ML20147G048
| ML20147G048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1997 |
| From: | Belisle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Ohanlon J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703280007 | |
| Download: ML20147G048 (12) | |
Text
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - . - . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ .
6 March 17, 1997 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
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE NORTH ANNA DOCKET NOS. 50 338, 50 339
Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:
This refers to the March 6,1997, meeting held to discuss the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for your North Anna facility. Our report, 50 338/97 99 and 50-339/97 99, dated February 21, 1997, had been previously sent to you. Enclosure 1 contains a list of attendees and Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the SALP presentation.
In accordance with Section 2.790(a) of the NRC's " Rules of 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 l concerning this matter, please contact us, j Sincerely, l Original signed by George A. Belisle Gaarge A. tialisle, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50 338, 50 339 License Nos. HPF 4, NPF-7
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. SALP Presentation cc w/encls: -(See page 2)
I
~~
9703280007 970317 PDR ADOCK 05000338 G PDR appspapp, spy q0 #
- j
_ _ _ . . ._ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ -. _ . - . .
4 i .
VEPC0 2 cc w/encls:
M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support
, Virginia Electric & Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard i Glen Allen, VA 23060
- W. R. Matthews, Manager North Anna Power Station i P. O. Box 402 Mineral, VA 23117
, D. A. Christian, Manager Surry Power Station Virginia Electric & Power Company '
5570 Hog Island Road Surry, VA 23883 Executive Vice President Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 4201 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen. VA 23060 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia Cor) oration Commission Division of Energy Regulation P. O. Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23209 William C. Porter, Jr.
County Administrator ,
Louisa County '
P. O. Box 160 Louisa, VA 23093
\
Michael W. Maupin, Esq. 1 Hunton and Williams Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Attorney General !
Supreme Court Building 900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 .
1 cc w/encls continued: See page 3 i
?
I VEPC0 3 ;
i cc w/encls: Continued Robert B. Strobe, M.D., M.P.H. I State Health Commissioner j Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health !
P. O. Box 2448 i Richmond, VA 23218 ;
Distribution w/encls: !
G. Edison, NRR !
R. Gibbs, RII :
P. Fillion. RII )
D. Jones, RII '
W. Stansberry, RII -
C. Payne, RII l PUBLIC j NRC Resident Inspector !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1024 Haley Drive >
Mineral, VA 23117 j i
NRC Resident Inspector i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Surry Nuclear Power Station 5850 Hog Island Road j Surry, VA 23883 l
0FFICE RII:DRP $f SIGNATtRE
- k,f da /
DATE 03 / / kk 03 / / 97 03 / / 97 03 / / 97 03 / / 97 03 / / 97 I COPY? YES' I' HO YES NO - YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Utt1Cla u. Mt.LUKU LUVf UUGUMLNi NAM . . G:\MT5UFMY.PW l
l
LIST OF ATTENDEES i NRC Attendees:
L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II (RII) '
E. W. Herschoff, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, RII
- F. M. Reinhart, Acting Director, Project Directorate II 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) l G. A. Belisle, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 5, Division of Reactor Projects,
~
RII R. D. McWhorter, Senior Resident Inspector, North Anna Power Station 4
R. A. Gibbs, Resident Ins wctor, North Anna Power Station R. E. Trojanowski, State _iaison Officer K. M. Clark, Senior Public Affairs Officer Licensee Attendees:
J. T. Rhodes, President and Chief Executive Officer
- J. P. O'Hanlon, Senior Vice President, Nuclear l R. E. Rigsby, Executive Vice President l M. R. Kansler, Vice President, Nuclear Omrations R. F. Saunders, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Services i W. R. Matthews, Station Manager, North Anna Power Station D. A. Heacock, Assistant Station Manager, Safety and Licensing 4
i E. S. Grecheck, Assistant Station Manager, Operations and Maintenance M. S. McCarthy, Director, Nuclear Oversight i T. M. Williams, Manager, Nuclear Oversight L. N. Hartz, Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Services D. A. Christian, Station Manager, Surry ;
S. P. Sarver, Acting Manager, Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support R. M. Berryman, Project Manager, Configuration Management local Official Attendees:
J. Lunsford, Louisa County Administration S. Harris, Chairman, Louisa County Board of Supervisors G. Urquhart, Director, Plans Division, Virginia Department of Emergency Services A. Warren, Radiological Hazards, Virginia Department of Emergency Services D. Green, Coordinator, Emergency Services, Orange County, Virginia Press Attendees:
C. Santos Richmond Times Dispatch R. Burke, Fredericksburg Free Lance Star A. Parker, Norfolk Virginia Pilot M. Ford, WTVR-TV6, Richmond P. Goodwin, WJMA AM, Orange County C. Belles, The Daily Progress, Charlottesville ENCLOSURE 1
f i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ,
! R E G U LATO RY COMMISSISON l
b [$g i i
Oh 4\
/
IT 1
- )* O\
b A
w g) nw afe, E W
GRis.
