ML20197G514
| ML20197G514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1984 |
| From: | Grotenhuis M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D, Mattson R, Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406150280 | |
| Download: ML20197G514 (6) | |
Text
Jun2.6,1984 t-Docket Nos. 50-325/324 DISTRIBUTION Becket l He, ORB #2 Rdg File MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell Eisenhut, Director NRC PDR Division of Licensing Local PDR Glainas Roger Mattson, Director MGrotenhuis Division of Systems Integration SMacKay SNorris Richard Vollmer, Director DVassallo Division of Engineering 19 NRC Reviewers &
Commenters Hugh Thompson, Director Division of Human Factors Safety THRU:
Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief, Operatiing Reactors Branch #2, DL Gus Lainas, Assistant Director
.for Operating Reactors, DL FROM:
Marshall Grotenhuis, Project Manager, Operating Reactors Branch #2, DL
SUBJECT:
SALP REVIEW FOR THE CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, BRUNSWICK STATION ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
' Enclosed is a draft of the NRR input for the SALP.for the Carolina Power
& light Company regarding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 for the period February 1, 1983 through April 30, 1984. Please review the draft report and provide any comments you feel appropriate. The SALP board meeting will be on June 26, 1984 at the Region II Headquarters.
Any comments received June 15, 1984 will be considered.
To assist you with reviews and coment, F. Allenspach, R. Benedict, R. Goel, J. Knox, M. Lamastra, E. Marinos, C. Patel, M. Wigdor, and J. Wing provided SALP Reports and L. Bender, W. Brooks, J. Carter, R. Eberly, N. Fioravante, R. Hermann, D. Hoffman, P. Kapo W. Meinke, S. Sun J. Voglewede, and C.
Willis provided coments.
Original signed by:
Marshall'Grotenhuis, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #2,'DL Enc 1osure:.
As state DL:0RBf2
.DL:0 BF2 D'L. B#2 A
- DL-i MGrotenhuis;jk SMac y.
DVassallo s
05/p/84 05/
PI 05/p/84
/84 8406150280 840606 gDRADOCK 05000324
- PDR_,
guerg{o
+
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g
.E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o.
's Docket No.50-32c '124 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard Lewis, Director Division of Projects & Resident Programs THRU:
Domenic B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 ',fE Division of Licensing FROM:
Marshall Grotenhuis,'P'roject Manager, Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
NRR SALP INPUT - BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Enclosed is NRR's input for the June 26, 1984 SALP Board meeting for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1 and 2.
As discussed in the enclosure, our evaluation was conducted according to NRP Office Letter No.
44 dated January 3, 1984 and NRC Manual Chapter 0516, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.
gu$xl(,
5"N" l
Marshall Grotenhuis, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #2 1
Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/e.1 closure:
D. Eisenhut G. Lainas D. Myers D. Verrelli P. Bemis C. Hardin
Docket No.
50-325/324 Facility:
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licensee:
Carolina Power & Light Company Evaluation Period:
February 1983 to April 30, 1984 NRR Froject Manager:
M. Grotehnuis (S. MacKay)
~
I.
Introduction This report presents the results of an evaluation of the licensee, Carolina Power & Light Company, in the functional area of licensing s
activities.
It is intended to provide NRR's input to the SALP review process as described in NRR Office Letter No. 44 dated Januarv 4, 1984 which encloses NRC Manual Chapter 0516. The review covers t' : period February 1,1983 to April 30, 1984 II. Summary of Results NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned a performance category (category 1,2,or 3) based on a composite of a number of attributes. The single final rating to be tempered with judgement a^s to the significance of the elements.
Based on this approach, the performance of Carolina Power & Light Company in the functional area - Licensing Activities - is rated category 2.
III. Criteria Evaluation criteria, as given in NRC Manual Chapter Appendix 0516 Table 1, were used for this evaluation.
IV. Methodology The basic approach used in the evaluation was for the PM to receive input from the NRC staff on all licensing activities which involved a significant amount of staff affort. The individual reviewers applied the evaluation criteria con: tined in NRC Manual Chapter 0516 to the various performance attribut1s to be evaluated and assigned a rating category based on his erperi?nce with the licensee. This information was transmitted to the FM verbally or with each Safety Evaluation, reviewed by the PM and incomorated with his experience in preparing an overall evaluation of the licensee's performance. The PM discussed and incorporated the coments of the assigned NRR Senior Executive into the evaluation. The evaluattin was then circulated for NRR management
comments. The comments were then appropriately incorporated. An NRR narrative assessment for each performance attribute in Licensing Activities as well as any comments relative to other SALP areas is included.
