomes_ apparent.
A - dear understanding of the safety implications of significam issues may not have been demonsaated. Numm minor issues combine to indicate that the licmmee'a corrective action is not thorough. Root cause anmv-..;*
do not probe deep enough, resulting in tt,e inca111J1lata-resolution of isaues.
Because the margin to:
unacceptable performance in important aspec:!S* is small, increased NRC and licensee attention is required.
e FUNCTIONAL AREAS FOR OPERATING REACTORS
- 1.
PLANT OPERATIONS 2~
MAINTENANCE 3~
ENGINEERING
- 4.
PLANT-SUPPORT
- Radiological Controls
- Emerg~ncy Preparedness
- Security I
I I
e PLANT OPERATIONS OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THIS AREA HAS REMAINED SUPERIOR - CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
SAFETY OV,ERSIGHT PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE POWER/SHUTDOWN OPERATIONS CHALLENGES:
CONTINUED ATTENTION TO DETAIL
e MAINTENANCE OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THIS AREA REMAINED GOOD - CATEGORY 2 STRENGTHS:
- MATERIAL CONDITION
/
PROCEDURES UPGRADE
- COMMUNICATIONS SELF-ASSESSMENT CHALLENGES:
- HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY
e e
ENGINEERING OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THIS AREA IMPROVED TO SUPERIOR - CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
PLANT PROBLEM RESOLUTION OPERATIONS SUPPORT SELF-ASSESSMENT LICENSING ACTIVITIES CHALLENGES:
COMMUNICATIONS ATTENTION TO DETAIL
e PLANT SUPPORT
. OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THIS AREA REMAINED SUPERIOR - CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
SELF-ASSE~SMENT AND AUDIT PROGRAMS CONTINUED PROACTIVE ALARA, EXPOSURE CONTROL AND CONTAMINATION CONTROL PROGRAMS CHEMISTRY AND EFFLUENT CONTROL PROGRAMS PERFORMANCE DURING EMERGENCY EXERCISES AND ACTUAL EVENTS SECURITY AND FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS CHALLENGES:
RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE EMERGENCY RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ASSESSMENT
SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT SALP RATING
SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL AREA PLANT OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING PLANT SUPPORT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RADIOLOGICAL -
CONTROLS 3ECURITY SAFEJY ASSESSMENT/
QUALl.TY VERJRCATION RATING RATING LAST PERIOD THIS PERIOD 1
1 2_ I
~
2 1
N/A 1
1 1
1 1
e February Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN:
Mr. J.P. O'Han1on Senior Vice President - Nuc1ear Innsbrook Technica1/Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060
- 995
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
(NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NOS. S0-280/95-99 AND 50-281/95-99)
Gentlemen:
The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) has been completed for your Surry nuc1ear facility.
The facility was evaluated for the period of July 4, 1993, through January 21, 1995.
The results of the evaluation are documented in the enclosed SALP report.
This report will be discussed with you at a public meeting to be held at the Surry site on March 9, 1995, at 10:00 a.m.
The assessment was conducted in accordance with the July 19, 1993, revision to the SALP program which addresses four functional areas: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support.
Overa11 performance at Surry was sustained at a high leve1 in most functional areas during this period and improved from the previous SALP assessment in other areas.
Superior performance was achieved in three of the four assessment areas:
Operations, Engineering, and Plant Support.
Contributing to the superior performance was an effective self-assessment program which focused on identification of problems and continuous improvement.
Quality assurance and safety assessment were important elements in the management contro1s and involvement at the station. Maintenance was assessed as good with major challenges identified as human performance errors and some equipment aging issues.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice, 11 a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roaa.
OFFICIAL COPY
VEPCO 2
Shouid you have any questions or conunents. I would be pleased to discuss them with you.
I look forward to discussing this assessment with you on March 9. 1995.
Docket Nos.
50-280, 50-281 License Nos.
