ML20148T143: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20148T143 | | number = ML20148T143 | ||
| issue date = 01/20/1988 | | issue date = 01/20/1988 | ||
| title = Discusses SALP Repts 50-269/87-33,50-270/87-33,50-287/87-33, 50-369/87-29.50-370/87-29.50-413/87-26 & 50-414/87-26 & 871027 & 29 Meetings,In Response to | | title = Discusses SALP Repts 50-269/87-33,50-270/87-33,50-287/87-33, 50-369/87-29.50-370/87-29.50-413/87-26 & 50-414/87-26 & 871027 & 29 Meetings,In Response to .No Changes to SALP Rept Warranted.Briefing Slides Encl | ||
| author name = Grace J | | author name = Grace J | ||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:29, 11 December 2021
| ML20148T143 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802030214 | |
| Download: ML20148T143 (66) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1987033
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:c , 3
.. p u f
*
- 7
JAN 2 0 1988
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-2'0, 50-287,
50-369, 50-3',0, 50-413,
50-414
License Nos. OPR-38, DPR-47, OPR-55,
NPF-9, NPF-17, NPF-35,
NPF-52
Dukte Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
x Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE, REPORT
N05. 50-269/87-33, 50-270/87-33, 50-287/87-33, 50-369/87-29,
50-370/87-29, 50-413/87-26, 50-414/87-26
#
This refers to the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Board Report for your Oconee, McGuire and Catawba facilities which was sent to
you on October 20, 1987; our meetings of October 27, 1987 and October 29, 1987
at which we discut sed the reports at the respective facilities; and your
- written coments dated November 30, 1987.
l We have reviewed your written comments and find that no formal changes to the ( SALP Report are warranted. With regard to your coment on Oconee, Engineering l Support i.nvolving ultrasonic indications in the Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, we note i your corm. ant. However, our perception remains as we feel better comunicatioli
as to actual work in progress could have averted our perception of reluctance
j
on your part to take additional steps to resolve the technical issues.
No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any questions
, concerning these matters I will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
2030214 890120
'
)f, 4 * $ns/ f
ADOCK 0 % 2 9 ,
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1. Oconee Briefing Slides
2. McGuire Briefing Slides
3. Catawba Briefing Slides
4 Duke Coments on SALP Reports
(dated Nov. 30,1987)
(cc w/encls: See page 2) i
!
J.EYo
- - -
a w
Duke Power Company 2
JAN 20 l*8
cc w/encls:
J. W. Hampton, Station Manager
T. L. McConnell, Station Manager
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
bec w/encis:
NRC Resident Inspectors
DRS Technical Assistant
D. Hood, NRR
- H. Pastis, NRR
sK. N. Jabbour, NRR
Document Control Desk
State of South Carolina
\
\
/
' ' p,, n \
RIl RI! RI! RJI ' RI!
A/p
BBore/
-1 )* h f $
ser
p 1/r,/88
TP ebles VBrownlee
1//;/88 1/ ti/88
ke
1-($yes
/88
/Ernst
1// V88
-
i -
s . <,
e, w
,
~
>
C c-
I O a- ' !
CA~AW 3A LE Rs !I
l E l OCTOBER 1,1985 -
JULY 31,1987 @ u,
g z.
\
52!
-
!
PERSONNEL o -3 -
l. E ,. l
'
.:= M E ki~3 P..-
...
EE
o aj
l O u)-
w = g-g=_egri
! - m ..-.. .x- - r
.~- ::-
.=
?._ ...
!
i
....:._-
.
.
i
I , --
'
~, .
~
_.-2-
-
- -
. .- _
.. '
* .-
.. - . . .
. - . .. _.
__
_
.
. .. ..a._. .:_
-2
..c
._:. = m _. - _.
\ .
:
_ '.: $f gaan
~
$$$$/
[[
'
'
OTHER
=
.
'
. - 12.7% g
-
2
.
, ,
COMPONENT FAILURE e ,
m
C
N .
5
DESIGN 8
s
>. -
e-N
mg
I !
, - - -- - - -- --__ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
I.
O
l .
UXITED STATES !~
&3
,
3
XUCLEAR REGULATORY A 33
11
!
e
E =5
E n-
I J
COMMISSION 8s
=
,
-
S
E
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMEXT 5
j ,!'
OF
,
E
. LICENSEE PERFORMANCE E
E
E
!
o
2
i ,
.
