ML20202J183
| ML20202J183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1986 |
| From: | Stefano J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604150571 | |
| Download: ML20202J183 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles E. Norelius, Director DISTRIBUTION Division of Reactor Projects $6 Region III NRC PDR APg 0q 1996 Local PDR PD#4 Reading THRU: Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing M0'Brien JStefano Walter R. Butler, Director 5p-14o BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing -@/ FROM: John J. Stefano, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing
SUBJECT:
NRR SALP-6 REPORT INPUT -- PERRY 1/2 Enclosure (1) is the NRR SALP-6 report for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) for the period of July 1,1985 through April 30, 1986. The report is based on SA'.P inputs provided by tech- .nical review personnel and the assessments made by the Project Manager. The overall performance rating in the functional area of Licensing Activities is Category 1. In addition, we are providing a summary assessment of certain other functional areas commented on in the last SALP report, to the extent of our involvement in those areas. Enclosure (2) contains information to be added to the " Supporting Data" section of the integrated SALP report in which this report is to be included. John J. Stefano, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc e/ encl: H. R. Denton D. G. Eisenhut R. W. Houston G. C. Lainas R. F. Warnick, RIII R. C. Knop, RIII E. R. Schweibinz, RIII J. A. Grobe, SRI (Perry) l PM PD#4/D .e ano:lb WButler 4 04raf/86 04q/86 8604150571 860407 "I PDR ADOCK 05000440 G PDR 4
UNITED STATES earou NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o [ ~,j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j k*...+,/ APR 071986 Charles E. Norelius, Director MEMORANDUM FOR: Division of Reactor Projects Region III Robert M. Bernero, Dire: tor THRU: Division of BWR Licensing Walter R. Butler, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing John J. Stefano, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 FROM: Division of BWR Licensing NRR SALP-6 REPORT INPUT -- PERRY 1/2
SUBJECT:
t ic Illuminating l Enclosure (1) is the NRR SALP-6 report for the Cleveland E ec i d of July 1,1985 Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) for the The Project Manager. 30, 1986. h nical review personnel and the assessments made by t e i sing Activities is through April overall performance rating in the functional area of L ce i t other functional areas commented on in the 1.sst SALP repor, Category 1. Enclosure (2) contains information to bed SAL our involvement in those areas.added to the " Supporting Data" se this report is to be included. a ~ i Joh9 J. St fano droj
- t Manager e No. 4 BWR Proje t Dir ctor Lic Mg i
Div sionl j
Enclosures:
f l As stated H. R. Denton ' cc e/ encl: D. G. Eisenhut R. W. Houston G. C. Lainas ~' R. F. Warnick, RIII j R. C. Knop, RIII E. R. Schweibinz,(RIIIPerry) J. A. Grobe, SRI ,f* 1 4
i I Summary - Licensing Activities. Analysis i d was Evaluation of the licensee's performance for this rating per of 1. predicated on how the licensee fared in the areas o pproached the ment and control in assuring quality; how the licensee a I iveness to NRC resolution of technical issues; the licensee's res licensing and plant operating organizations. t ated an active During this review period, the licensee's management demo d anticipated participation and thorough working krowledge o in licensing activities, and has kept abreast of current anTh L ~ the licensee's management in directing his staff to en uh regulator NRR licensing actions. plant was designed and built in conformance wit With respect i i s and in the finalization of plant Technical Specif cat on.licone sea to the NRC technical concerns over the use of si agement enabled ductwork, it is the staff's opinion that the licensee s man the industry, its technical personnel to institute a program, unique inding ge More l which has the potential for solving this longstant involvement in l recently, the licensee's management direction and directhe plan assessing the effects of the 1986 Ohio earthquake onismology desi / well as in the re-review of the site area geology sePerry Unit I low po f . as instrumental in obtaining theWeaknesses reported for the la w the licensee's management involvement and control l interfaces, control l in March 1986. i respect to plant test and plant operation organizat ona e and Architect h and overview of FSAR amendments, the oversight of in-ous during the Inde-i Engineer engineering work to preclude deficiencies found l pendent Design Inspection (IDI) Team audit of the 'a4 i organization documentation file, and the workload problems in the Licen ected to the NRR "a which resulted in missed commitments, have all-been co staff's satisfaction. the licensee's senior management took prompt reme hich corrected p r more rigorous controls and made personnel cha f ces. 3 The licensee's approach to resolving technical issues l-T ded to be resolved competent and understanding of technical issues which ne l in obtaining an operating license for Perry 1. ch difficult SER i technical staff was better than average in address ng t l i l room design review;'RCPB leak detection design; Mark rogram;.use of silicone open issues as: i ment design issues; completion of the fire p design; and the com- ~, i pletion of plant equipmer.t seismic / dynamic qualif ca ibuted to making larly noted that the work performed by the ily resolved every i 't
- $j containment design issue, alleged by John HumphreyWith resp the time the initial SER was issued in May 19 i lement a cd
.J f .f 'd'
4 l ding generic NRC staff compreher.sive testing program to address lon ts used in HVAC duct-l l conditions. work under postulated accident environmenta tisfactory in that the Responsiveness to NRC initiatives has been most sa(often gen licensee is always ready to meet with the staff Examples of this NRC needs. themselves) to ensure a correct response to nce in the resolution of the l f were most evident from the licensee's per ormate ding to TMI Action Items, requests for additional information, and NR performance appraisal period. I is considered to be ~ At The licensee's staffing for the operation of Perry for Perry 1 operation. highly qualified and more than adequate by NRRfficient num ith plans to increase the time of Perry 1 licensing, there was a suSR0 The licensee's plan to have everyma i licensed plant operators for 6 shifts. d General Engineering Supervisor licensed as SRO's as a t as being needed, were distinctive plus. ness coordination, reported in the last SALP apparently accomplished.during the full participation emerge e's performance -Conclusion An overall Category I rating is assigned for the license 2. l t for this rating period. j {4 Board Recommendation _ ting license for The licensee has recently been issued a low po 3. d since the l nuclear plant, con-licensee has little experience in directly operating a 's pre-licensing mended. The Category Perry 1. tinued frequent monitoring of the licensee is
- e performance.
