Text

SALP Board Rept 50-341/85-27 for Oct 1984 - June 1985
	ML20140G103
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	06/28/1985
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20140G099	List: ML20140G095; ML20140G103;
References
	50-341-85-27, NUDOCS 8507120336
	Download: ML20140G103 (20)
	v • d • e

.

SALP BOARD REPORT

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE

50-341/85027

Inspection Report No.

Detroit Edison Company

Name of Licensee

Fermi 2

Name of Facility

October 1, 1984 throuah June 30, 1985

Assessment Period

hf

O

D P

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

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

.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program is

an integrated NRC staff effort to collect available observations and

data on a periodic basis and to evaluate licensee performance based

upon this information. SALP is supplemental to normal regulatory

processes used to ensure compliance to NRC rules and regulations.

SALP is intended to be sufficiently diagnostic to provide a rational

basis for allocating NRC resources and to provide meaningful guidance

to the licensee's management to promote quality and safety ~ of plant

construction and operation.

An NRC SALP Board, composed of staff members listed below, met on

June 27, 1985, to review the collection of performance observations

and data to assess the licensee's performance in accordance with the

guidance in NRC Manual Chapter 0516, " Systematic Assessment of

Licensee Performance." A summary of the guidance and evaluation

criteria is provided in Section-II of this report.

This report is the SALP Board's assessment of the licensee's safety

performance at Fermi Unit 2 for the period October 1,1984, through

June 30, 1985.

SALP Board for Fermi 2:

Name Title

l

J. A. Hind Director, Division of Radiation Safety

l and Safeguards (DRSS)

l R. L. Spessard Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)

Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

'

C. E. Norelius

C. J. Paperiello Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Radiation

Safety Branch

L. A..Reyes Chief, Operations Branch, DRS

N. J. Chrissotimos Chief, Reactor Projects Section 10

J. R. Creed Chief, Safeguards-Section

M. A. Ring Chief, Test Programs Section

M. P. Phillips Chief, Energency Preparedness Section

D. H. Danielson Chief, Materials Section, DRS

T. Madeda Security Inspector, DRSS

S. G. DuPont Reactor Inspector, TPS

S. Stasek Project Inspector, Reactor Projects

Section 10

l Z. Falevits Reactor Inspector, DRS

l R. Hasse Reactor Inspector, DRS

l M. D. Lynch Licensing Project Manager, NRR

l

i

l

?

.

II. CRITERIA

The licensee's performance is assessed in selected functional areas

depending whether the facility is in a construction, pre-operational

or operating phase. Each functional area normally represents areas

significant to nuclear safety and the environment, and are normal

programmatic areas. Some functional areas may not be assessed because

of little or no licensee activities or lack of meaningful observations.

Special areas may be added to highlight significant observations.

One or more of the following evaluation criteria were used to assess

each functional area.

1. Management involvement in assuring quality

2. Approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint

3. Responsiveness to NRC initiatives

4 Enforcement history

5. Reporting and analysis of reportabic events

6. Staffing (including management)

7. Training effectiveness and qualification.

However, the SALP Board is not limited to these criteria and others

may have been used where appropriate.

Based upon the SALP Board assessment, each functional area evaluated

is classified into one of three performance categories. The definition

of these performance categories is:

Category 1: Reduced NRC attention may be appropriate. Licensee

management attention and involvement are aggressive and oriented

toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively

used so that a high level of performance with respect to operational

safety or construction is being achieved.

Category 2: NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.

Licensee management attention and involvement are evident and are

concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and

are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with

respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.

Category 3: Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased.

Licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and

considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; licensee

resources appear to be strained or not effectively used so that

minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational

safety or construction is being achieved.

3

. . -_ - _ - - - . . .

.

Trend: The SALP Board has also categorized the performance trend

I

in each functional area rated over the course of the SALP assessment

period. The categorization-describes the general or prevailing

tendency (the performance gradient) during the SALP period. The

performance trends are defined as follows

i

Improved: Licensee performance has generally improved over the

,

course of the SALP assessment period.

!

.Same: Licensee perfarnance has remained essentially constant

over the course of the SALP assessment period.

Declined: Licensee performance has generally declined over the

course of the SALP assessment period.

,

t

4

1

!

i

5

I

!

I

I I

i

'

,

I

i

i

!.

4

i

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

, .. .. _.

'

.

III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Overall, the licensee's performance was found to be acceptable and

showed an improving trend. The licensee was found to have aggressive

management attention and a high level of performance in the areas of

Emergency Preparedness, Fueling, and Preoperational and Startup Phase

Testing. Performance in the Fire Protection area was found to need

increased management attention as well as maintenance of the current

increased NRC staf f attention during subsequent inspections.

Rating Last Rating This

Functional Area Period Period Trend

A. Piping Systems

and Supports 2 2 Same

B. Electrical Power

Supply / Distribution

and Instrumentation /

Control Systems 3 2 Improved

C. Fire Protection 3 3 Same

D. Preoperational and

Startup Phase Testing 2 1 Improved

E. Plant Operations NR 2 NR

F. Radiological Controls 2 2 Same

G. Maintenance NR 2 NR P

H. Surveillance NR 2 NR

I. Emergency Preparedness 1 1 Same

J. Security 2 2 Same

K. Fueling .NR 1 NR

L. nuality Programs and

Administrative Controls 2 2 Improved

M. Licensing Activities 2 2 Same

NR = not rated or not rated separately.

