ML20198T418
| ML20198T418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1997 |
| From: | Mallett B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198T318 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711140279 | |
| Download: ML20198T418 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
] *.
UNITE D STATES
/#v8 H %,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8 ) 'n HE GION 11 j ATL ANTA F EDERAL CENTER r 61 FOR5YTH STREET SW, SullE 231M 8 ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30303 June 13. 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator f FROM- Bruce S. Hallett, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW REGARDING SUMMER SALP On April 25. 1997 you established a panel to review a Differing Professional View (DPV) which was submitted to you in an April 17. 1997, memorandum. The DPV requests an alternative approach to that currently proposed for a response to the licensee's request to modify the original SALP repart, which was issued to the V.C. Sumer plant on December 6.1996.
The panel has completed review of the DPV in accordance with Management Directive 10.159 eri Regional Office Instruction No. 2304. The review findings, conclusions and recomendations are sumarized below and are discussed in detail in the attachment to this memorandum.
7 in sumary, the panel found some of the DPV submitter's comments to be valid.
These coments dealt with the tone and accuracy of the plant support section of the SALP report and the use of isolated, non cited violations to support an assessment of declining performance. The panel recomends modification of the plant support writeup, reconsideration of the rating (after the writeup is modified), and modifying the response to the licensee's request.
If you have any questions, nicase contact me.
Attachment:
DPV Regarding Sumer SALP 9711140279 971027 .
PDR t. DOCK 05000395 i G PDR f .mmx:..-
l DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW REGARDING SUMMER SALP
- 1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND On November 13, 1996, a SALP board was held to assess the performance of the Suntner nuckar plant for the period January 29, 1995, through October 26, 1996. The SALP report was issued in a letter to the licensee on December 6,1996, and discussed in an open meeting with the licensee.
The licensee responded to the SALP report and meetina in a letter, dated February 12, 1997. The Region held two sessions to aiscuss the assessment and the licensee's response; one was on February 27, 1997, and a second one was on March 26, 1997. On April 9, 1997, the SALP board members and Region 11 line management for the Summer facility drafted a response to the licensee. On April 17, 1997, the " submitter" provided a memorandum to the Re31on 11. Regional Administrator, requesting a review of a pronosed different action.
On April 25, 1997, the Regional Administrator, Region 11 chartered a Differing Professional Review (DPV) panel to review the submitter's proposal in accordance with Management Directive 10.159. dated April 10.
1997, and Regional Office Instruction No. 2304, Rev. 2, dated January 31, 1997. After review with the submitter. the panel members were chosen to be: Bruce Mallett, Chairaerson (Region II), Paul Harmon.
chosen from list provided by the su)mitter (Region II), and David Gamberoni (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation). The panel members were reviewed with the submitter prior to selection and the submitter did not raise objection to the members. The panel was confirmed in a May 8, 1997, memorandum from the Region 11 Regional Administrator.
After determination that there was sufficient information/ documentation provided by the submitter, the panel met on May 21. 1997, in the Region 11 office and conducted the review. The review included an interview of the submitter. The review panel did not interview the SALP board members and, with the exception of the submitter, conducted the review inde)endent of individuals who participated in the decision challenged by t1e submitter. The results of the review and recommendations are provided below.
II.
SUMMARY
OF THE NRC ACTION PROPOSED AND CHALLENGED BY THE DPV The Region 11 SALP board assessed the licensee's performance as a Category 2 in the plant support area. The SALP report was issued with several Shrases indicating " decline" in performance in the plant support area. T1e licensee's February 12. 1997, letter requests the NRC to
.eassess the plant support functional area of the SALP report on the basis that some areas d the writeup were not consistent with the performance at the site. The NRC's proposed response indicates that the SALP rating in the plant support area will not be changed because of deficiencies in this area.
. , i l
111.
SUMMARY
OF THE ISSUES FROM THE SUBMITTER ;
The submitter made it clear to the panel that the DPV was not a i recommendation that the category rating be changed in the plant support area. Although the submitter believes the rating is incorrect, the kcy issue is that the examples useci to support the SALP assessment and writeup are incorrect and the assessment is inconsistent with other assessments in the plant support area. -
The submitter requested the proposed NRC response and the SALP report be modified to reflect that the performance in some of the areas of plant i support (i.e., radiological controls, emergency preparedness and -
security) were superior and there were improvements in the fire protection area late in the assessment period. The panel determined that the submitter's request is based on three sets of issues as outlined below. The panel addressed these issues to determine whether the submitter's DPV has merit.