The assessment of licensee performance was based on an evalution on the following licensing activities:
Project Management Administration Response to NUREG 0737 Items Control of Heavy Loads Environmental Qualificaiton i
Mark I Containment i
Spent Fuel Pool Expansion NUREG 0737 Supplement 1 Items Adequacy of Station Electric Di,tribution System Masonry Wall Design Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications NUREG 0737 TSs l
Reactor Protection System Review Pipe Crack Inspections 4
Containment Vent and Purge Review Reload Review i
17 sdditional Technical Specification change Licensing Actions l
V.
Assessment of Performance The licensee's performance evaluation is based on a consideration of the seven evaluation criteria given in NRC Manual Chapter 0516 they are:
Management involvement and control in assuring quality Approach to resolution of technical issues from a Safety Standpoint.
~
i i
/
l -
- 4 l-,
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives 7
r Enforcement history Reporting (and analysis of reportable events 4
Staffing including management) j
{
Training and qualification effectiveness t
i The criteria of Enforcement History, Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events, Staffing and Training were judged to apply in a more limited way.
to the functional area, Licensing Activities, and therefore are given little or-no weight, as applicable. An assessment of each evaluation i
criterion is given below.
A.
Management Involvement and Centrol in Assuring Quality.
The overall rating for this category is 2.
i In particular, close attention to the battery problem, Appendix R and Environmental qualification, have shown the positive results of the direct In the case involvement of management in producing a high quality product.
l of the battery problem a project organization was established with appropriate Technical expertise as well as management attention and involvement. - In 4
other cases, in particular several issues involved in the Brunswick Pilot
~
Effort
- slow licensee responses and poor communication between CP&L licensing and the plant staff led to quick responses by management to resolve the problems i[
that developed. The net result is that whC. there was prior planning and assignment'of priorities, the results were excellent.and when there was not as thorough planning and assignment of priorities and CP&L was so inforined, Steps have been taken to increase j
management reponded promptly and effectively.
CP&L licensing staff connunications and effectiveness on a permanent basis.
For example, a licensing staff member will be located at the Brunswick site and an additional staff member has been added in the corporate office. Monthly j
review meetings have been instituted to review status of licensing actions.
j l
B.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from Safety Standpoint The overall rating of this Category is 2.
There appears to be a clear understanding of most issues and workable The overall technical competence has q
approaches are taken to resolve them. Sound technical basis and conservatism ar been good.
These attributes were most aptly to support the licensee's positions.
demonstrated in responding to the actions on the battery problem, where the personnel exhibited a clear understanding and conservative approach, On about October 1, 1983 a special cooperative effort was begun by CP&L
]
and NRC to clear up as much of the Brunswick Licensing backlog as'possible
.in a short time ( - 3 or 4 months). This special effort is referred to as the Brunswick Pilot Effort.
J
---m.,,, - - -,
u c
--s
-, - + -
r y.-
r~
y 4
l
-4.
(recent discussions indicate that the licensee is planning Technical Specifications that are responsive to the staff discussions) fire protection, where the monthly reetings were effective in providing a prompt response, Environmental Qualification, where one effective meeting was held to resolve all issues, and RETS, which was rated category one by the reviewers.
C.
Responsiveness The overall rating for this Category is 2.
Responses were usually on time. For those that were late, the licensee usually provided advance notice to the project manager.
The timeliness problems that developed during the Brunswick Pilot Effort were resolved.
D.
Enforcement History This attribute was not used in assessing CP&L performance in licensing actions.
E.
Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events This attribute was not used in assessing CP&L performance in licensing actions.
F.
Staffing The overall rating for this Catetory is 2.
This is based on the interaction with the licensing and technical staff in implementing the licensee actions used for this evaluation.
While there was a period during the Pilot Effort where the Licensing rtaff was behind, steps were taken by CP&L management to improve the situation.
The Licensing staff has been increased by an added person at the plant and at the corporate office.
G.
Training and Qualification Effectivenss This attribute was not used in assessing CP&L in licensing actions.
V.
Conclusion Based on the Carolina Power & Light Company's performance for a number of significant activities in the functional area of licensing, an overall rating of Category 2 is appropriate. The licensee staff has demonstrated willingness to work with the Consnission in a timely manner.
It has an understanding of plant design and operations.
Its responsiveness in most licensing issues was impressive. Management capability in licensing has been strengthened (NRR deals primarily with the licensing staff).