l ??~ RW W
n
! 'G 1&
a w
/
xg, 4 p
/
%*sv SYSTE M ATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (S AL P) !
N ORTH AN N A N U CLEAR PLANT U NITS 1 &2 APPR AISAL PERIOD: D EC EM B ER 2 5, 1994 TH ROU GH JANU ARY 11,1997 PRESENTATION MARCH 6,1997 ENCLOSURE 2 l
SALP PROCESS Rosidont Inspector Program \
\ t Roglon
_, Based \
inspoctions
\ \
SALP REGIONAL
- AomnismAM >
BOARD N 7 Spoeial ,/
/ /, 9 N/
initiativon 7
/
/
/
Evont -
Rovlows Master inspection Plan
. . _ _ . . _ _.. _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , .._.__ __ ~ _ .
)
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY RATINGS CATEGORY 1. LICENSEE ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY
, FOCUSED ON SAFETY AND RESULED IN A SUPERIOR LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE CONTROLS. THE LICENSEE *S SELF-ASSESSMENT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMERGENT !
i ISSUES. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE TECHNICALLY SOUND, COMPREHENSIVE, AND THOROUGH. RECURRING PROBLEMS ARE 4 ELIMINATED, AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES IS TIMELY. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES ARE THOROUGH.
l CATEGORY 2. LICENSEE ATTENTION AND INVOLVEHENT ARE NORMALLY WELL FOCUSED AND RESULTED IN A GOOD LEVEL OF SAFET( PERFORMANCE.
, LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES NORMALLY PROVIDE THE l NECESSARY CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES. BUT DEFICIENCIES HAY EXIST.
) WE LICENSEE'S SELF-ASSESSMENTS ARE NORMALLY GOOD, ALTHOUGH l _..~ ISSUES MAY ESCAPE IDENTIFICATION. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE USUALLY EFFECTIVE, ALTHOUGH SOME HAY NOT BE COMPLETE. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES ARE NORMALLY THOROUGH.
]
CATEGORY 3. LICENSEE ATTEfffION AND INVOLVEMENT HAVE RESULTED IN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE. HOWEVER, LICENSEE 4 PERFORMANCE MAY EXHIBIT ONE OR HORE OF THE FOLLOWING 1
CHARACTERISTICS. LICENSEE PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES HAVE NOT 3 PROVIDED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES IN IMPORTANT
~
l AREAS. THE LICENSEE *5 SELF-ASSESSI:ENT EFFORTS MAY NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER A POTENTIAL PROBLEH BECOMES APPARENT. A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED. NUMEROUS HINOR ISSUES COMBINE TO INDICATE THAT THE LICENSEE *S CORRECTIVE ACTION IS NOT THOROUGH. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES DO NOT PROBE DEEP ENDUGH, RESULTING IN THE INCOMPLETE RESOLUTION OF J
ISSUES. BECAUSE THE MARGIN TO UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE IN IMPORTANT ASPECTS IS SHALL. INCREASED NRC AND LICENSEE ATTENTION IS REQUIRED.
a
PLANT OPERATIONS l CATEGORY 1 l
STRENGTHS:
- STRONG SAFETY FOCUS e OWNERSHIP 0F SYSTEMS e COMMAND AND CONTROL l e PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES I
e SELF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES CH4ULENGES:
1 e DECLINING OPERATOR PERFORMANCE l (OPERATOR ERRORS) l
MAINTENANCE CATEGORY 1 l
l STRENGTHS:
i e MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND SUPPORT .
i e HIGH AVAILABILITY OF SAFETY SYSTEMS <
l e USE OF MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION (PLANNING AND HIGH QUALITY WORK) i e LOW BACKLOG 1
e INSPECTION AND TEST PROGRAMS, AND l
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES l i
CHALLENGES:
l e HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES e EQUIPMENT FAILURES 1
ENGINEERING CATEGORY 2 STRENGTHS: :
. i e' MANAGEMENT AND DVERSIGHT OF MAJOR !