Enclosure:
SALP Report cc w/encl:
M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Programs Virginia Electric & Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 David A. Christian Station Manager Surry Power Station P. O. Box 315 Surry, VA 23883 Ray D. Peace. Chairman Surry County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 130 Dendron, VA 23839 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Carmnission Division of Energy Regulation P.a. Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23209 Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond. VA 23219 cc w/encl cont'd:
See page 3 Sincerely, Orig signed by Stewart D. Ebneter Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator
VEPCO cc w1enc1 cont'd:
Robert B. Strobe, M.O., M.P.H.
State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P. O. Box 2448 Richmond, VA 23218 Attorney General Supreme Court Bu;lding 101 North 8th Street Richmond, VA 23219.,
INPO 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Distribution w/enc1:
Chairman I. Selin Commissioner K. C. Rogers Convnissioner E.G. de Planque J.M. Taylor, EDO J. L. Milhoan, EDO H. L. Thompson, Jr. EDO G. M. Tracy, Regional Coord;nator, EDO W. T. Russell, NRR R. P. Zinnerman, NRR A. C. Thadani, NRR J. Lieberman, OE S. A. Varga, NRR J. A. Zwolinski, NRR B. C. Buckley, NRR D. L. Gamberoni, NRR/ILPB(2 copies)
R. W. Cooper, RI E.G. Greenman, RIII A. B. Beach, RIV K. E. Perkins, WCFO C. A. Casto, RII T. A. Peebles, RII W. E. Cline, RII
- 0. M. Collins, RII K. M. Clark, RII R. E. Trojanowsk;, RII S. J. Vias, RII L. W. Garner, RII G. A. Hallstrom, RII PUBLIC 3
Distribution w/encl:
Continued see page 4
1, VEPCO Distribution w/encl cont'd:
NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm;ssion Surry Nuclear Power Station 5850 Hog Island Road Surry, VA 23883 NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Anna Nuclear Power Station Route 2, Box 78-A,
Mineral, VA 23117 Mr. Thomas M. Majusiak Chief, Technical Hazards Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency Region III Liberty Square Building 105 South Seventh Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 e
4
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT SURRY NUCLEAR STATION 50-280/95-99 AND 50-281/95-99 I
- BACKGROUND The SALP Boatd convened on February 2, 1995, to assess the nuclear safety performance of Surry Units 1 and 2 for the period July 4, 1993, through January 21. 1995.
The Board was conducted per Management Directive 8.6, "Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance. n Board members were J. P. Stohr (Board Chairperson), Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards; E.W. Merschoff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects; A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety; and O. B. Matthews, Director, Project Directorate II-2, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.
II.
PLANT OPERATIONS This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities directly related to operating the plant. It includes activities such as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and response to transients. It also includes initial and requalification training programs for licensed operators.
Management oversight and involvement were effective during the SALP period. and were characterized by conservative decisions and safe operations.
While the plant was challenged by six trips during this period due largely to equipment failures. operators' response to these events was well controlled, focused on safety, prompt, and thorough.
The Station Nuclear Safety Operating Comnittee consistently provided thoughtful review of issues at the appropriate threshold.
In addition, reviews associated with temporary leak seal repairs added value to these efforts, in that issues not recognized by the line organization were-identified and subsequently addressed.
Management fully supported operational personnel and established h;gh performance standards.
Prudent testing was initiated for problems assoc;ated w;th the turtrtna_-
driven auxiliary feedwater pumi,.
Management's onshi ft oversight during plant heatups and startups illustrated a strong coum;tment to plant-safety. Shift operations were well controlled w;th conservative decisions made to control the tempo of operations during steaa glfteratar level oscillations. Early in the SALP period, an inadequate evaluation of a reactor coolant system leak resulted in Unit 1 operating with a non-isolable reactor coolant leak. However, conservative actions talcaa on a subsequent increase in leakage rate resulted in the ultimate~
detection, analysis and re11air of the leak prior to exceeding allMiale;.r, leakage limits.
