ML20133C853

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summarizes 961217 Meeting W/Util at Region IV Ofc Re Results on Accuracy of Info Contained in FSARs for Four Entergy Nuclear Sites
ML20133C853
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear, River Bend, Waterford  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1996
From: Dyer J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Yelverton J
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
References
NUDOCS 9701080117
Download: ML20133C853 (66)
v • d • e


Text

,

_., _ _. _... _ _. ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,. ~.. - - -

l e

l

  • "G UNITED sT ATES

/g

%,I t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

b REGloN IV r

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, sulTE 400

(

h,

/

AR LINGToN, TE X AS 76011 8064 DEC 31 1996 J. W. Yelverton Executive Vice President l

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

i l

P. O. Box 31995 l

Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 l

SUBJECT:

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (FSAR) REVIEW MEETING

Dear Mr. Yelverton,

I This refers to the meeting conducted in the Region IV office on December 17,1996. This meeting related to providing Region IV personnel with a summary of results on the accuracy of information contained in the FSARs for the four Entergy nuclear sites. This meeting was held at your request and the meeting was similar to an earlier presentacion l

l given to NRC headquarter's personnel on November 14,1996.

l l

I The presentation focused on the completed license basis assessment of the FSAR and on i

the planned design basis evaluations. Design basis evaluations are planned to be j

j.

completed at all sites by the end of March 1997. Your staff stated that both of these l

efforts were planned prior to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter.

l Entergy personnel presented their FSAR assessment approach and di:, cussed the results for i

(

each site. Overall, the assessments did not identify any safety significant discrepancies or L

operability issues; however, each site had particular strengths and weaknesses. Entergy managers indicated that the program strengths would be used to improve performance at all sites in maintaining an accurate license basis.

We appreciated the time you took to present to our staff the results of your FSAR assessments.

l In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document l

Room.

l Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them 1

with you.

Sincerely, i

h J. E. Dyer, Director Division of Reactor Projects i

9701080117 961231 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P

PDR j

1

M Entergy Operations, Inc. Docket Nos.: 50-313 50-368 License Nos.: DPR-51 NPF-6 Docket No.: 50-416 License No.: NPF-29 j

Docket No.: 50-458 License No.: NPF-47 Docket No.: 50-382 License No.: NPF-38 1

Enclosures:

1

1. Attendance List
2. Licensee Presentation cc:

C. Randy Hutchinson, Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, Arkansas 72801-0967 J. Hagan, Vice President Operations - Grand Gulf Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 John R. McGaha, Vice President - Operations River Bend Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Michael B. Sellman, Vice President Operations - Waterford Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 j

!~*

i l

l l

l Entergy Operations, Inc. l l

t l

t Executive Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer l

Entergy Operations,' inc.

P,0. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 1

Vice President Operations Support

)

Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 l

Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations f

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear

-l Power l

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

1 Washington, D.C. 20005 3502 Bernard Bevill, Acting Director Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management

' Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 Manager Rockville Nuclear Licensing

'Framatone Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525

- Rockville, Maryland 20852 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P.O. Box 651 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 i

I

~. -.

i Entergy Operations, Inc. :

l l

Sam Mabry, Director Division of Solid Waste Management j

Mississippi Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 10385 1

Jackson, Mississippi 39209 i

President-Claiborne County Board of Supervisors Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 4-l Manager of Operations

. Bechtel Power Corporation P. O. Box 2166 -

Houston, Texas 77252 2166 General Manager Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

i P.O. Box 756 1

J Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.

Attorney General Department of Justice State of Louisiana P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 j

Office of the Governor State of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi 39201 i

Mike Moore, Attorney General Frank Spencer, Asst. Attorney General State of Mississippi 1

P.O. Box 22947 Jackson, Mississippi 39225 Dr. F. E. Thompson, Jr.

State Health Officer State Board of Health

- P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39205

-~

Entergy Operations, Inc. Eddie S. Fuente, Director State Liaison Officer

-Division of Radiation Health Mississippi Department of Health

. P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1700 Director, Nuclear Safety

.and Regulatory Affairs Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Vice President, Operations Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 General Manager Plant Operations River Bend Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Director - Nuclear Safety River Bend Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Winston & Strawn 1401 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 Manager - Licensing River Bend Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

- P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 1

a J

4 l

Entergy Operations, Inc. ;

i The Honorable Richard P. leyoub l

Attorney General P.O. Box 94095 l-Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9095

{'

H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive I

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 1

1 President of West Feliciana Police Jury j

P.O. Box 1921 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 j

i Larry G. Johnson, Director

. Systems Engineering Cajun Electric Power Coop. Inc.