ACTIVITIES i e SAFETY ASSESSMENTS l e RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF SAFETY SYSTEMS e DAY-TO-DAY SUPPORT TO OPERATION AND
_ MAINTENANCE
)
CHALLENGES:
e COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT e KNOWLEDGE OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN AND LICENSING BASES e CONFIGURATION CONTROL e MAINTENANCE RULE IMPLEMENTATION s
L l
PLANT SUPPORT l
CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
e RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL PROGRAM e EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY e PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN e FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM CHALLENGES:
e ~SAINTAINSUPERIORPERFORMANCE 1
4 l NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR PLANT I SALP RATING SUMMAPY :
l l
i l FUNCTIONAL RATING RATING
\ AREA .:- THIS PERIOD LAST PERIOD
! PLANT OPERATIONS 1 1 i
l MAINTENANCE 1 1 i
ENGINEERING 2 1 l PLANT SUPPORT 1 1 i
l 5
i
! o UNITED STATES i # @ uc % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
[%
$ l j E REGION H 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.. SUITE 2900
% g ') M j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199 0,
'% # February 21, 1997 1
Virginia Electric and Power Company ATTN: Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon l ' Senior Vice President Nuclear Innsbrook Technical Center l 5000 Dominion Boulevard i
Glen Allen, VA 23060
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
(INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-338/97-99 AND 50 339/97-99)
Dear Mr. O'Hanlon:
l The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the Systematic 1 Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) for the North Anna Power Station. 1 The facility was assessed for the period of December 25, 1994, through i January 11, 1997. The results of the assessment are documented in the enclosed SALP report which will be discussed with you at a public meeting at the North Anna site on March 6, 1997, at 1:00 p.m.
North Enna plant performance was assessed in four functional areas: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support. Performance in Plant -
Operations, Maintenance and Plant Support remained superior. Performance in Engineering was considered good.
Plant Operations superior performance was characterized by strong command and control of plant operations including transients and strong ownership of plant j l
systems although an increase in the number and significance of operator errors '
has been noted. Maintenance superior performance was characterized by strong 1 management support, excellent planning, and high quality work. Plant Support I continued to be superior in all of the sub-functional areas: radiological controls, emergency planning, physical security, and fire protection.
Engineering performance was good with strong management oversight and control of major projects. Instances where the facility was operated differently than '
described in the licensing basis as a result of facility modifications, failure to assure the design basis was incorporated in some procedures, and programmatic deficiencies with Haintenance Rule implementation detracted from a higher category rating.
Safety assessment and quality verification activities were considered to be superior. Plant management consistently made conservative operating decisions. Management Safety and Review Committee activities were effective and self critical. When problems were identified resulting from a reorganization of the Quality Assurance Department, corrective actions were effective in restoring assessment activities.
'g ea-eacu v i 3gg
.- .. .. =
i W
VEPC0 2 In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions or comments. I would be pleased to discuss-them with you.
Sinc el y.
~
f n Luis A. Reyee Regional Adm! 'strator Docket Nos. 50 338,53-339 License Nos. NPF 4, NPF 7
Enclosure:
SALP Report 1
cc w/ encl:
M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support Virginia Electric & Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen. VA 23060 W. R. Matthews, Manager -
North Anna Power Station P. O. Box 402 Mineral, VA 23117 D. A. Christian, Manager Surry Power Station Virginia Electric & Power Company 5570 Hog Island Road Surry, VA 23883 Executive Vice President Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 4201 Dominion Boulevard i Glen Allen, VA 23060 l
Dr. W. T. Lough !
Virginia Corporation Commission i Division of Energy Regulation l P. O. Box 1197 l Richmond, VA 23209 !
cc w/ encl continued: See page 3 1
l
'VEPC0 3
( -
cc w/ enc 1: Continued William C. Porter, Jr.