ENCLOSURE
2 Operations personnel performance was excellent throughout the assessment period. Plant evolutions such as shutdowns and startups. reactor trips, power operations and transients were conducted in a highly professional and competent manner.
Excellent command and control of the evolutions and the frequent use of feedback communications indicated that management expectations were fully understood.
To assure successful evolutions, effective pre-job briefings were consistently conducted.
During shutdowns, occasional communication deficiencies contributed to personnel errors involving loop stop valve operation and control of the dilution flow path.
Both the initial licensed operator and operator requalification training programs were satisfactorily implemented.
Six of seven personnel tested for initial licensing successfully passed the examination.
The training skills learned in the simulator were also evident during plant evolutions.
Operators were knowledgeable of plant systems and used procedures successfully.
The operations organization was effectively supported by the station.
Engineering and Maintenance support to emerging problems was prompt and effective in assuring operators' ability to manage problems with a conservative safety attitude. Self assessment has remained effective throughout the period due, in large part, to the extensive involveaent in and ownership of the assessment program by the operations line management
- The Plant Operations Area is rated Category 1.
III. MAINTENANCE This functional area addresses activities associated with diagnostic, predictive, preventive and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and coffll)onents.
It also includes all surveillance testing, inservice inspection and other tests associated with equipment and system operability.
Management continued to maintain a strong connitment to upgrade the material condition of the plant. Significant progress was made in reducing leaks, improving coatings, and refurbishing damaged and corroded equipment.
Several longstanding and recurring equipment problems were corrected. Ex*les included replacement of pressurizer safety valves and component cooling water heat exchangers.
Effective engineering support and root cause analyses were important contributors ta success in this area.
The procedure upgrade program, initiated in a previous SALP period, was continued.
Although procedural deficiencies continued to cause problems, the quality of procedures steadily improved.
Plant systems and components were appropriately tested ta assure they would function properly in service. Effective prograas were impl-tad for past maintenance, inservice, and surveillance tasting. Pn,g, far*
diagnostically testing motor operated valves, predicting piping*
ENCLOSURE
3 degradation due to erosion and corrosion, and verifying the heat transfer capability of service water heat exchangers were also effective.
Teamwork contributed to good maintenance performance.
NRC inspectors noted numerous examples of effective communications between operations and maintenance during pre-job briefings and during the accomplishment of maintenance activities. Engineering assisted Maintenance in the resolution of recurring equipment problems.
Human performance deficiencies in the implementation of maintenance and testing programs remained a challenge during this SALP period.
Such deficiencies caused an automatic reactor trip, a manual reactor t'l"ip and power runbacks.
These deficiencies, and other personnel errors during maintenance and testing activities, were caused by lack of *attention ta detail and failure to follow procedures.
Equipment failures were also a challenge. Several reactpr trips, forced outages and power reductions were caused by equipment failures. Mast occurred in the balance-of-plant equipment and some could have been prevented by more effective preventive maintenance of aging plant equipment.
Self-assessments were a strength.
The line organization candidly assessed performance trends using the perfonnance annunciator panel program, and the QA organization provided daily perfonnance reports to station management.
The plant staff maintained a low threshold for identifying problems as indicated by the large number of deficiency reports generated. Audits and assessments by the QA organization provided valuable performance feedback to station management.
Corrective actions taken in response to specific problems identified by self-assessments were generally timely and effective.
The Ma;ntenance area was rated Category 2.
IV.
ENSINEEllIN&
This functional area addresses act1v;ties associated with the des;gn of plant modifications and eng;neering support for operations, maintenance, surve;11ance, and licensing activities.
Management demonstrated a strong coaaitment to providing high quality engineering and technical support in maintaining safe plant operations.
In general, conservative and appropriate decisions were made by management with respect to operations, maintenance and surveillance activities.