4 t 1 i- ~ : 9 g 1 r
- 4 u
50-440/441 Docket Nos. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company FACILITY: LICENSEE: 30, 1986 July 1, 1985 to April EVALUATION PERIOD: FUEL LOAD: March 18, 1986 PERRY 1 Undetermined PERRY 2 John J. Stefano PROJECT MANAGER: The assess-P review for Perry 1/2. INTRODUCTION d cted according to NRR Office LetterT I. This report contains NRR's input to the SALme d January 3, 1984. tic Assessment of L No. 44, "NRR Inputs to SALP Process", dateincorp ance." h functional area evaluated will II.
SUMMARY
f Category 1, 2 or 3) based on a composite o NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that eacass i Illuminating The per f Licensing Activities during a number of attributes. Company in the functional area of LicensingThe the previous SALP period. ag ~ ith Attributes for Assessm III. CRITERIA _ The evaluation criteria used in this assessment a c 0516 Appendix, Table 1, " Evaluation Criteria w Licensee Performance." METHODOLOGY of the Project Manager (PM) and ~, ificant amounts of effort on IV. t This evaluation represents the integrated inpu s i those technical reviewers who expended s gn cific evaluation criteria to licensing actions during the rating period. as delineated in Chapter 0516, Chapter 0516, the PM and each reviewer applied spe The (1, 2, or 3) to each attribute. the relevant licensee performance attributes, t of each Safety Evaluatio l and assigned an overall rating category reviewers included this information as a partra i received from the technical reviewers, com for the licensee. assessment, arrived at a composite ratingd to NRR/IE -{ was then prepared by the PM and circulate s draft. which were incorporated in the final j; f' i ~l I
o . formance in support of the The basis for this appraisal was the licensee s perSER Suppl (Amendments 20 to 24); and NRC staff's SSER inputs which are documented dditional information, NRC Generic lusively the NRC staff's the licensee's responses to requests for aarthquake which occurredd the Letters, etc. (SER Supplement No. 9 documents exc h evaluation of the licensee's assessment of t e ene 6 design). dings before the Advisory on plant structure aiid equipment licensee's performance in addressing earthquake fin h 1986, as well as theto admit Committee on Reactor Safeguards in February and Marc i licensee's action relative to (I) the intervenors mot hearing, and (2) other contention ig related contention issue for litigation atThe subjects involved inc issues before the ASLAB. and Board issues: Licensing Board Issues _ SER Licensing Issues TDI diesel engine reliability
- Hydrogen control ignition sy Control room design review Control room habitability
- Emergency preparednessearthquake
- Fire protection program
- January 31, 1986
- E0P's for transients / accident motions / Board questions PSI program per TMI I.C.1
- Seismic /dynande qualification of mech./ elect, equipment
- Pump and valve operability per TMI II.D.1
- Mark III (Humphrey) containment l ?4 design issues
- Reliability of TDI diesel engines
- Silicone sealant used in HVAC ductwcrk
~ Conformance with post-trip reviewprogram/ procedu/ )
- Core thermal-hydraulic stability Post-accident sampling system design analysis per TMI II.B.3
- I&C setpoint methodology-response time testing Instrument air system air quality
- Max. Extended Operating Domainanalysis for initial sta ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES _
consideration of four of V. The licensee's performance evaluation is based on al Chapter These are: the seven attributes specified in NRC Manua 1 (
. Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Quality Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives Staffing t History, and Reporting For the remaining three attributes (Training, Enforcemenfor a NRR ev and Analysis of Reportable Events)_,'no basis exists
- However, l period.