6

'

.. _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

l

PIPING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

Inspections focussed on closeout of items.

Two Violations:

. Nonrepetitive.

. Not Programmatic.

Management Controls Adequate.

3 Records Cornplete and Well Maintained.

-

Knowlsdgeable Staff.

.

E

'i

'

.

i

w .-

, - p- ,,-g - -- -------w9.w-_ =-- - - + - g- -

w- --- - - --- - - -

.

ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION

AND

INSTRUMENTATION / CONTROL SYSTEMS

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD IMPROVED

Major inspection effort / utility effort.

Six Violations.

Hardware and drawing changes required.

Drawing control improved.

l

Comprehensive corrective action.

l

<

. .-. _ _ . _ , ...,...~_..._....,._--...,.__.-____,.,_._,m.,-.__.-.._,e ,,___, _ _ _ . - . ,_.... , , ,.._,,.c.;.___. - - - - . . _

.

FIRE PROTECTION

CATEGORY 3 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

Acceptable Program Implemented.

Adequate Plant Systems and 3rocedures.

Adequatey Trained Operations Personnel

Ma'or Management Concerns on Problem

.

Identification.

. _. - _ - _- __ -. .

.

PRE 0PERATIONAL AND STARTUP TESTING

CATEGORY 1 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD IMPROVED

Extensive sRC nvolvement.

Eary 3

roblems Resolved.

Progressive Improvement.

Aggressive Management initiatives.

-

wo minor violations concerning

lea < rate testing.

.

. - , - . - ----w-, 4-m--r-- .- .m-- - - - - - + ,r------w--m-- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - w

-

.

PLANT OPERATIONS

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

NO TREND - FIRST ASSESSMENT

r

our Violations.

Seventeen LERs.

NRC License Pass Rate High.

Oaerational Readiness Inspection.

Good Management Attention.

-

.

RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

ho Violations.

Management involvement Satisfactory.

Responsiveness to NRC ssues Satisfactory.

Radwaste Systems Status Acceptable.

.

l

-

.

MAINTENANCE

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

NO TREND - FIRST ASSESSMENT

One Violation Identified.

Maintenance Program Well Defined.

Corrective Maintenance Activities Adequate.

Preventative Maintenance Concerns:

. Low Completion Rate.

. Prioritization. :

. Management Attention.

l

'

.-_. . . _ - _ _ . .- _ _ . . _ - - - - . _ . . ..

. .

-

.

l

SURVEILLANCE

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

NO TREND - FIRST ASSESSMENT

Management Attention Acceptab e.

Staffing Adequate.

Surveillance Wa k-througas.

No Violations.

-

_ - - _ - - . -- - -

- . - - - - -

_ _ .

-

.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CATEGORY 1 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

.

No Violations.

Demonstrated Decision Making.

,

Well Qualified Staff.

Program Well Defined.

Responsive to h RC Initiatives.

.. _

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

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

!

SECURITY

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

1

Senior Management Actively involved.

Middle Management Deficiencies.

. Program implementation.

. Technical Solutions.

Security Event - Enforcement Conference

. Management Aggressiveness.

l

_. _. _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . .. . _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ .

..

.

FUELING

CATEGORY 1 PERFORMANCE

NO TREND -

FIRST ASSESSMENT

Management involvement.

Wo Personnel Error.

No Violations.

!

Conservative Approac1.

<

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

. - . _ - . . . . . . . . . . . - .

.

QUALITY PROGRAMS AND ADWINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING Q'UALITY

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD IMPROVED

Program Well Defined.

Adequate Staffing.

Responsive to NRC concerns.

Two Minor Violations.

Backlog of Internal Audit Findings.

.

,c- ....-- . - - . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. _ . _ _ _.

,

-

.

LICENSING ACTIVITIES

CATEGORY 2 PERFORMANCE

TREND WITHIN SALP PERIOD SAME

Active Management Particiaation.

Prior Planning.

Technica Uncerstanding of ssues.

nconsistent Information Exc1ange.

i

I

,_

r

t TABLE 1

'

No. of Violations in Each Severity Level

Functional Area I II III IV V Deviations

Operations 2 2

Radiological Controls

Maintenance 1

Surveillance

Fire Protection 2

Emergency Preparedness

Security 1

Fueling

Piping Systems

and Supports I 1

Electrical Power

Supply / Distribution

and Instrumentation /

Control Systems 6

Preoperational and

Startup Phase Testing 2

Quality Programs and

Administrative Controls 1 1

Licensing Activities

i

19

,

4

,

, , ,e,n-r.--r--,,--------e- ~m,,.-.-, - , - - -r . -.et., r ,,r ---ew--- - a ----- - ---- -,,--c - - - . -v, - - ,

ML20140G103

Text

Navigation menu

Search