Engineering and technical support in resolving emerging issues in support of reliable plant operation was generally good.
Trending and evaluation of the steam generator water level oscillations was ca1111rehensive, timely, and provided valuable information to the operations staff. Engineering evaluation of a proposed madtf1cat1an~to the 2A station battery was sound.
Operations. maintenance, and EHCLOSURE
e 4
engineering personnel coordinated efficiently to minimize the amount of time the station battery was out of service and to complete the temporary modification in a controlled manner.
A strong engineering training program was exemplified by the number of engineering personnel with Senior Reactor Operator or Shift Technical Advisor certificates. Management focused attention on engineering backlog control which yielded good results by reducing the number of backlog packages.
Licensing submjttals were timely and of high quality, demonstrating thorough understanding of the technical issues and regulatory requirements.
Responses to NRC Generic Letters adequately addressed issues of concern.
During the period, there were some problems which indicated a need to improve communications between engineering and station personnel.
Examples were an error relating to the main steam calorimetric computer program setpoint, because the impact of the refined main steam scaling values was not recognized by all involved parties; and an incident
- relating to the gradual degradation of a station battery.
The self-assessment program was well organized, effective, and performed by knowledgeable people. Assessments were effective in identifying a number of areas for improvement in the engineering group.
Corrective actions in response to the audits and assessments were developed ta address the improvement areas.
The review of the Technical Specifications and implementing procedures was thorough and significantly improved the quality of the surveillance program.
The Engineering area was rated Category 1.
V.
PLANT SUPPORT This functional area addresses all activities related to the plant support function including radiological controls, radioactive effluents, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection and housekeeping controls.
The radiological control program continued ta provide an excellent level of protection for plant workers and the environment during this SALP period.
Proactive As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) efforts resulted in collective dose savings and supported the continued dCllfflllard trend in collective dose for the site. Al.ARA initiatives includad the effective use of pennanent shielding on operating systems, hat spot reduction and refinements to shutdown chemistry. There was strong management and worker involvement in support of the program.
Radiological contamination control practices continued ta be aggl"l!ssive and supported the effective control of internal exposures during the period. Self audits of the radiological protection. chemistry, radioactive waste. and transportation pragr1111 were CIJllllrehensive and well documented.
Corrective actions for audit findings were *
- appropriately implemented.
Effective i~lementation of the primary-and ENCLOSURE
_*,r. **
5 secondary chemistry programs maintained primary parameters well within technical specification limits and reduced the source term during outages. Radiological effluents were also effectively controlled.
Overall, radiological work procedures were good.
During the period there were several instances of failure to comply with procedures and related controls.
Performance in the Emergency Preparedness area continued at an excellent level during this period. The response organization performed effectively during emergency exercises in 1993 and 1994 and responded effectively to four events classified at the Notification of Unusual Event Level.
Event recognition, classification and Emergency Plan implementation were appropriate. The training program continued ta be effectively implemented, supporting the excellent response :performance.
There was strong management support for the program.
Self audits of the emergency response program were detailed and comprehensive with goad assessments of* Emergency Plan.implementation. Findings, including-those from exercise critiques, and corrective actions were tracked.
Goad support was provided for offsite response agencies.
During the period, the area of radiological dose assessment was identified as needing improvement.
The Physical Security* Program continued ta be implemented in an excellent manner during this period. The security staff was well trained and qualified and implemented security plan requirements in a professional manner.
Security barriers were effectively maintained with excellent maintenance of the security equipment.
Self-audits ware thorough and effective in identifying issues and areas for improveaent.
Security Plan changes submitted for review were thorough and timely.
The Fitness-for-Duty program was considered a strength.
General overall housekeeping practices during the period were good.
Plant surface coatings and reclamation activities improved the appearance of the plant and have heightened personnel awareness of housekeep;ng situations needing attention.
The Plant Support area was rated Category 1.
EHCLQSURE