Issue 1. Some examples used in the SALP report in the plant support area were mischaracterized, inappropriately used, occurred :
early in the SALP period and did not support the challenges '
or the statements that the performance declined.
Issue 2. The SALP assessment writeup in the plant support area was inconsistent with the previous SALP report for the Summer plant, was not consistent with Region 11 SALP evaluations for other plants in the plant su) port area, and was not consistent with the results of t1e last plant performance t review that was completed prior to the SALP board.
Issue 3. The use of-non-cited violations (NCVs) in the plant support area was inap3ropriate for two reasons: (1) single NCVs or .
violations, claracterized as isolated should not be used to support declining perfcrmance and (2) the message to licensees should be to encourage self-identification as in the NCV: instead the message was that the NCV was used as a basis to sup performance.pnrt a conclusion that there was a decline in Although this last issue involved the use of violations, the panel determined the submitter's issue was not an enforcement issue. Rather, it was an issue of how the violations were used to support the SALP assessment. This determination was explained to the submitter on May 21, 1997.
IV. MATERIAL AND INFORMATION REVIEWED AS BASIS FOR PANEL RESULTS To address these issues, the panel reviewed the following documents:
the memorandum from the submitter to L. A. Reyes, dated A>ril 17, 1997:
the current Summer SALP re) ort, dated December 6. 1996: t1e previous Summer SALP report. dated March 17. 1995: the SALP outline for the ,
current SALP report (plant support functional area only): the plant issues matrix used for the current SALP report: the plant performance
+
- * - - - .- , % ,m-g-, , - - ,- - . - -- , . - . , -,. _ - , - -m.,-y-. m-,,._y- ,- ,.,y- . .
I ia review (PPR) summary for the last PPR that was conducted prior to the ;
SALP board (September 1995 to March 1996); the licensee's respi se to i the current Sumer SALP report, dated February 12. 1997: the draft NRC response to the licensee's letter: and NRC inspection reports issued for the Summer plant from January 1996 to October 1996. In addition, the 1 panel reviewed the guidance in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.6.
" Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance." NRC MD 10.159.
" Differing Professional Views or Opinions." Regional Office Instruction (ROI) Number 2304. Rev. 2. regarding DPV processing. ROI No. 0516. Rev.
and the NRC Enforcement Manual and policy contained in NUREG 1600. i On May 21, 1997, the panel met with the submitter to discuss the submitter's April 17, 1997, memorandum and to verify understanding of the submitter's concerns.
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ;
- 1. Issue 1 The panel compared the current SALP report to the SALP outline used by the SALP board and reviewed objective performance indicators and their ,
trends to determine whether the examples in the current SALP report are supported or have a sound basis.
Panel Findinas A. Mischaracterized Examples The panel determined that performance in the radiological controls subfunctional area either improved or remained at a superior level of !
performance, with the )ossible exception of control of contaminated materials. Even thougl objective performance indicators for this area improved or remained at a high level, the current SALP report did not contain the same positive words as the previous SALP report. For example, the previous report contained phrases and sentences such as,
" aggressive " "proactive in limiting the size of contaminated areas to extremely low levels." and "Self assessments were thorough and
- identified issues that im) roved performance. Corrective actions were extensive and timely." T1e current SALP report did not contain similar very positive phrases and sentences. Therefore, it appears that the current SALP report describes a " lower" assessment of performance in several subparts of the radiological controls subfunctional area, when ,
the purported decline is only related to the control of contaminated materials.
Another possible example of mischaracterized assessment is the statement that the control of contaminated materials due to finding contamination outside control boundar_ies represents a decline in performance. The board had two examples of this in the outline and in the ins)ection reports during the assessment period, but these ap) eared to )e isolated ;
cases. In addition, the SALP outline used by the Joard had examples where the licensee had been effective in reducing plant area
,w-- e ,w -,aw ,,v., ,,-n-- -.r-.,~--e,. -s - - - , - - - , -------.----w---,-.- ~-,-m-----.-r ,
.. isnation and personnel contamination events and these were not used !
- ;n ine SALP report. f I Another example that appeared to be mischaracterized is the following statement
- " Site ALARA and personnel contamination control measures '
! were generally successful throughout the period although some decline was noted." The sentence is structured such that the reader could miscontrue that ALARA also experienced some decline in performance. !