{ (SALP) ,
y. ,
i a;=;?
l - .._.. _ ____._ ... .
. _ _ . _ . hk
= - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _
. -- .- . .
__
-
-
. 2-
DUKE
POWER COMPAXY
.
.
OCT03ER :., :.985 - TULY 31,1987
! ,
!
'
l CATAYBA UNITS 1 & 2 i 1 : l
1
:
OCTOBER 29, 1987
30CK HILL , SOUTH CAR 0IEA
l
'COtCd
84 Trcnsparency Mounting Framo Commercial Tape Division /3M
**
....,,.. " '"' St. Paul, MN 55144 MaMn U S A.
ub.'ect
.
.- .
.
3
o.
..
SA1P P30 GRAM OBJETIVES
.
'Y "R E s )S \ _CENSEE 2ERIORVANCE
'
. J E s"
2. 3 ROV J E A 3AS S 70 s A__00A" O s
0 sic RESOURCES
3. V 2iOVE s RC REGUXORY 2ROGRAV
..o.a _ __ _
--
;ub'ect . Q_ ,
-
i
10.
.
,.-......
.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS
FOR OPERATING REACTORS
'
1. Pl. ANT OPERATIONS
'-
2. RAD (0 LOGICAL CONTROLS
! 3. MAINTENANCE
i
'
4. SURVEILl>NCE
. 5. FIRE PROTECTION ..
-
6. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
7. SECURlW
8. OUTAGES
9. QUALIW PROGRAMS
'
10. LK:ENSING ACTMTES
!
i 11. TRAINING
i
! 12. ENGINEERING SUPPORT
i
:
13. PRE 0PERATIONAL AND STARTUP TESTING
-
.- . 5'
AREA PERFORMAXCE
-
CA TEGORY 1
.
REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
UCENSEE MANAGEMANT ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT
ARE AGRESSIVE AND ORIENTED TOAARD NUCLEAR
SAFETY; UCENSEE RESOURCES ARE AMPLE ANE
EFFECTIVELY USED SUCH THAT A HIGH LEVEL OF
PERFORMANCE AITH RESFECT TO OPERATIONAL
SAFETY OR CONSTRUCTION IS BEING ACHIEVED.
Scotcli
'584 Tronsparoney Mounting Framo Commercial Tape Divisioni3M
St. Paul, MN 55144 Made in U S A,
' ' "{'" ' " ' "
, ,,
- - - -
~
.
.
(o
AREA PERFORMANCE
,
CATEG0t?Y 2
.
NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT NORMAL
LEVELS. UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND
. INVOLVEMENT ARE EMDENT AND ARE CONCERNED WITH
NUCLEAR SAFETY; UCENSEE RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE
AND ARE REASONABLY EFFECTIVE SUCH THAT SATISFAC
,
PERFORMANCE WITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONAL SAFETY
CONSTRUCTION IS BEING ACHIEVED.
Scotej
Commercial Tape Division /3M
584 Transparency Mounting Frame
*'"'*'" St. Paul, MN 55144 Made in U S A
' " * " ' "
. - - _ _ - _ - - - - - - -- _
.(
.
-
1
l AREA PERFORMAXCE
-
'
.
! CREGORY J
-
r
BOTH NRC AND UCENSEE ATTENTION SHOULD BE
INCREASED. UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION OR
:
.
t- INVOLEMENT IS ACCEPTABLE AND CONSIDERS NUCLEAR
'
SAFETY, BUT %EAKNESSES ARE EVIDENTj UCENSEE
u
RESOURCES APPFA TO EE STRAINED Ch NOT EFFECTIVELY
'
-
USED SUCH THAT MINIMALLY SATI5 FACTORY PEkFORMANCE
, ,
%ITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONAL 5AFETY Oh CONSTRUCTION
IS BEING ACHIEVED. - -
. .
. ,
-
Scotci
I 584 Transparency Mounting Framo Commercial Tape Division /3M
, ,[' , ,* ] " '"' St. Paul, MN 55144 Made in U S.A.
t
..v.
. , - . , , , . . - - - - . . . . . . . .
1
EVALCATION CRITERIA
1. MANAGEMAENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING QUALITY
.