10719 Airline Highway P.O. Box 15540 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895 William H. Spell, Administrator Louisiana Radiation Protection Division P.O. Box 82135

)

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135

)

4 General Manager, Plant Operations Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

I P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 i

Manager - Licensing Manager Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission One American Place, Suite 1630 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697

1 l

a Entergy Operations, Inc.

-7 i

i Director Nuclear Safety Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box B Killona, Louisiana 70066 Parish President i

- St. Charles Parish P.O. Box 302 Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 Mr. William A. Cross Bethesda Licensing Office 3 Metro Center Suite 610 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i

l l

i r

a

e l.L1, DEC 3 l 1996 jp

'Entergy Operations, Inc. l bec to DMB (IE45)-

bec distrib. by RIV:

L. J. Callan Resident Inspector DRP Director-DRS-PSB l

Branch Chief (DRPiD)

MIS System l

Project Engineer (DRP/D)

RIV File l

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS: TWFN 9E10) l l

l l

l l

l t

l l

\\

080015.

To receive copy of document. Indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy wth enclosures "N" = No copy PE:DRP/D,

C:DRP/D A

D:DRP GEWpftj!tr,:W PHHarW.#

JEDyer @)'

12/3'o736 12/$o @6 12/3l /96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY F

4 t

DEC 3 l 1996 d

Entergy Operations, Inc. i I

bec to DMB (IE45) bec distrib. by RIV:

l L. J. Callan Resident inspector DRP Director DRS-PSB l

Branch Chief (DRP/D)

MIS System

}

~

Project Engineer (DRP/D)

RIV File Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS: TWFN 9E10) 1 i

4 l

]

i To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy PE:DRP/D,

C:DRP/D A

D:DRP GEWpfh5: %

PHHar@'.#

JEDyer. (W 12/g'o'736 12/bo @6 12/3l /96 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING:

ENTERGY PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE FSAR REVIEWS AT ARKANSAS NUCLEAR 1, WATERFORD 3. GRAND GULF, AND RIVER BEND DATE:

DECEMBER 17, 1996 ATTENDANCE LIST (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)

NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION TITLE i

%\\Ameu _

wec-a s ha cosa G. ale c a c <-

vu2 c. 12w ecoc ect s un; ca c

\\

K (Mrris. JG Wutc HD eS.

i-eMen cu bhAL w-N w c4

\\ h byev d Rc-Pd b?x h b, DAT

'4m 1. c k m~-

cae t Te 9 bAbdc. -D't$

A$n J$v///

EdI - &wS AiEeYaiG L

. - a os ltd i K dE. Rnius ann Eoe Dia.. 'l}lGarnrrY$U e

Feep i ( rus GoI V4 b, A,a, C a L,o i

% he eo t McoAofb" m

M wk S,v:+L h Z -ANo Geu;<. bv.< <;n DH 62 A rt S C o T - R ss SIPsev!wn - tlrwH

% Ga ad A-ra1 - uhku s

% a - L: o.-.:-

&; A4pn Tu.Cwcretc -wdafxk M h&ka Akl g

i l

ENCLOSURE 2 f

License Basis Assessments 5

at i

1 I

Entergy Operations t

l l

December 17,1996 1

l

=

t License Basis Evaluation December 17,1996 b

+ Introduction Jerry Yelverton

+ License basis assessments

~

Mike Meisner

- Elements affecting the license basis

- Developing an assessment approach

- Assessment findings

- Observations i

i

+ Design basis evaluation plans Fred Titus i

i

[

2

[

Significance of the a

1 License Basis The plant license basis establishes the scope of our contract l

with the public for safe nuclear generation.

i j

i While the language of the contract may, at times, be subject to interpretation, the responsibility lies with us to maintain or restore public and regulatory confidence in the contract and the integrity of the underlying license basis.

