ML20153B040

Responds to 980904 e-mail Message Making Certain Observations Re Apparent Increase in Reactor Trips at Plant, Units 1 & 2.NRC Concluded That Licensee post-trip Reviews Adequately Conducted & That No Adverse Trends,Apparent

ML20153B040
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/17/1998
From:	Jaffe D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Mulligan M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9809220289
Download: ML20153B040 (9)

Text

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

, . September 17, 1998

- l Mr. Michael J. Mulligan 5420 Maltdie Court Sugar Hill, GA 30518

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your e-mail message, dated September 4,1998 (Enclosure 1), in which you made certain observations regarding an apparent increase in reactor trips at the Vogtie Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2.

The NRC staff and licensees are interested in reactor trips at all nuclear power facilitics in that trips subject a facility to transient conditions that could have adverse impacts on plant i equipment. The !!censee for VEGP, like other licensees, conducts post-trip reviews to ,

determine the cause of any reactor trip in order to eliminate these causes and detect adverse l

trends in reactor operations (e.g., an excessive number of operator errors that could be l significant contributors). In addition, the NRC staff routinely reviews the licensee's post-trip  ;

review e' forts to assure the effectiveness of these reviews. Finally, the NRC staff indeper ::ently reviews industry experience and trends data to ascertain if any nuclear power facility is experiencing an excessive number of reactor trips. These and other evaluation

_ programs are described in Enclosure 2, " Evaluating Reactor Licensees."

Thus far, the NRC staff has concluded that the VEGP licensee's post-trip reviews are adequately conducted and that no adverse trends, regarding reactor trips, are apparent for VEGP.

With regard to the other concerns you voiced in your September 4,1998, e-mail message, such I as the effect of the VEGP licensee's budgetary constraints, grid stability, and labor issues, these sorts of concerns are routinely evaluated when they appear to be contributing to adverse operating trends at nuclear power facilities. No such trends are currently evident at VEGP.

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

David H. Jaffe, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 11-2 '

Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425

Enclosures:

1. E-mail dated September 4,1998  ;

2. Evaluating Reactor Licensees Distribution. 4 ., , ,

~ gr See next page a:.C b b e - ' " a E To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Cop f with attachment / enclosure, "N" = No copy /

OFFICE P M :P DfT M _,l LA:PDil4 31Y D:PDi$u l (A)D$PE l l l 1 NAME DJaffeb )/ LBerry' \N \ ' HBerk$v' JZwdllhliiki 4/ R98 DATE 3/F7987// 6/4(/98 () /lL/98 / /98 / /97

. DOCUMC.NT NAME: G:\VOGTLE\MILLIGAN.92 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9809220289 980917 FDR ADOCK 05000424 H PDR

g J ,

Distribution for Yellow Ticket #0(380186 dated September 17, 1998

- Docket File (w/ origina! incoming) -

PUBLIC (w/ incoming)

PD 11-2 Rdg. (w/ incoming)' ,

' SCollins/FMiraglia BBoger BSheron JRoe '

RZimmerman

JZwolinski

' HBerkow DJaffe (w/ incoming)

RLaskin (e-mail RSL), DRPE ' j LBerry l NRR Mailroom (YT #0980186 w/ incoming) (0-5-E-7) )

NOlson l PSkinner, Rll l' LPlisco, Ril l

l i

i l

li

/ .

.l 1 /

/

l Df

. . c. m o

, c I-

l l

.f*%%

p UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.c. 20566 4001

%,. . . . . ,o September 17, 1998 Mr. Michael J. Mulligan 5420 Maltdie Court Sugar Hill, GA 30518 l

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your e-mail message, dated September 4,1998 (Enclosure 1), in which you made certain observations regarding an apparent increase in .

reactor trips at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2.

l The NRC staff and licensees are interested in reactor trips at all nuclear power facilities in that trips subject a facility to transient conditions that could have adverse impacts on plant l l equipment. The licensee for VEGP, like other licensees, conducts post-trip reviews to  !

determine the cause of any reactor trip in order to eliminate these causes and detect adverse '

trends in reactor operations (e.g., an excessive number of operator errors that could be  ;

significant contributors). In addition, the NRC staff routinely reviews the licensee's post-trip  ;

review efforts to assure the effectiveness of these reviews. Finally, the NRC staff l independently reviews industry experience and trends data to ascertain if any nuclear power facility is experiencing an excessive number of reactor trips. These and other evaluation programs are described in Enclosure 2, " Evaluating Reactor Licensees."

Thus far, the NRC staff has concluded that the VEGP licensee's post-trip reviews are adequately conducted and that no adverse trends, regarding reactor trips, are apparent for l

VEGP.