County Administrator
! Louisa County P. O. Box 160 a
Louisa. VA 23093 Michael W. Haupin, Esq. ;
Hunton and. Williams !
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower i 951 E. Byrd Street '
Richmond, VA 23219 Attorney General l Supreme Court Building 900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Robert B. Strobe, M.D., H.P.H.
State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P. O. Box 244B Richmond, VA 23218 l
INPO j ll
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMEKT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 50-338/97-99 AND 50-339/97 99 I. . BACKGROUND The SALP board convened on January 29, 1997, to assess the nuclear safety performance of the North Anna Power Station for the period December 25, 1994, through January 11, 1997. The board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6 " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance." Board Members were E. W. Herschoff (Board ,
Chairperson), Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, J. P. Jaudon.
l Director, Division of Reactor Safety, and F. M. Reinhart, Acting <
Director, Project Directorate 111, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator. 3 l
II. PLAMT OPERATIONS This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities directly related to operating the facility. It includes activities such
_a3 plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown and response to transients. It also includes initial and requalification training programs for licensed operators. ,,.
Performance in the plant operations area while remaining superior overall, has declined in the area of operator performance. In general, 4
plant operations have been characterized by a strong focus on safety, excellent management oversight, and conservative decision making.
Overall. operations personnel conducted plant activities in accordance with NRC requirements, management expectations, and procedural requirements. Operations personnel exhibited strong ownership of systems which were properly aligned and available to perform their safety function. Plant operators maintained strong command and control of plant shutdown evolutions. Refueling activities were well planned and effectively implemented. Unit start-ups were consistently well controlled in that operating crews demonstrated good communications and supervisory oversight was effective. Operations personnel maintained plant awareness and performed well during a variety of plant evolutions including power reductions and a reactor trip. Tagging activities were generally well controlled and successfully performed.
Occasional operator errors have continued throughout the assessment period. Examples of these errors include an operator error which led to spillage of contaminated water and a mode change made with an inoperable heat tracing circuit. Human errors in breaker manipulations led to a brief freezing of a Refueling Water Storage Tank level transmitter and ENCLOSURE 97clui o i s it g p p.
2 to disabling the only operable charging pump during shutdown operations.
Additionally, on several occasions, operations personnel did not identify or question degraded equipment conditions. The licensee has been successful in keeping the errors low in safety significance, as demonstrated by the fact that no plant transients or significant violations were caused by personnel errors. Additionally, efforts conducted in the latter part of the assessment period to reduce the number of operator errors have had limited success. i Programs and procedures were typically comprehensive and appropriately implemented and self assessment activities were thorough, timely, and i focused in appropriate areas. Event notifications were consistently '
prompt and complete, and the licensee's response to events, such as ;
severe weather was appropriate.
The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.
i III. HAINTENANCE This functional area addresses activities associated with diagnostic, predictive, preventive and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems and components. It also includes all surveillance testing. ,
in s.ervice inspection and other testing associated with equipment and i system operability. l Strong management involvement and support was evident in the area of l maintenance. This involvement was demonstrated by the effective outage i planning of the Unit 2 steam generator replacement outage and Units 1 and 2 short duration refueling outages. Additionally, plant material condition remained superior as evidenced by the high availability of safety systems throughout the period and the excellent performance of systems and components during most of the two year assessment period.
The effective use of the maintenance organization was demonstrated by excellent planning and high quality work. Maintenance backlogs were !
relatively low and were well under the licensee's goals. Maintenance personnel performing work were experienced and well trained and qualified.
The licensee continued to implement the inspection and test programs effectively. Surveillance activities were well planned and successfully conducted. The in service inspection and test programs were effectively implemented. Special testing was controlled and properly planned..
Occasional human performance deficiencies continued to be a challenge during the assessment period. - Additionally, recent equipment failures have challenged the operators and caused several plant transients.
Management attention is needed to address the recent decline ia equipment reliability and to ensure effective implementation of the Maintenance Rule.
The Maintenance area is rated Category 1.
3 l
IV. ENGINEERING l
This functional area addresses activities associated with the design of the plant and plant modifications as well as engineering support for l operations, refueling, maintenance, surveillance, testing, procurement l and licensing activities. It also includes configuration management.
l design basis information and retrieval, design and design change installation and testing, engineering training, and the 10 CFR 50.59 process.
l Engineering performance in major activities was excellent and indicative of strong management oversight and control which typically resulted in successful completion of the major projects. Safety assessment and quality verification were effective. There were no reactor trips or >
power reductions directly attributable to engineering performance: ;
operator workarounds were aggressively resolved with backlogs kept low; and no significant engineering related regulatory issues were identified during the period.