l l

i 3

i I

License Basis issue t

The key issue today is reduced public and regulatory confidence in the integrity of the license basis due to clear f

instances of licensees:

- Operating outside the license basis, and j

i j

~

- Failing to maintain the license basis

}

i l

After examining this issue, EOl concludes:

)

- Current processes (with some exceptions) are effective in maintaining the license basis i

- More detailed license basis reviews are warranted in selected areas i

l i

i Confidence in the License Basis

+

Understand the elements that can affect / change the license basis i

+ Develop an assessment approach that critically evaluates the process controls necessary to license basis integrity 1

+ Through assessment, confirm the integrity of the processes j

governing change l

+ implement process enhancements from lessons learned through assessment l

5 i

l

a-4 dAmad 4

_-.a42,4

_m._44.

5. ham _.

214_ AhJa A.4.m4hs-.m.soa

-.M-ha-4AG.-w E u h a-bha-J-52edhaw--m4da---.34m8'*-e4 4W4..--n---

w.=han d a em m he.-sa--.-

A-

==rene-wan-daa i

i l

C N

O E

l E

G i

G 4

g W

G l

CD 0

C C

(U w

~

6 C

g

.-W l

"O O

l C

G D

D l

4 1

1 4

I i

)

}

i

Key Elements h

i i

f Regulatory Engineering l

License Design Design Basis Basis Basis

  • l i

Operating Basis **

t i

  • Referred to as "Dosign Basis" i

in the remainderof the presentation

(

i

    • Operating procedures, practices andprocesses 7

i t

{

t

- - - - ' - - - ^ ~ ~

~

Changes Allowed by Regulation t

Regulations allow for numerous means to change facility

+

design / operation (most typical are 10CFR50.54/59/90) t Sequence of change is inherent in regulations (e.g., a change

+

to the license basis must be evaluated 7rior to implementing a change to the operating basis)

Enforcing appropriate change mechanisms and sequences

+

is the key to preserving license basis integrity l

l Understanding the change mechanisms and sequences is

+

the key to effective assessment of license basis integrity l

Potential Change Pathways i

LB LB LB DB

" 5"""

LB

=

OB 1

" 5" 58 "'^

D.B DB Not Allowed if 50.59 is N/A i

i If 50.59 is N/A OB Not Allowed g

y Not Allowed

  • g y

g I

LB - License Basis i

DB - Design Basis OB - Operating Basis l

t 9

i

i Summary of Change Pathways LB

=

LB AlwaYS acceptable under LB

=

DB appropriate regulation LB OB OB

=

OB Acceptable if there is no effect DB

=

DB on the license basis (e.g.,

DB

=

OB 10CFR50.59 does not apply) i OB --

=

LB i

~ DB

=

LB Not acceptable OB

=

DB*

  • Okay by regulation if there is no effect on the license basis, but not good engineering practice 10

V Summary of Change Pathways I

Acceptable basis

--- Not Acceptable l

Design Operating y____

Basis J

s' Basis t

i

[

License Basis Assessment Scope Design Basis Evaluation Scope i

License License l

Basis Basis

~

4 Design Design l

l Operating l

l

__4 Operating l

r 11

. ~. - -, _.. -.

.... -.... _,...,.._ _..- -.~

a,_a+

-,~_.nu_.,_._~__.

__..,s.____+wa.-

i I

i I

U 4

l i

G3 l

O V) u l

C a

i e

C1.

O 4

U WC i

m e

1 m

E l

C e

8 i

O

(/)

G

(/)

~

e Q

(/)

I m

CD 1

1 I.

License Basis Change Subtleties j

i Multiple means are available to change operating practices,

+

some of which seem to be lacking rigorous controls to reflect the change in the license basis I

+

Examples

- Configuration changes which do not involve procedure or design basis changes i

- Untimely corrective action

- Operatorwork-arounds j

13

i i

i License Basis Assessment Purpose Determine if reasonable assurance exists to conclude that the license basis is sound.

j Reasonable assurance is based upon having a l

~

complete set of programmatic controls that ensure that changes to the operating and design bases are evaluated and reliably reflected in the license basis.