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
FROM A SAFET/ STANDPOINT
3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES
4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTABLE EVENTS
, 6. STAFFlNG (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT) l l
7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND QUAUFICATION
Scotcj
584 Transparency Mounting Framo Commercial Tape Division /3M
St. Paul, MN 55144
i _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - -
. ._ _ _ vace3 U S A
_
-
a !
l
V 0X ON S V VARY
001.03:CR :., :.985 - JULY 3:., :.987
'
.
%
SEVERITY LEVEL I N IN IV V .
CATAWBA 1 0 0 3 26 6
CATAWBA 2 0 0 2 18 6
REGION ll AVE 0 0 3 20 6
.
- ,g
Commercial Tape Division /3M
584 Transparency Mounting Frame """"'"'" St. Paul, MN 55144 Made in U.S A
. .,..
__ -. _ _ . _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ .
A
B ;
az
OPERATIONS PHASE VIOLATIONS / OPERATING REACTOR $l
OCTOBER 1, 1985 -
JULY 31, 1987 4
g. .
E si
pc
Ez
w
= -
g. .
bN
.
$ y. .
.
s- S .
_
, ,
.
b
% C
.a
'
.
..- -
\. \
('
1 >
*
,
, . ~ ~ . . $
FPC FPL MP&L DOKE VEPCO APC mg
$t.
'
-
GPC Ril AVE CPhL SCEhG -
ga
UTb - ,1 g?
_.
g me -
.
3I
, ALL EGA- lONS 3 ER U- ILI- Y/S TE jl
OCTOBER 1, 1985 - JULY 31,1987 E2
i a,
so-- gy
'
4 #$
EZ
I 's
u
2
!j *5-
j
""
h$
'y 88
m
k ~
5 m. .
:g5._
.
-
a
, o 20--
*
,
& .E : . r 2
- 10- - y
; '
s r
8
'
/.
[
.
ffn
d d
n
VJ
-
""'
i
!! =
c g.g
-
GPC FP&L VEPCO SCh&G CAT WBA APC ~ I E2 -
CP&L Ril AVE MP&L FPC DUKE , ,!
.-- - - - . _. -
.
.
-e
e
e e;
AVERAG E NUV BER OF REAC- O R ~~ RIPS ABOVE 8.
. 2
! i
~15% POWER PER 1000 CRITICAL HOURS I'
'
APRIL 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, o,
1987 gy
l i. 3.-
@$
z
o2
E *5
h
!E
1.21
Od
b
p i .2- -
E ,
O
8
2
>
a
6 1.10
-
g i.i-
5 1.07 g
S
E i
x i
g
/
i, . . . . .
.
.
1e -
gg.
.
.
CATAWBA 2 CATAWBA 1 NATIONAL AVG
NOTE: NATIONAL AVERAGE INCLUDES "NEW" .h3j.!
ji i
WESTINGHOUSE PLANT TfPES ONLY ,Q g! !
.
~
R .d
ai
's
a
OCTOBER
LERs PER UNIT
1, 1985 - JULY 31, 1987
3l
g3
**"
., (ez ,
so- -
gg
5";
n. .
O (n
. . 59 _
,
44 44
. .
. !
! CATAWBA GE MAR. AVE WEST. CE BacW 5 j L ------ - - - - - --- - -- - - . -
_ [N"[ T' .
- - . . - - - - _ -
m E! !
- .
G
M
i
1 <
i co . g
'
C c
\
.9 f-
m
;
CA AWBA -
Rs ! ,'
O'TOBER
C 1, 1985 --
J U LY 31, 1987 a~
g5
li '"" EZ
' LEGEND E2
! iso- -
%g
'
PERSONNEL (OTHER) {
165 - O a
I '"' ' PERSONNEL (TEST-CAL.) O U)
. ..y. .
i '*'M I
PERSONNEL (MAINTENANCE)
se. . -
l PERSONNEL (OPERATING) . .,
"
l h 120 OTHER / OUT CAL
b ,,a. .
J COMPONENT FAILURE
l
5
m 85
3 ao-- DESIGN / CONST
i;.
:
* ". "
PERSONNEL (TOTAL)
- .o- -
.
;
.
.t 1
ai
~,
4o- - N E
.
.i -
o
8
- '
y . o . : : I 5-
j PLANT PERSONNEL 8$ $ ! -- _- - - - - __ - - - - -
. - . - - _ _ _ _ . . - - .
30 '
- _ _- . _-- _ _ - __ - . . . . l
i, i 5 <
! G'E
\ 8L l I CA~AW 3A ._ E Rs ! ,#
OCTOBER 1,1985 -
JULY 31,1987 hh
Tu z
.