This implied decline is not consistent with the inspection record or the '
objective performance indicators, which show that exposures went down. t This issue may be just poor sentence structure, but it creates a potential for an inaccurate assessment.
The panel determined that two examples in the emergency )reparedness subfunctional area lacked sufficient detail, such that tiey may have mischaracterized the issues. The first example was the phrase
" challenges....in maintaining awareness of siren system status in order to make timely reports." While this is a true statement, the underlying event was a single occasion where siren losses went undetected by operations personnel. The status was detected some time later by emergency preparedness staff. but not reported for several hours to the ,
NRC due to discussion of whether it needed to be reported. The NRC treated this issue as an NCV and it appeared to be an isolated example.
Hence, basing the conclusion " actual response indicated some decline in performance" on a single.1solated event placed too much emphasis on this event.
The second example was the sentence, "Several improvements were made to ,
the Alert and Notification System sirens to make them more reliable."
The phrase " improvements were made" could be interpreted to mean that improvements were needed. However, the )revious SALP report stated that !
" Management was proactive in upgrading t1e emergency response facilities and maintenance of the siren portion of the emergency notification system." The licensee's response indicated that in 1996 they achieved an average operability of 98.10% with a com)lete cycle test with 99.06%
of sirens sounding. The panel determined tlat a more accurate statement would have characterized the level of performance as about the same as the previous assessment, with some isolated examples of problems.
B. Untimely Examples The panel. identified one example in the plant support area that was untimely and appeared to be overemphasized. The statement " Challenges were noted in developing challenging emergency scenarios." was based on a description of an exercise weakness that occurred early in the SALP period (July 1995)--15 months arior to the end of the period. The panel was not able to determine if t1e exercise weakness was an isolated example, but additional recurrences were not identified in drills performed after the exercise. In addition, the example did not support an actual " decline in performance" in making emergency classifications, rather it showed a failure to objectively demonstrate classification capability. -
-,w---.ee--- .y-r.--mmy, . - , <.,w~,--,-,
l l
NRC MD 8.6 states, "Although the functional area assessments should consider the licensee's aerformance througtout the period, the category rating shall e@hasize t1e licensee's performance during the last 6 ,
months of the assessment period." Since the example did not identify an '
actual emergency performance weakness and was early in the period. tne panel viewed the use of this example os an overemphasis on an untimely example.
C. Unsupported Examples The panel identified one example in the plant support functional area that was unsupported. The statement " Housekeeping was satisfactory but ,
additional improvements could be made in some areas" was not supported by the SALP outline, the plant issues matrix, or NRC inspection reports reviewed. The outline, PIM and inspection reports indicate housekeeping was very 900d and generally good.
D. Significant Examples That Were Not Used NRC inspection report (IR) 50 395/96-11, which was issued on November
- 25. 1996, documented a 7-week inspection that ended on October 26. 1996.
This inspection report covered approximately one third of the final six months of the SALP period. Hence, the panel viewed the assessments in this inspection report as particularly germane to the current SALP assessment. The panel noted that the ins)ection report was in draft at the time of the SALP board meeting, but tie draft information was available to the SALP board.
One example in IR 96-11 that did not appear to be used was. "On September 11. 1996, the licensee conducted an emergency preparedness drill with the inspectors observing activities iri the Technical Support Center. No concerns were identified."
Several other examples in IR 96 11 indicated that performance in the fire protection area, which was >oor early in the SALP period. was improving. For example, the bacclog of fire protection system work requests that were over two years old was reduced from 20 (early 1995) to only 2. IR 96-11 also concluded that operability and performance of the fire protection systems was good, stating "The inspectors toured the plant and noted that all of the fire protection systems inspected were o)erational and appeared to be well maintained." The panel determined t1at the conclusion in the SALP report that *The fire protection program performance declined but was generally implemented in an adequate manner durino this period" did not accurately reflect the trend in performance in this subfunctional area during the last 6 months of the assessment period.
Conclusions (1) There were several instances where objective perfcrmance indicators either improved or remained constant, but the words in the current SALP report were less positive than the previous SALP report.
(2) There were examples in the current SALP report where the data does not support a declining trend in the program as implied in the report.