)

i I

f 14

Assessment Focus Areas Are license basis change processes working?

l LB 9

LB p

Always acceptable under appropriate regulation l

LB OB OB y

OB Acceptable if there is no effect on the license basis (e.g.,

DB DB 10CFR50.F9 does not apply) i DB OB Are there ways to change the facility without triggering license basis changes (i.e., are process controls missing)?

l OB OB 1

ACCeptaM thm is no eWect on k license bases (eg.,

DB DB

>j 10CFR50.59 does not apply)

DB OB OB LB DB LB Not acceptable OB D'

DB i

15 h

-.. - - - ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - -

~~

I Assessment Approach A three-phased assessment is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of license basis integrity (review of the SAR alone is not sufficient). The assessment must cover:

l Effectiveness of processes that translate changes in the

+

operating / design bases into changes in the license basis j

Confirmation that known means of changing the

+

operating / design bases have appropriate programmatic l

controls to reflect that change in the license basis A search for unknown means to change the I

+

operating / design basis is

l Assessment Phase 1 Change Process Review Review examples of the following changes:

+

50.59

+

50.54 i

+

50.90

+

50.55a

+

FSAR changes

+ Commitment additions t

+

Design changes not evaluated under 50.59

+ Operating Procedure changes not evaluated under 50.59 i

Review Scope l

Does the license basis accurately reflect the change?

If not, what process steps are deficient or missing?

t 17 i

i Assessment Phase 2 Known Change Processes i

i Review examples of the following:

Work-around list Operations standing orders Tech Spec positions Routinely "NAed" procedure steps f

Equipment operated in manual Old temporary alterations, non-conformances, tag-outs j

Review Scope Is there a change from the license basis?

l l

Are there adequate controls to capture license basis changes?

[

t 18 i

Assessment Phase 3 i

Search for nknown Change Processes i

i Select four plant systems l

i Excerpt SAR statements associated with operational practices

~-

that could be changed and, in the presence of programenatic weaknesses, not be adequately reflected in the SAR Review Scope Determine if SAR statements are accurate with respect to current operating and design bases (overlaps the design basis evaluation scope) i i

Assessment Development Other Considerations i

+ The license basis assessments are not conducted in a vacuum

+ Numerous previous activities provide additional confidence in both the license and design bases, principally

- Corrective action program

)

- Safety system functionalinspections/ assessments l

- Design basis documentation efforts

- Response to industry /NRC experience / events l

+

l 20

EOl SSFAs/SSFis ANO Grand Gulf U1 EFW ll1986)

SLCS ll1988)

U1 DHR (1989;l FPC ll1990ll

~~

125 VDC I;U1/2,1988;l EDSFlI1990;l U2 Elec. Dist. (1991;l HPCS/Div 111 EDG I:1991;l j

U2 EDSFl ll1991)

LPCS/RCIC I:1993;l i

U1 Elec. Dist. ll1992ll SSW (1994ll U1 EDSFl(1992)

ADS (1996) f U1/2 SW I:1990;l RHR (partial) (1996)

U1/2 SW (1994;l SGTS (partial;l(1996;l j

U1/2 SWSOPl (1994;I PSW (partial;l (1996)

Digital FW Control (partial,1995ll 21

EOl SSFAs/SSFis River Bend Waterford 3 1

Instrument Air (1988)

EFW (1984)

SLCS(1990)

HVAC (1987)

I

~~

HPCS (1991)

CCW/ACCW (1988)

LPCS/RCIC (1994)

EDG (1990)

SSW (1994)

EDSFl (1991)

CVC/BAM (1992)

Safety inj. (1993)

Software control (1994)

)

EFW (1995)

SSW (partial) (1995)

HPSI(partial)(1996)

EDG (partial) (1996) 22 i

EOl DBD Efforts i

ANO Design configuration documentation project (1986-1994);

Upper Level Documents (>120ll covering systems, structures and topical areas i

Grand Gulf

{

~~

Detailed comparison with NUMARC 90-12 (1992) and selected enhancements and upgrades River Bend i

Development of System Design Criteria Documents and compilation of Analysis Basis Document in progress l

Waterford 3 i

Design basis documentation project (1988 - 1994;l covering i

. systems and structures

~

i

--s4

-a---a

-1..a

-,.=>

A--n+

.-a------na.