B2
u
o3_
.
PERSONNEL
E m
.
- E a.
O a
o v)
-
51.5% ,
.
! ' i i
12.7%
.
23% OTHER
g
12.7%
,
!
2
f COMPONENT FMLURE y
s ]
DESIGN
2s __
'
C*g
e -,
. E.!
E:: .:
'j
Al ll I - ---___- - - ___..- -. - ._ - - ._ - _ - .. . _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ - _ - . _- r 5:
___ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . --
i_ , <
e:
C c
q.
E E
3 s,
CA-~AW 3A _ ERs ( 3 ersonne } lj.
l OCTOBER 1,1985 -
JUL 31,1987 $E
l 0 E' l
$
! !
MAINTENANCE E a-
E a_ ,
ll 0 -?
o co f
l
17.6% OPERATING
) OTHER
,
18.8%
14.1%
;
E
49.4% e
u.
!"
12
'
S
'.- s1
TEST & CAllBRATION >-
'
en
- $s[b
a
c6 .
nt si
.. _ .-
.. . _
. gg s,
k.__-_______--__ _ - - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ .
..
..
FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPARISON .
FOR REGION ll FACILITIES
14 - -
,
R LEGEND
'; $ ~7
__ g g -
CATEochY 1
; N CATEGORY 2
m
w.
,o..
fx f
/
/
a
f/ $
7
M CATEGORY 3
wm i_ mm._
n ,y>
a / ,/
n -.., - - ,
ua--
to
/>
f /> _-
~ - ~ ,~,. -
- ~. - ~ r
ff ff j jf Amc--
f ikf =in f
"
- s
,f ,!f
:yn s
=
, - - -
.. .
r
/ 7 n . , - _~ , - r ra,
-
- ,
- ,. - - .
=, ,,p
-
e
,/,/ ;
/, ,
,/ , p,/
,
- ~ ~ ~ ~
...
:g
/ /
;
/
x/ r/
-
=
- /y
/g :p
p - - - .
/
, $d Id - E'd 3R lds
OPS RAD CON MAINT SURV EM PREP --.J
FUNCTIONAL AREA
.
.
..
FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPARISON .
FOR REGION 11 FACILITIES
i2-- g y
,< t 4 m LEGEND
o M
CATEGORY 1
_
_o
CATEGORY 2
7
8 /' / / CATEGORY 3
" "
DATA sucmm, Jate aesucrs ros-
m GK 5Aceurn > f:o4 set.PT.Trus o ) 2 79 nuewcc1 Au. ga ecoupes on nw
A f f l
b&
-
F) n
0 y[ oaavm-s n+w Oscea. Tite W 3
$55 (
e em
[g W >es m -
gg
'
/l/
e--
em / 7 7 /l s /,a n a 2/
/ -
-
/
/
/
/
/
/
.
/ /e
-
-
f /-
a / / / .
/ */ /
y// 2c /2 / /*4 p ne f y
-ns ~~ ~~-
=-
g/
s
/
/ x,
/
/
-
/
/
/
/
/
/ p/
e/
t n .
-~ - ~-s"--c~ o~- ~
/ -
/ /g, / ;g p/p
gg
$
0 ,
FIRE SEC REFL QP LIC TRNG "
FUNCTIONAL AREA ,
@
m
g & 8O ' &
-
.
.
. _ _
W
CATAWEA
.
CJTEGORY 1 AREAS
1. F1RE PROTECTION
l
, ] botcj
- 4 Transparency Mounting Frame Commercial Tape Division /3M
.'t....
* "'* '" St. Paul, MN 55144 Mado in U S A.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __ -
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_
_ _ - . _ _ _
.
*
.
.
10
-
CATAWEA l
l
i
'
CJTEGORY 2 AREJS
1. PLANT OPERATIONS .
2. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
3. MAINTENANCE
4. SURVEILLANCE
5. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
'
6. SECURlW
'
7. OUTAGES
8. QUAUW PROGRAMS
9. LICENSING ACTMTIES
i 10. TRANING
11. ENGINEERlbG SUPPORT
12. PREOPERATIONAL AND STARTUP TESTibG
icv ej
34 Tr:nsparency Mounting Framo Commercial Tapo Division /3M
',[' ' " ' "' ' St. Paul, MN 55144 Mado in U.S A
,,
. -______ - _,
-
..
