ML18153A476
| ML18153A476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1996 |
| From: | Gillespie F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Russell W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607010186 | |
| Download: ML18153A476 (3) | |
Text
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 24, 1996 William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Frank P. Gillespie, Director (Original signed by:)
Division of Inspection and Support Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS (IPAP):
SURRY - ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY PROGRAMS I am forwarding the results of the assessment of regulatory programs conducted by the Special Inspection Branch as part of the Surry IPAP.
The assessment was conducted from January through March 1996 and covers the period from January 1994 through December 1995. This assessment was discussed with Region II (G. Belisle).
Attachment:
As stated cc w/att:
R.W. Borchardt, NRR S. Stein, NRR S. Ebneter, RII Distribution:
PSIB R/F FPGi 11 espi e Central Files PUBLIC DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\ASSESMEN To receive a copy of this document. indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE DISP:NRR NAME DATE 05/?, I /96 010007 9607010186 960624 PDR ADOCK osooo200 fURN TO REGULATORY CENTRAL FILES p
PD~_
ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR SURRY POWER STATION
1.0 ASSESSMENT
SCOPE The assessment was conducted in accordance with Inspection Procedures 93808.
"Integrated Performance Assessment Process OPAP)."
The inspection team evaluated the effectiveness of selected aspects of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection program and its implementation at the Surry site.
The assessment covers the period from January 1994 to December 1995.
2.0 ASSESSMENT
RESULTS The Region II staff had effectively implemented the NRC inspection program at the Surry Power Station. and the IPAP team identified no new major programmatic weaknesses regarding licensee performance.
The regional staff's documented perspective of the licensee's performance in the areas of safety assessment/corrective actions. operations. maintenance, engineering, and plant support was generally in agreement with that derived from the IPAP inspection.
Cl)
Were issues i dent i fi ed that were not previously recogni.zed?
No significant licensee weaknesses were identified. which was consistent with Region II's perspectives on the licensee's performance.
In general. the Region II staff had appropriately characterized weaknesses noted by the team in inspection reports. internal documents. and in the SALP report.
H_owever. a few problems identified by the licensee. the NRC or that were self-revealing were not effectively integrated in NRC reports in order to detect potentially negative trends.
For example. NRC reports provided no indication that the licensee's root cause analyses often did not address issues dealing with human performance. the corrective action system. and management involvement.
(2)
Was the inspection record complete and accurate?
The inspection reports generally contained sufficient detail and provided an adequate basis for findings and conclusions.
Of particular note was the high quality of the resident inspector reports.
However. during the review period.
the regional staff did not inspect the licensee's problem identification and corrective actions program. as well as licensee programs to address equipment and human performance weaknesses. such as deficiency report trending, corporate integrated trend report. and Management Safety Review Committee.
The IPAP concluded that recent licensee self-assessment and audit programs in these areas have been effective.
(3)
Were inspection reports from the Divisions of Reactor Projects (DRP) and Reactor Safety (DRS) consistent in their characterization of the licensee's performance?
Generally, the reports from DRP and DRS were in agreement in their characterization of the licensee's performance.
Attachment
e (4)
Were inspections that followed up on issues complete and sufficiently detailed to justify closure of the issues?
Generally, inspection followup was adequate to justify closure of the issues.
For example.IR 94-21 demonstrates adequate detailed followup on licensee event reports concerning pump operability CLER 50-281/92-002). and incomplete engineering safeguards testing CLERs 50-280. 281/92-003-02).
(5)
Were the inspection reports of good quality and in accordance with requirements?
Generally. the regional inspection reports were of good quality.
The resident inspector inspection reports were of excellent quality and consistently focused on important safety issues.
A minor deficiency was identified. in that. inspection reports occasionally identified issues for inspector follow-up without assigning IFI numbers to them.
Tf1is is not consistent with current inspection program guidance.
(6)
Were enforcement actions appropr;ate and in accordance with requirements?
The enforcement actions cited were appropriate and effective in communicating to the licensee performance weaknesses observed by NRC inspectors.
Licensee response to NRC violations was very good. which. in part. was due to the overall quality of the enforcement actions issued.