--.s n..

ux__,

-a a

--u---

x x<m---

-u

-a.--o-----

a e.

0

?

i CD C

D C

+.,

C 9

G EWWGWW

<C i

I I

.)

i Assessment Conduct l

1

+ Single team of knowledgeable representatives with diverse j

expertise from each EOl site j

t

+ Consultant knowledgeable in licanse basis issues i

Significant preparatory work at each site prior to team arrival

+

+ Assessment schedule

- ANO - 6/24-6/28, 7/10-7/12, 8/23

[

- River Bend - 7/15-18, 8/19

- Grand Gulf - 7/29-8/2 i

- Waterford 3 - 8/12-8/16 i

I t

i

-----C - -

D

-n-

. Overall Results No safety significant discrepancies or operability issues-l

+

were identified

+ Existing site-specific license basis change processes are i

effective in maintaining the license basis (with some exceptions)

+ Non-traditional change mechanisms deserve additional controls to ensure accurate reflection in the license basis i

Enhanced site sensitivity to license basis changes; SAR

+

ownership and review becoming a natural activity l

i The three phase assessment process, in conjunction with l

+

previous efforts, is sufficient to determine reasonable assurance of license basis integrity 1

26 i

t

}

P P

Overall Results Programmatic insights 1

i Temporary changes (alterations, tag-outs, work-arounds;i

+

need to be periodically re-evaluated to determine if a permanent facility change should be proposed t

+ Short-term operating basis changes (i.e., operations j

standing orders;l need better controls to ensure screening i

under 50.59

+ Screening to identify potential changes to license basis documents is not sufficiently comprehensive in all cases I

27

l 4

4

^

1 N

i i

i O

c e

w l

6 g

N 1

G l

g o

3 O

Z D

ea a

e E

c c

(U L

hd "l3 1

\\

\\

Arkansas Nuclear One i

Overview l

i

+ Traditional LBD change processes are effective in reflecting plant design / operating bases in the SAR l

- Exception: Cultural factors associated with perceived admin burden led to reluctance to initiate LBD changes in some cases. Reluctance did not appear to extend to safety significant changes.

- Exception: LBD impact determinations have not been consistently comprehensive

+ SAR review will be done for both units to meet current LBD

)

expectations j

- Expect substantive SAR updates but not a substantive I

safety impact

- Interim confidence in LBD adequacy based on extensive program upgrades such as DBD effort, system training manual upgrades, set point control, EQ, etc.

29

k Arkansas Nuclear One l

Overview

+ 53 SAR discrepancies requiring change a

- 22 due to quality of the change process l

- 16 operational / design changes at variance with SAR l

- 14 original SAR errors / ambiguities

- 1 other variance

~~

- No safety significant or operability issues l

t

+

Systems reviewed Unit 1 Unit 2

- Rx Bldg Spray

- CVCS

- DHR/LPI

- LPSI/SDC f

- Main Steam

- Main Steam

- Instrument / Service Air

- Instrument / Service Air 30

Arkansas Nuclear One Programmatic Insights Strengths

+ Use of tagouts (hold cards) to enforce SAR administrative controls Enhancements Establish site-wide focus on the importance of LBD accuracy

+

+ Increase comprehensiveness of LBD impact reviews Formalize system abandonment process under the design

+

change process Incorporate LBD impact review into "use-as-is" dispositions

+

Periodically review longstanding temporary conditions

+

(work-arounds, temp alts, etc.) for LBD impact 31

-J.---A.4S.,

b.aA--+

4 e M a-w A.4-

4-m4MM4

-m ma--_a-a.6*

-*4-W+a mea +4~<e+-e-.-

Ae

-s

,-A..--de anm aA

+

e&a-A.

--m-ua

.Bk

-Am J

9-m_Sa.~,s--*

4-L--.