.
.
.
..
.
_
7 --
_
C TAWB
1
I
!
-
1
t
. CA TE~ GOR 3 ARE45 ,
1
l
'
,.
! -
s0NE <
!
j
!
l
l :
'
\
i
!
! l i
<
., '584 Transparency Mounting Framo
Commercial Tapo Division'3M
,c .. . . . ,,,,,
St. Paul, MN 55144 vaeo ,n U S A
- - . . . _ . _ _ . - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . . . - - _ _
-- - - - - -.
~
:
.
.
UNITE D S T A T I O ~:
.
i
XUCLEAR
i
REGULATC RY :
;
s C OMMISSIO X -
a
4
5
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
! OF
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
. ..
_
.
.
N
'~ ' '
-
f.. (SALP) .-
'
"
,, o
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
Q .
l
c/ IIKE
?0W33 CCMPANY
,
l.
.
MARCH 1,1986 - JULY 31, : 987
> l
-
i
l
l
..
:
OCONEE UYTS 1, 2, & 3
-
:
l
.
OCTOBER 27, : 987 !
4
SENECA , SOUTH CAR 0 LEA
, , 4 '
. - _ .
.-.-____ -__ . _ _ .
_,
*
.
j
-
)
,
.',-
PERFO3MANCE AXALYSIS AREAS
i
FOR OPERATING REACTORS
- 1
1. Pl>NT OPERATIONS
2. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
-
3. MAINTENANCE -
4. SURVEIU ANCE -
'
l 5. FIRE PROTECTION <
.
6. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS :
'
,
7. SECURITY
8. OUTAGES
9. QUAUTY PROGRAMS
10. LICENSING ACTMTIES
! ,
11. TRAINING
12. ENGINEERING SUPPORT
l 1 , l - _.
. . _ . ,
.
.
:.
SALP P30G3AM C3J3C"::V3S
'
. JEN". Y "REN)S ,\ _ CE.NSEE 3ER 0RVANCE
1
2. 3 ROV J E A 3AS S 70 R A__0CA" O s
,.
0.7 .\ RC RESOURCES
3. V 3 ROVE .5 RC REGUEORY 3ROGRAN
l l t
_ -
-
.
.
; . . . . ..
5
l
l
r' A33A ?3U0:3EANC3
CJTEGORY 1
REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
UCENSEE MANAGEMANT ATTENTION AND NY0LVEWENT
ARE AGRESSNE AND ORIENTED TOWARD NUCLEM
SAFETY; UCENSEE RESOURCES ARE AMPLE AND
! i
EFFECTNELY USED SUCH THAT A HIGH LEWL Of
! !
- PERFORMANCE WITH RESPECT TO OPERATKNAL
i
SAFETY OR CONSTRUCT)0N IS BEING ACHLA/ED,
l l
'
'
li .. _ . . . ... <
,eu
-
,
.
4
c/ AREA PERFCRMANCE
$
CATEGORY 2
NRC ATTENT)0N SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT NORM.
1 LEVELS. UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENT)0N AND
NM.VEMENT ARE EVIDENT AND ARE CONCERNED WITH
4
NUCLEAR SAFETY; UCENSEE RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE
AND ARE REASONABLY EFFECTIVE SUCH THAT SATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE WlTH RESPECT TO OPERAT)0NAL SAFET( OR
CONSTRUCTION IS BEING ACHIEVED.
-
.
i
- _ - - _ _ _ - - _ -- ___ _-
- ,,
--
.
.. -
_
.
l
'
/ AREA PERFCRMANCE !
i
f
!
,
i
CATEGORY J
!
!
!
l
BOTH NRC AND UCENSEE ATTENTION SHOULD BE !
;
',
INCREASED.
l UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTD4T)0N OR i .
i
l ,
INVOLVEMENT E ACCEPTABLE AND CONSIDERS NUCLEAR l
.
;
! SAFETY, BUT WEAXNESSES ARE EVIDENT; UCENSEE :
;
1
l RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STRAINED OR NOT EFFECTNELY 1
USED SUCH THAT WINIMALLY SAT 1SFACTORY PERFORMANCE
l l ,
WITH RESPECT TO OPERATIONAL SAFETY OR CONSTRUCTION j
'
E BElNG ACHIEVED. l
-
;
i
N \
b k
4
,. .