Weakness were noted. however, in the areas of commitment management and assurance of compliance with the' facility's design and licensing basis.
Specifically, instances were noted where procedures were neither changed nor clearly written to assure commitments were a)propriately satisfied.
Additionally, knowledge of and compliance with tie design and licensing bases were weak. Instances were noted where NRC intervention was necessary to identify an unreviewed safety question, motor operated valve stem coefficient of friction problems, and failure to assure ,
design basis were incorporated in procedures. Lack of clear ownership of responsibility for maintaining the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) contributed to instances where the facility was operated differently than described in the UFSAR.
Performance deficiencies were noted in the area of configuration !
control. While, in general, the design configuration of the facility is well known and effectively controlled, engineering errors, such as improper fasteners on a recently installed safety related pump, introduced deficiencies into the plant. Engineering errors also resulted in an improperly revised in service test criteria and incomplete seismic review of a safety related tank. Such errors were due to a lack of rigorous oversight and attention to detail on other than major engineering activities.
Engineering has been effective in assuring the reliability and ,
availability of assigned systems, and has provided strong day-to-day l
- support to operations and maintenance. The coordination and communications associated with the development of the Maintenance Rule .
l implementation program was an exception to this consistently strong l
- performance. Significant programmatic deficiencies with the corporate
- level program development activities have emerged which require prompt
( management attention.
l
l
- . 4 Submittals for amendments and exemption requests were well written and included sound engineering evaluations to support the proposed changes.
Responses to NRC Generic Letters appropriately addressed issues of concern.
The Engineering area is rated Category 2.
V. PLANT SUPPORT This functional area addresses all activities related to the plant support function, including radiological controls, radioactive l effluents, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection, and housekeeping.
The radiological control program continued to function effectively in limiting radiation exposure to plant workers and members of the public.
' Aggressive implementation of the As low As Reasonably Achievable program goals and initiatives significantly contributed to dose reduction. The effluent control 3rogram was also effective in limiting exposure to members of the pualic by maintaining radionuclide concentrations in liquid and gaseous effluents, and the radiation doses from those ,
1 releases, at a small percentage of their regulatory limits. The effectiveness of the effluent controls was confirmed by the results of the~ environmental monitoring program in that only trace amounts of activity were detected in the samples collected from the environs of the plant. Good quality assurance for analyses of environmental samples was demonstrated by the results of the licensee's participation in the Environmental Protection Agency cross-check program. The chemistry control program also functioned well in maintaining high quality primary i and secondary water. Self-assessments were effective in identifying and ;
correcting problems in the radiological control program area.
Challenges exist for procedural adherence in the areas of contamination control and transportation.
Emergency response capability was being maintained at a proficient level of operational readiness. An observed annual emergency response exercise was successfully completed by the licensee during 1996. A program strength included the consistency of the administration of the emergency response organization's performance. Problems with emergency sirens due to severe weather were promptly resolved.
The licensee continued to implement and support the Physical Security plan, procedures and associated programs in a superior manner. The organization and administration of the security program reflected the high level of professionalism and dedication exhibited by the security management and security force. The protected area access control !
equipment was modern, reliable, efficient, and effective. Plant and '
security management was proactive in recognizing and correcting potential problems. Control of Safeguards Information continues to be a j challenge at both the site and the corporate office.
i
. 5 The Fire Protection Program was effectively implemented during this SALP cycle. Organization and administration of the fire protection program were good. The fire protection and prevention procedures and implementation, including controls for ignition sources, transient combustibles and housekeeping, were excellent. Maintenance, surveillance testing and performance of the fire protection systems and e.quipment were superior. The fire brigade training program and performance of the fire brigade during drills were typically good.
Quality assurance audits, self assessment and insurance company inspections of the fire protection program were thorough with correction of identified problems resolved in a timely manner.
Overall, plant housekeeping was excellent. Occasionally, standards were not met in less frequently toured areas.
The Plant Support area is rated Category 1.
~
4