4

+

r i

.i l

4 4

f l

m i

W G

3 O

+

0 j

y C

D m

6 m

O E

E 3

l M

4

)

i a

2 I;

I

Grand Gulf Overview

+ Traditional LBD change processes are effective in reflecting plant design / operating bases in the SAR

- Small number of identified discrepancies LJ

+ 11 SAR discrepancies requiring change

- 6 original SAR errors / ambiguities

- 3 operational changes at variance with the SAR l

- 2 design changes at variance with the SAR

~

- No safety significant or operability issues

+ Systems reviewed

l j

-RHR

- Combustible Gas Control

- Fire Water

- Instrument Air i

Grand Gulf Programmatic insights i

Strengths i

+ Consistent accurate update of LBDs

+ Comprehensive application of LBD impact screening for a j

range of engineering documents l

r i

Enhancements

+ Periodically review longstanding temporary conditions (work-arounds, temp alts, etc.) for LBD impact i

Implement better controls for review of short term operating

+

basis changes such as standing orders

+ Additional enhancements based on design basis eva[uation findings i

l

+

u

4.,

4 a a._-u e _

.,u_4_

_4,._..42

...m.4..g....a.._..,_,.4

.,o..m,

,._a.,%.,.m..,

l

}

l r

4 1

i w

4 tt) r V

e C

E 1

e E

O w

O>

El

.E E

Es M

i I

River Bend Overview I

+ Traditional LBD change processes are effective in reflecting l

plant design / operating bases in the SAR l

- Exception: LBD impact reviews are not consistently comprehensive

- Exception: Old tech spec amendments (2 examples) were not reviewed for other LBD impact

+ Most SAR discrepancies are original SAR errors i

+ Additional SAR verification activities planned or in progress include:

j

- Development of System Design Criteria documents (including SAR validation) j

- Analysis (SAR Chapter 15) basis document review

- Engineering SAR review i

36

River Bend Overv.iew i

+ 32 SAR discrepancies requiring change

- 25 original SAR errors / ambiguities

- 5 due to quality of the change process

- 2 other variances

- No safety significant or operability issues

+ Systems reviewed

- Emergency diesels

- Instrument Air j

>-RHR

- Main Steam

1 i

l River Bend 1

Programmatic insights Strengths

+ Process controls to evaluate LBD effect if equipment j

deficiencies are dispositioned "use-as-is" Enhancements I

+ Periodically review longstanding temporary conditions (work-arounds, temp alts, etc.) for LBD impact l

+ Emphasize LBD impact review should include all SAR figures

+ Implement additional controls to ensure that valid LBD change notices cannot be canceled r

{

38

.--_.._..a.

,n.-.-

i i

+

A i

4 1

l i.

w M

  1. G V

g u

O

+

O

=

l D

l 3

E E

s

(/)

I I,

l i

Waterford 3 Overview i

i

+ Traditional LBD change processes are effective in reflecting plant design / operating bases in the SAR

- Exception: Partially completed design changes may not be incorporated in the SAR in a timely manner

)

- Exception: While Security Plan changes are evaluated under 50.54 they do not receive a screening for other LBD impact i

~

t

+ 20 SAR discrepancies requiring change

- 10 design changes at variance with SAR (5 due to I

partially implemented designs)

- 8 original SAR errors (2) or ambiguities (6)

- 2 other variances l

- No safety significant or operability issues 40

Waterford 3

~

Overview

+ Systems reviewed l

- DC distribution

-CVCS l

- Main Steam

- Instrument air I

4 i

i 41 j

Waterford 3 1

Programmatic insights Strengths

}

+ LBD review required for Operations Standing instructions

+ Broad LBD screening

+ 50.59 training emphasis on operations consistent with SAR Enhancements Periodically review open temporary alterations, tagouts

+

(clearances) and operator work-arounds for LBD impact

+ Update LBD procedures to reflect current practice and resolve inter-departmental procedure inconsistencies I

Enhance review of incoming / outgoing regulatory i

+

correspondence for LBD effects l

Additional enhancements based on design basis evaluation i

+

findmgs l

l E

-r a

A.