- - -
l
/
e'EVAILATION CRITERIA
,
1. MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING QUAUTY
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
FROW A SAFETY STANDP0lNT
,
3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATNES
;
4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
! 5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTABLE EVENTS l
,
! 6. STAFFING (INCLUDING MANAGEMENT) i ! l \
7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND QUAUFICATION
.
.
--- -- - - -~ '
- --- --_ m - - - - - -.- , .--- ,
_
..
.
.
,
l
/
['
V OX ON SM VARY ~
' I
MARCH 1,1988 - JULY 3:., :.987 :
i r
:
SEVERtTY LEVEL I 11 til N Y
1
,
r
'
4
(
! OCONEE 1 0 0 2 8 3 l
i
,
OCONEE 2 0 0 2 7 2
'
:
OCONEE 3 0 0 3 7 2
!
l
!
!. ,
REGION ll AVE 0 0 2 16 5 :
- t
-
i '
l
I
! ,
L
'
1 ! l
f .
. .
- '
_- _- _ . _ - _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- . . _ _ _ - .
-
&. _
c
-
OPERATIONS PHASE VIOLATIONS / OPERATING REAQTOR - 'E
MARCH 1, 1986
.
-
JULY 31, 1987 \ %. . . .
no. .
So- - Q
9
;2' e - -
m
8 _
L.
E -
~
3,o. .
- -
- -
.
,
_
_
10--
l !
:
, o- - -
- -
- - " - " 1 -
FPC FPL MP&L CFL SCE&G OCONEE
'
GPC Mil A V E DUKE VEPCO
UTILITY
APC %'
~S
b
+
~
[ ALLt_GA 1 IO N S F't- R U l ILI I Y/ Si ! E
-
.
.j
MARCH 1, 1 C00 - JULY 31, 1007 'l
*-
.
!
-
s _. . .
R
so- -
b
5
EE
B
-
20- -
*
!$
*
5
9
g -
-
so- -
/{,
/ g ..
GPC CP&L
d
VEPCO
B BE
FPC OCONEE
e,
APC
"
FP&L Ril AVE MP&L SCE&G DUKE
h
&
~
_. - . _ _ _ _
__
l 107o PUWt- K NEN 1000 CRITICAL HOURS : j '
APRIL 1, 1986 - JUNE 30,1987 d
\ -
**" '
, , ,
le
o
o .75
r .n . .
i
!!
o
.56
8
S .mo- -
>
,
! n_
b
1 8 I
m_ .
.17 '
o .
.
)
-
OCONEE 1 OCONEE 2 OCONEE 3 NATIONAL AVG
,
NOTE: NATIONAL AVERAGE INCLUDES "OLO" i
[
BABCOCK & WILCOX PLANT TYPES ONLY g
4
x
: m
. - . - - _ _ . - - . _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - . . _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - - . _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ . . - _ _ . _ . - _ -
-
, m , , a 3 ,4,,
- -
.
.g
MARCH 1, 1000 - JULY 31, 1007 ')
.
.
- - -
x. ~ . . . .
!
SG --
a
.. .
g ,e. .
2.
$ 24
Ei!
se. .
is-- 11
e- - -
'
-
GE WEST. NA.TL AVE
'
CE
PLANT TYPE
B&W OCONEE h
h
n
R
-- - __
l OCON=- _-Rs 3
*
,
i
MARCH 1, 1986 J U LY 31 ,
1987 \._ .. .
""
LEGEND
j .
:
,,
PERSONNEL (OTHER)
i
i
30- - k\\\ ?
PERSONNEL (TEST-CAL.)
PERSONNEL (MAINTENANCE)
l
-> u . .
PERSONNEL (CFERATING)
h OTHER / OUT CAL
o .. .
J COMPONENT FAILURE
DESIGN / CONST
'*' ~
PERSONNEL (TOTAL)
12
i
:
10-- I
MuhME
1
--
i \ l O
V
.
_
f PLANT PERSONNEL D
A
*
%
-- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _. _ _
OCO O -Rs -m
-
^*
-
MARCH 1,1986 -
JULY 31,1987 N_ . . . . . .
ERSongg(
Q,
- - ~ ~< ,
..... y
,
a
r
%
. - - _ - - _ _
-
y : %
OCO\-- ;; _1Rs ((3 ersonne j
'x\- .