I With regard to the other concerns you voiced in your September 4,1998, e-mail message, such l as the effect of the VEGP licensee's budgetary constraints, grid stability, and labor issues, these sorts of concerns are routinely evaluated when they appear to be contributing to adverse operating trends at nuclear pewer facilities. No such trends are currently evident at VEGP.

Sincerely, i

\

_- C David N fie, enior Project Manager

, Project Directorate ll-2 l Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l j Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 l 1

Enclosures:

1. E-mail dated September 4,1998

2. Evaluating Reactor Licensees 4

I 4 i

m . . _. - . . . . _ . - . _ _ .._ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ -

i Fress: _ ' Michael Mulligan * <m.mulligangworkinet.att. net >

To: . ' Mike D* <necapasover. net >. " Victor Dncks' <VLDen... l Date: 9/4/9310:5 sam :j Sutdeet: Vo6tle Plant Trending l' Mr. Dricks Am I picking up an increasing trend of plant trips at Vogtle 1 and 2 in the .j last year? Didn't they have some employee and Union troubles. like ahnost a i

strike recendy? Noticed that Ga PUC is talking about a general rate reduction and Ga power is talking "about reducing Vogtles long term debt in these goood times. Isn't GA grid system

. (capacity) pretty tight this year? Are we seeing the initial stage of an improper maintenance and operating budget squeeze that has effected plant capacity factor and reliability. Might this be an indicator of a trend with the rest of the Southern's system. And how far is this from a safety 1 concern? mike mulligan 1

l 4

i i

4

(

f f

i l

- 1 I

k^

ENCLOSURE 1

... . . .. * ::.:..: =~~.:

ReactorLicensees httpJAmw. arc.stv/OPA/gmship/ process.hte i j Evaluating Reactor Licensees i As part ofits mission to protect public health and safety and the environment, the Nuclear Commission (NRC) monitors and evaluates the safety performance oflicensees who operate mor 100 commercial nuclear plants in the United States. This rigorous oversight includes eva concems, assessing operational events and experience, and reviewin evaluations and actions are based on publicly available information.g enforcem:nt actions. All The process used to determine the level ofplant safety is comprehensive to ensure NRC has an acc and objective understanding. It involves a number of NRC programs that continually examine p operations, operational events and plant management. Two proi; rams-insoections and analysis of operational data-provide primary mformation that is used in ot ser evaluations by the NRC's staff. About i once every six months, NRC senior managen meet with the Commission to discuss the yrformanc i nuclear Rockvil aower plants based on the staff's evaluations. These meetings are held at NRC's acadqu e, Maryland, and are open to the public.

1 INSPECTION PROGRAM i NRC resident inspecton assigned to specific plant sites, augmented by specialists from headquarter regional offices, conduct year round inspections oflicensee activities. Inspections are planned a performed both routinely and in response to events, enforcement allegations or emergmg issues.

Mspection findings and conclusions are documented in repons, w,hich are reviewed and approved b inspectors' managers. These repons and associated findings are available for review and analysis NRC offices and by the public.

ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL DATA PROGRAM In addition to the day-to-day and special inspections, mechanical, electrical and other plant problems carefully analyzed by the NRC. Reviews are conducted by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), which has primary responsibility for ovenight of the inspection progmm for nuclear plants, and the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).

The NRR reviews reports from licensees, NRC inspectors and industry groups to assess their safety im ponance, generic unplications and the need for any immediate corrective action. AEOD screens ind i ividual plant events or incidents to identify forerunners to potential severe accidents. In addition, i AEOD conducts an analysis of plant operating experience as reflected in eight performance indicators (PI). These indicators include data on unplanned automatic reactor shutdowns, equipment and safety system failures and worker radiation ex highlights trends in safety performance posures.

both good and poor. AEOD's findings are published m a repon Stemming from these two arograms are other evaluative processes, desenbed below, that NRC uses to assess plant performance. %ese vary in scope, frequency, level ofreview and duration.

Plant Performance Reviews At least semi-annually, NRC staffin each of four regional offices bring together the findings of NRC inspectors, AEOD analyses and enforcement actions (i.s.,

regulations) to give NRC senior managers a look at how b, penalties for hcensee violation eensees have performed over the previous six months. These assessments, called plant performance reviews (PPRs), help managers decide which plants require additional close attention for the next six months. These penodic reviews also are a arimary source ofinformation in assessing plant Meetings. The results of PPRs are made public. performance for the semi annual Senio Integrated Performance Assessment Process (IPAP)

Independent of day-to-day oversight of nuclear plants by the resid:nt inspectors, teams of senior NRC ft m a w n s

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

bap1/www. arc. gov /OPA/gmWrip/ process.b

.E I e, inspectors conduct integrated 1

• rformance assessments at selected plants each year. The purpose is to venfy that a licensee's actual rformance matches the performance reflected in written records for the 7tevious two years. Findings from the IPAP de directinput to the stematic Assessment of