.-.,a-a ea.--

a A

e

,,n-~

s.,

4 0

i l

l l

C O

b l

GW D

O l

l I

h-l

t FSAR

+ The FSAR was constructed in accordance with the guidance of the SRP and RG 1.70 (or its predecessor documents) l

~

+ Many subsections of the SAR are narrowly constructed to address specific SRP issues rather than integrated safety Scenarios t

+ This approach facilitates OL review for the specialist but inhibits understanding or leads to misunderstandings with inspectors

+ Significant NRC and licensee resources are being consumed today in researching, explaining and understanding the SAR in a context, and for an audience, to which it is not well i

suited i

l i

Design Basis 50.54(f) Letter

+ Has had an impact on, and clearly delivered a message to,

~

the industry i

i

+ In practical terms; as with the SAR assessments, we must rely on our conclusions as to the quality of our processes to draw conclusions about the quality of the design basis

+ " Reasonable assurance" should be the standard

+ Safety performance should be the measure i

4

_._____4 g

f a

1 l

i i

I I

i c

W (U

.ummum l!

m 1

M c

C o

4 i

U)

(U

._W 3

G Q

LIJ i

I.

I

Design / Licensing Basis Relationship Licensing Basis:

UFSAR SERs Etc.

Regulatory Design Design Basis Input Documents (Engineering Design Basis)

,v Design Analysis Doc:(1)

CALCS Analysis (1) NOTE:

Some analysis and output documents are j

p_,...

,.... m _

Design Output Doc: (1) also directly in the UFSAR Drawings i

EQ List CDB

- ------ -- a

[

Entergy Engineering Philosophy

+ Accountability for the Design Basis

- No reliance on A/E l

- Limited NSSS support

+ Related Actions:

~~

- Turnover of original design cales/ drawings

- Technical capability:

i

+ Selection

+ Training / Development

- Tools (examples):

+ Technical tools

+ Optical Disk Imaging / Retrieval System 48

What Has Entergy Done to improve Design Basis Documentation?

+ Acted on opportunities for improvement l

i

~~

Wide range of inputs:

+

- Corrective Action Program i

- Internal Self-Assessments j

- NRC Inspections

- INPO Evaluations

- Industry Experience

- NRC Generic Correspondence

~

- Entergy Peer Groups i

- Walkdowns i

i

o Example:

1 Vertical Slice Type Assessments

+ EOl Self-Assessments:

30

+ NRC SSFl Type Inspections:

6 i

i

+ These assessments / inspections have:

l

- Confirmed safety functions would be performed

- Identified opportunities to improve documentation in response, Entergy has made a significant i

commitment to enhance design basis documentation

i Significant Upgrades have been Undertaken (Examples) t

+ ANO Design Basis Reconstitution Effort

+ All Sites (examples):

- EQ Documentation

- Seismic Documentation

- Drawing / Configuration Control Upgrades i

r

- Electrical Design Calc Upgrades l

- System Level Design Criteria Documents

- Change Process improvements

- lST Reconstitution 1

- Component Data Base Upgrades

- Instrument Setpoint Programs

- MOV Design Basis 51

/

Today's Perspective

+ We believe the Design Basis Documentation at EOl provides a sound basis for operation

+ However, upgrading Design Basis Documentation is an on-going process:

- We continue to raise our standards

- NRC expectations also change

- Current business plans reflect areas for enhancement at each EOl site i

+ What can we do to gain even greater confidence in our Design Basis Integration?

EOl Team Evaluation of Design Basis integration at Each Site

$2

.J

I

.. Questions 1

UFSAR (4) Maintain SAR Plant:

(5) Update Plant (1) Adequate Doc

  • Programs Design (2) Retrievable

~

~

  • Procedures (6) Review Design s

u (3) Maintained Current Change Change (7) Overall design accountability / ownership 53

Approach

+ Team evaluations at each site

+ Not a typical assessment

+

Evaluate each design area:

- Review discrepancies / findings

- Review prior initiatives

- Review planned initiatives

- Interview subject area experts i

+ Develop specific recommendations i

. J

. Team Make-Up

+ Core Team:

- Team Lead (Management)

- Corporate Assessment

- Mechanical

- Civil / Piping

- Electrical i

- l&C i

i

- Safety Analysis j

+ Site Team (Supplements):

- Operations

- Maintenance

- Licensing i

I

. Target Schedule ECD

+ Initial Team Planning November 15,1996 i

+

Initial Evaluation (Waterford 3)

December,1996 Complete all Evaluations March,1997

+

i

+ Follow-Up Action Plans April,1997 i

+

NRC Briefing April,1997

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133C853&oldid=4242119"