(3) This OPV issue is valid for several of the examples used in the current SALP report. j
- 2. Issue 11 Panel Findinos ;
The panel did not address consistency with assessments of other Region !
11 facilities because there are too many variables in these assessments that cannot be addressed without the expenditure of a large amount of '
resources. In addition. the panel determined that this aroposed inconsistency did not need to be resolved to review the )PV with regard to the Summer plant.
To determine the consistency with the previous SALP assessment for the Summer site, the board reviewed the assessment report for the previous SALP period (March 17, 1995, report) in the plant support area and compared it with the writeup in the current SALP and the inspection reports used to support the writeup for the current SALP.
In radiological controls, the previous SALP report stated the radiological control program was effective in controlling radiation doses. A strong ALARA program contributed to low personnel doses through use of ... controlled chemistry during shutdowns. Proactive in limiting size of contaminated areas to extremely low levels. The 1996 inspection reports indicated also that the licensee was proactive in reducing dose rates via early boration/ shutdown programs. A positive finding in reduction in person rem was noted. Two 1995 reports (95-19 and 95-03) indicate that the licensee has reduced plant areas that are contaminated and personnel contamination events. The panel determined that the words in the inspection re)oris and previous SALP report are consistent. The panel determined t1at certain words in the current SALP repcrt (i.e.. Site ALARA and personnel contamination control measures, . . generally successful . . .although some decline. . . control of contaminated material is a challenge), however, are not consistent with these documents.
In the emergency preparedness area, the previous SALP report says the emergency preparedness program improved significantly during the assessment _ period. Management was proactive in upgrading facilities and performing maintenance of the siren system. The training program was excellent in providing responders who performed well in exercises.
Self-assessments were effectively used to identify areas needing actions. Performance improved in the 1994 exercise. The 1996 inspection reports indicated the licensee continues to improve the emergency preparedness response capability. Revisions to the emergency preparedness plan continued to be of high quality. Minor errors were identified in the EPPs, but they have improved since the March 1995 inspection. A failure to report loss of sirens in a timely manner was
( identified, but an NCV was issued because of the initiative of emergency l
preparedness staff and corrective actions. No inspector concerns were I
(l .
l - -
g .
I identified regarding the licensee's ability to resolve findings. The quality of drill documentation could be improved. The panel determined that the statements in the current SALP writeup are more negative than '
those in the previous report, and appear to emphasize a decline in performance. The current SALP writeup does not recognize certain positive performance in this area that was recognized in the 1996 inspection reports. This performance in training and in resolving self-assessment findings was not addressed in the current SALP. The panel determined that, overall, performance in the emergency preparedness subfunctional area appears to be similar to the previous SALP period.
Security performance stdtements in the previous SALP report had superior type assessments in the training area and testing and maintenance of equipment. The statements for assessment and detection of alarms were characterized as normally good. The panel determined that statements in the current SALP report are much more positive and are consistent with the 1996 inspection reports.
Fire protection performance was characterized as good in the previous SALP report. Once problems were identified, corrective actions were comprehensive and aggressively pursued. Performance in this area in the '
1996 inspection reports was characterized as follows: Fire protection audits were thorough. Performance of the fire brigade during a drill was satisfactory. The backlog of fire protection system maintenance was reduced and system operability was good. Implementation of fire protection procedures was satisfactory. Several problems were noted in drill response in fire protection in January 1996. The current SALP report says performance declined but was generally implemented in an adequate manner. Maintenance and testing of ecui Some improvement was evident late in the Serioc. pment Humanwas performance satisfactory.
errors persisted. The panel determined tlat the current SALP report and the 1996 inspection reports provide a consistent message in the fire protection area, with the possible exception of the statement that fire protection declined. The decline does not appear to be supported by the trends and words used in the 1996 inspection reports, especially 96 11.
issued on November 25, 1996.
To determine the consistency with the PPR held prior to the current SALP board. meeting and other ins)ection reports issueo to the licensee, the panel reviewed the latest P)R (results for period 9/95 - 3/96) and the inspection reports issued to the licensee during this period. The PPR did not increase inspections in any of the plant support subfunctional areas, except for fire protection. In addition, the PPR did not identify a declining trend in radiological controls security or emergency preparedness. In the fire protection area, the PPR identified a regional initiative ins)ection to address problems with equipment and personnel performance. T1e panel determined that the radiological controls area showed no adverse trend. contrary to the current SALP report. The PPR characterized security performance as good, rather than the outstanding manner stated in the inspection reports and the SALP report.