'. L icensee Performance (SA. P program that s described below. An IP j report with final conclusions include recommendations for plant inspections and is made available to the public.

i 1 SALPs i

j The SALP evaluations employed by the NRC are conducted every 12 to 24 months to assess lon performance of each nuclearpower plant. The staff review includes the use of boards comprised of managers from a regional office and a manager from NRR. The board members review inspection

! results, enforcement actions that may have been taken against a licensee, and results of the lates IPAPs, performance indicators, licensee self assessments, third- assessments and in-depth i

discussions with licensees. Typically, the board also visits the j for a first-hand assessment. The result of the SALP review is a report that assigns one of three ratings to a plant: I for superior ormance,2 for good performance and 3 for acceptable cNnal areas: (1) plant operations, (2) maintenance, 3) performance. The ratings focus j managers use the SALP findings to identify those ant that areas (at a p require )mercased mspectio Generally, a plant receives a SALP review every 12-18 months. Plants whose performance is rated superior may have the period extended to 24 months before another SALP is perfonned. All SALP

) reports are made available to the public.

1 i Senior Management Meetings

About two months before the semiannual Senior Management Meeting (SMM), the four regional l

administrators and the Director of NRR discuss at a screening meeting the nu nerous staffassessments and inspection results for each plant nationwide. Results of PPRs, performance indicators, inspection j

findings and SALPs are considered at these meetings. If a plant's performance ap s to be declining j

significantly, or if there are significant concerns about its performance, it will be laced on the agenda for discussion at the SMM.

}

The SMMs are chaired by the NRC's Executive Director for Operations and include all regional j administrators, office directors and senior managers. To arrive at an objective evah:ation of a

omerational safety performance, the managers use a standard set ofquestions in five ar j

eTectiveness oflicensee self-assessment,2) operational performance (frequency of abnormal eve  ;

human performance,4) material condition (safety system reliability / availability) and 5) engineering and design. With this template of questions guiding discussions, the mana performance is of most concem and warrant increased NRC These attention.gers identify those plants w plants are placed on NRC's

" Watch List." Plants already on the Watch List that have demonstrated improved performance over an extended period may be taken off the list. Plants that have demonstrated superior performance are also identified.

The Watch List has three categories:

1) Plants removed from the list;

2) Plants authorized to operate that NRC will monitor most closely; and

3) Shutdown plants requiring NRC authorization to resume operations and which NRC will monitor closely.

After the Senior Management Meeting, the safety performance ofplants that are placed on or taken off the Watch List are discussed at the semi annual public meetings with the Commission, generally durirg summer and winter timeframes. Also discussed are those plants whose performance is trending downward.

The NRC notifies the chief executive officers of the utilities operating those plants of concem to the

-m.... ._

L bap://www. arc.sov0PA/gmoripW b

t;

• agency and indicates the need to coneet weaknesses. Those having plants removed from the lis those which have demonstrated superior perf;nnance are also notified.

i' July 1996 Send Comments or Questions to ocaSnre rov i

1 l

l l

i i

l l

l

' k;

'C c-

p,

4 v ._  ;

_ : . y. - +--

FROM: , ORIGINAL DUE DT: / / TICKET NO: 0980186 '

DOC DT:'09/04/98 NRR RCVD-DATE:' 09/04/98

TO: i Victor Dricks l FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** YEL DESC: ROUTING:

'Voct1e Plant' Trending Collins /Miraglia  :

Boger

.Sheron Roe Zimmerman y

NRR Mailroom  ;

i ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:

DRPE Zwolinski

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: I For appropriate action.

l

., 1 l

j:

I i

l l

4

'j

j:' ' s

. . ~. = . -. - . . . - ... ..

.,. w*

From: . " Michael Mulligan" <m. mulligan @weldnet.att. net >

To: " Mike D" < necnp@sover. net > , " Victor Dricks" <VLD@n... <

Date: . 9/4/9810:58am

Subject:

Vogtle Plant Trending '

l Mr. Dricks  !

Am I picking up an increasing trend of plant trips at Vogtle 1 and 2 in the last year? Didn't they have some employee and Union troubles, like almost a strike recently? Noticed that Ga PUC 1 is talking about a gene al rate reduction and Ga power is talking about reducing Vogtles long term debt in these goood times. _ !sn't GA grid system l (capacity) pretty tight this year? Are we seeing the initial stage of an '

improper maintenance and operating budget squeeze that has effected plant 'j capacity factor and reliability. Might this be an indicator of a trend with  ;

the rest of the Southern's system. And how far is this from a safety J concern? mike mulligan l I

l i

I I

J l

1 i

l l

l 1

l I

l I