i and rate the licensee's Tunctional area of Licensino Activities for this app i e for performance relative to the attribute of Report ngThe lice which is relatively close toinput for the SALP-6 Events. Perry Unit 1-(March 18, 1986),1986) that Region d enforce-30,1986) P 6 report period (AprilTraining w ment related matters through the end of the SAL - report. SRO's, R0's, and STA's ff. which may require an assessment by the NRR sta i up of the licensee's efforts toward the licensee gett ngbe progre certified to operate Perry, Unit 1, which we found to l fashion. MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND CONTROL IN ted an active A. During this review period, the licensee's management demonst d anticipated NRR licensing h participation and thorough working knowledge of t e l licensing activities, and has kept abreast of current an manage-i actions. d in the finalization of ment in directing his staff to ensure that the phys ca j4 built in conformance with regulatory requirements, an With respect to the NRC technical concerns ove it is the staff's opinion that plant Technical Specifications. l to institute a program, the use of silicone sealants on HVAC ductwork, 4 the licensee's management enabled its technical personnelving th r unique in the industry, which has the potential for soMore direct involvement in assessing the effects of the 19 l y/ seismology design generic issue. bases, was instrumental in obtaining the Perry UnitMan ible in i the manner in which the VP-Nuclear Operations Group pre in March 1986. March 1986. evaluation findings before the ACRS in February and NRR relative to the During the last SALP period, weaknesses we itments to regulatory f l guides in the FSAR, the control of plant test and p an NRC Independent Design interfaces, and with design deficiencies unc knesses in controlling f On being advised t Engineer. quality assurance in-house and with the Architec ctify the weaknesses ment oversight of of this, the licensee took prompt remedial actio 'h ] This action resulted in the issua i technical programs and actions. amendments which have since satisfied NRR ^ ides. Problems
T i i 2 4-t test and plant operations l l review functions, and associated with organizational. interfaces between i the design deficiencies discovered by the IDI Team i eering work. Organ-detailed oversight of in-house and Architect En anagement and' handling of the 1986 Ohio earthquake event. i ned to this attribute. On the basis of the above discussicn, a rating of 1 is ass gibute l The licensee's perf m ance was rated a 2 for this attr l Approach to R n olution of_ Technical Issues _ d to demonstrate a B. f. The licensee's engineering management staff has continue l d with NRR licensing sound working knowledge of the technical issues invo ve Their approach to the resolution of SER ~ l actions during this-review period. technical issues, documented in SER Supplement Nos. ffective use of con-i i of the. licensee's technical staff expertise, and of h s e i f those issues. sultant's and the Architect Engineer in the settlement o d conservatively i Decisions related to licensing issues have consistently an elated.to safety-been exhibited by the licensee's staff, particularly where d issues related to: l sound and timely technical discussions with re leak detection and f related matters. I con-compressed air system designs; (3) resolution o t ction program; 7 design; (6) completion of the l equipment; and (7) resolution of the post-accident sampling systemi seismic / dynamic qualification of mechanical and electr caliability l the completion of confirmatory work related to the re ttitude by taking the i 2j engines. The licensee's technical staff demonstrated'an aggressive atin !" e industry lead to develop and implement a comprehensive teslo y longstanding generic NRC concerns relative to the use and The ident environments. a the plant's RCPB leak silicone sealants in HVAC systems under postulated acc ' _7 detailed information furnished to the NRR staff regarding expeditious and timely ~ i l detection design was of such completeness as to enab e an rating additional infor-f t rily review by the NRR staff, and precluded the need for gen f; John Humphrey, a former GE detailed and resolved every containment. design issue raised byTh 0'~ mation requests. complete information needed to resolve those issues.. t precluded the need for pro-engineer. The completion of TDI the seismic / dynamic qualification of plant equip f post-accident sampling i "' ' diesel engine design confirmatory items and the resolution o f bility and competence of system design issues, displayed a thorough un i J.