- ~ , a: , ,. , - - , . - , . . , , , , . , - - . , , - . , . - . . , , . ..n,,..- - -,n,. - . - , , - ,,-
- a. .
Conclusioqs (1) The current SALP report is inconsistent with the )revious report in l radiological controls even though the performance in tais area appears to be 'milar in both SALP assessment periods. There is also ;
ency between the current SALP report and the outline and the
~
incon PIM b. Dy the board to review this area. l (2) The current SALP report differs from the previous report in the areas of security. emergency preparedness and fire protection. The ;
current SALP report is consistent with the inspection reports in security. The statements of decline in fire protection and emergency <
prepareoness are inconsistent with the inspection reports. !
(3) The current SALP report is not consistent with the PPR in the radiological controls area. It is consistent in the fire protection area - regional initiative inspection effort was specified during the PPR. ,
(4) The submitter's DPV is valid for inconsistencies needing correction in the radiological controls area. The DPV is valid for inconsistencies in the use of statements of declining performance in the areas of emergency preparedness and fire protection.
- 3. Issue III II Panel Findinas The panel determined that NCVs and violations were used as principal determinants of the licensee's program aerformance in some areas of the plant support section of the current SA.P. In some cases. the violations represented isolated performance. One cited Severity Level ,
(SL) IV violation and one NCV were issued for material found outside or carried out of the controlled area in the radiological controls area.
Both those instances are discussed in the SALP as specific examples of a decline in radiological controls. After reviewilg tt.e data available to the SALP board, the Janel determined that there is insufficient basis for the conclusion tlat radiological controls declined. The use of an NCV for the reporting of siren loss in the emergency )reparedness area also appeared to be an isolated case, in contrast. tie use of NCVs in the fire protection area represented programmatic problems.
The panel researched the Enforcement Manual. ROI 0516. Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance and ROI 0901. Non Cited Violations, for guidance regarding using non-cited violations to determine level or direction of licensee performance. In addition, the Director. Office of r Enforcement. was consulted on the issue of using NCVs in the SALP process.
The references are not prescriptive regarding the use of NCVs for assessing licensee performance in any venue, including the SALP process.
However, the panel determined that the references intend that NCVs should encourage licensees to identify and correct violations and at the
=.
same time, reduce both NRC's and the licensee's efforts in addressing less significant issues. Using isolated NCVs as justification for reducing a SALP rating or supporting a decline in prugrammatic performance is inconsistent with treating the same issue as a )ositive indication of a licensee's ability to identify and correct pro)lems during the SALP cycle.
The Director. Office of Enforcement, supplied the insight that NCVs are normally viewed and used as positive examples of a licensee's safety assurance and quality verification health. Only if the board / panel / reviewers conclude that the original determination that an NCV (or a group of NCVs) in fact constituted an issue that had been erroneously identified as isolated, should an NCV be viewed as negative.
If that determination is made, the burden is on those reaching that.
conclusion to point out the original error to-the licensee.
Conclusions (1) The submitter was correct in the inappropriate use of NCVs in the radiological controls area and that they were not indicative of a decline in performance. Some of the NCys used in support of the SALP board's assessment were isolated with regard to performance of the entire program. Therefore, there was insufficient basis to draw a general conclusion concerning the program.
(2) In contrast to this, the NCVs in the fire protection program were multiple examples and a strong basis for the board's assessment in this area.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
- 1. Modify the current SALP report to (a) omit the reliance on NCVs as indications of negative trends in the radiological controls area.
The writeup should not reflect a declining trend in this area:
(b) remove the statements of a declining trend in the area of emergency preparedness response: (c) clarify the overall trend in performance in the fire protection area was im)rovement: and (d) modify the statement of satisfactory houseceeping to reflect the performance as characterized in the 1996 inspection reports.
The report does not need to be modified in the area of security.
- 2. Based on the rewrite of the plant support functional area of the
.SALP report, the SALP board should consider whether a rating of 2 remains correct,
- 3. Consider issuing guidance or revising present guidance regarding the use of NCVs and isolated examples in the sal.P report and assessment processes (SALP. PPR).
- 4. The proposed response to the licensee's 2/12/97 letter should be modified to answer the questions of how the SALP report was modified to address the licensee's issues, or in cases where it was not modified, to explain why.