- ~f i
j~f the licensee's technical staff. licensee analyzed the Of additional note is the' completeness with which the l t design. This effort ?[ effect of the January 1985 Ohio earthquake'on hi l facts related to l the plant seismic design, the judicious use of his dings before the ACRS l/ J in his technical competence 1n presenting earthquake fin ~ 1986. Subcommittee and Full Committee in February.and March I k / / ~
, hi l Specifications Finally, the licensee's efforts in finalizing plant Tec n caAs a re h than those experienced was most commendable.NRR and regional inspection staff were less The licensee was most receptive to with other similarly designed plants. guidance in the development of the plant Technical responsive to the iterative process involved. licensee's performance No significant negative experiences were evident with the during this appraisal period. The his attribute. In view of the above findings, a rating of 1 is as isal period. Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives, during this appraisal C. i The licensee has been generally responsive to NR t established Problems in commitments in response to TMI Action items, SER period. i letters. rts of the last appraisal licensee's past track record meeting commitments experienced during the latter pa period, have been resolved to the point where theWe expect to see of meeting such commitments have been restored. trend continue during plant operation. i ttribute. The Based on this finding, a rating of 1 is assigned to th s ad for this a licensee was also rated I during the last appraisal perio Staffing fforts made by the f D. NRR's appraisal of this attribute is primarily bas 8 and technical t advisors in the formation of shift crews in readiness o four operating shift At the time of plant licensing, the licensee advised thats to have l The licensee's crews were available to operate Perry Unit 1, with p anb erating shifts. j i number of licensed SRO's, RO's, and STA's for s x op ch in SSER No. 8. plant operation organization was found accepta licensing of Unit 1 in December 1985, and doc i g Supervisor (GSE) licensed as SR0's as a matter of CEI policy.already coordinator, and t i In the last SALP, NRR reported that the Emergency Plann ngir group responsible for offsite emergency planning, requW d during the next full' expect to witness the improvements made in this regar strengthening. il 1986. i participation emergency exercise scheduled in Apr l; .i .!j.
. tion was found lacking in to NRR's information needs, and i In the last SALP, the licensee's Licensing organ za failure to meet his commitments to sufficient staff to be completely responsive ized and that this was reflected in the licensee'sThe Licensing organizat Since the last SALP report was in meeting his commitments to NRR. staffed and is no longer of concern of NRR. issue the NRR staff. The licensee's d to this attribute. Based on the above, a rating of 1 is assigneibute during performance was rated a 2 for this attr Conclusion for the functional area of VI. An overall rating of Category 1 has been given RR-SALP report. Licensing Activities on the basis of this N _VII. Other Functional Areas for your use as appropriate. The following functional areas are comented on Containment Safety-Related Structures. licensee since the la'st SA A. NRR finds that FSAR amendments issued by th conformance with the Regulatory Guides. Preoperational Testing see since the last S' ALP period NRR finds that FSAR amendments issued by the l cend d B. i adequately correct problems in defining an i grams, objectives, and procedures. Plant Cleanliness and Housekeepingi d to determine Perry Unit I readi-c During those walk-C. Plant visits made during this appraisal per o f the plant.made to cleanup the plant. ness for licensing, each involved a walkdown i The housekeeping program, implemented by the for maintaining plant cleanliness. T 'b l a .h f. 1 i f k ,a
INFORMATION TO BE ADDED Ia SALP-6 REPORT " SUPPORTING DATA" SECT Significant Correspondence /Meetinas CEI issued FSAR Amendment 20 1. h July 19, 1985 NRC accepts CEI schedule for me )(A) . September 20, 1985 CEI issued FSAR Amendment 2112/31/85 October 4, 1985 CEI requested extension of CPPR-148 to ting license October 29, 1985 NRC submitted the draft low power opera October 31, 1985 for Perry 1 to CEI for comment to - NRC Management visit to Perry plant site November 12, 1985 discuss readiness for licensing i l - NRC issued final draft of Perry 1 Techn ca Specifications for CEI certification November 19, 1985 - CEI issued FSAR Amendment 22 November 20, 1985 - NRC issued SER Supplement No. 7 November 20, 1985 - CEI issued FSAR Amendment 23 to 1/31/86 64 November 22, 1985 CEI requested extension of CPPR-148 Perry 1 November 29, 1985 - NRC/CEI meeting in Bethesda to discuss December 17, 1985 readiness for ifcensing - CEI issued FSAR Amendment 253/3/86 CEI requested extension of CPPR-148 to 4-December 27, 1985 NRC issued SER Supplement No. 8 plant January 15, 1986 - Magnitude 5.0 earthquake occurs near Perry January 31, 1986 site 4/15/86 - CEI requested extension of CPPR-148 to Board Notification 86-03 issued re Perry 4 February 6, 1986 earthquake e NRC visit to plant site during which CEI diness presented earthquake findings - plant rea y February 11, 1986 for licensing -1 t
I . findings - NRC/CEI briefing of ACRS on preliminary 12/13,1986 re the 1/31/86 earthquake February the CEI issued seismic evaluation report on 12, 1986 1/31/86 earthquake February NRC issued SER Supplement No. 9 i l March 4, 1986 - CEI formally certified Perry 1 Techn ca March 10, 1986 Specifications i s NRC/CEI presented details of evaluat on March 12/13, 1986 findings on 1/31/86 earthquake 5/15/86 - CEI requested extension of CPPR-148 to i dings and - ACRS report to Chairman NRC o March 14, 1986 thquake March 17, 1986 for - NRC issued a low power operating license March 18, 1986 Perry 1 ~
- O-8 9
a I N 1 2 t m1 ~- -..}}