~
MARCH 1,1986 -
JULY 31,1987 ~.-
OPERATING
f =_ -
B %_
--- .
8
-
=
u
l'- -50%
=_
-
==_
--
~
_
__-._ "
; .=_
.--=
_ -
;
. -- _-
-
_
_
.
-.
16.7%
TEST & CAUBRATION 8.2*?
OTHER
I MAINTENANCE
25%
.
'
l I
e
b
*
i
N
._ . .-. .- .- . . .- - -
_ _ _
FUNCTIONAL AREA COMPARISON -3
-
E
FOR REGION 11 FACILITIES \
'
,'"
LEGEND
g b CATEGORY 1
W
~
7 CATEGORY 2
'~ p 4 e sw c TecoRx 3
= F
/
/
'// 7
/
n / / -
7
/ /
/,
1a.- 4
.
/ /
by (
lt,'
a*-- l
/ / /l / /lf
a* / -
/ / / /
/ / . / /
l/
.
^~
h~. h'Rh 5 h /
r_,
. J ,
OPS RAD CON MAINT SURV EM PREP
FUNCTIONAL AREA y
b
N
N
-
r UING 1luiNAL AREA COMPARISON . : .
e
FOR REGION 11 FACILITIES \
~
.
2" x. ~ . . .
LEGEND
= =
T' F [// CATEGORY 1
io. -
f / f @ CATEGORY 2;
-
/j ~
$
/
$
/
$
/
., _ _ m .
n- / / / /
/ / / /
SI
a- -
$ - --
h h h
g8 / 7 .
7 i- i i
e / / / / / /
= / / .
/ / / /r
...
/ / / / \ / /
~ /
'
/ $ $ h -
h h
'
~
,
.
O '
jhhlh _ l$ $ ,
FIRE SEC OUTAGES OP LIC TRNG
FUNCTIONAL AREA
!
$
E
l
4
_ - --
"'
.
.
.
sba 8 7q
-
.
.
,
I
'
'
0C07E
CA TEGORY 1 AREAS
,
le 3LAs" 03 E RA~ 0 s S
2. MA NTEN AN'CE
3. S J RVE _LAN C E
'
4 EV ERGENCY 3RE3ARDN ESS
,.
5. S ECU R TY
6. QUAJY 3ROGRAVS
l l l ! t
_ _ - _ - .
- - - - -
-
-
sucs a
ao
.
.
.. .
'
i l
l
}
c' ~
OCO. EE
CA TEGORY 2 AREAS
.
le .RA3 0_0G CA_ CON"R0_S
2e 7'RE 3R0"EC"Os
3. O J"AG ES
:
I
4. _ C EN S s'G AC"V" ES
5. ".RA N .5 G ,
6. EN'G N E ER N G SUP 30 R"
i
l
, } , . -
. - - - - - - - - -
'
-
-
;
S G 4 .t/ m
.
_
:; 1
', .
l'
l
l
0C0EEE -
!
l
J ,
I
i
CA GOR 3 AR AS
, i ! 1
NO\E
1 I l ! ! !
, ! ! l i . t 4
._-,,-_m-__-.--.--.-.---c-- . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
___-_._-_.-........- ..... _
_. 7 _ .,
,,.....---....-..-.....-..;-...
~.:..:_.l. g .y .g .-
*
..
-
..',, ,
,
.r
_
.-
i
:. m . . . ,
,
. 1 P
d
d
'M
O
d w
q'
i
i
@ l
! M H H d I ! Z M H g !
x~H#
,
= s !
! A H L J !
N i
- > g O g a !
5 W T > M N y; l
v , w y' aH
:
'
y H M &'
Q * y
x n aA "t
+
g ^ ,
> l
X .
+ y2
Z M i.
o Z H
..
g q n .
.-.
.
d
,
%......... . . . . . . .. ... .... .. .. ..... . ..
'Mj i 3bOS0VN3.
M Transparency Mounting Frame Commercial Tape Dis;ision/3M ,
.c e m % e si,co ,,,,,
',,,,,,,,
St. Paul, MN 55144 Madein U.S A. ,
2
-w..
- - _ _
-
_
o ....*eew w =+= e m e.w w ._ -
.
2). .
.
- .
. ,
. . . .
.
Q. n m_ i . . s. ...
.
. . . . . .
. , .- . .
.t m :
/
DUKE
,
./
l
POWER COMPANY
.
.
:
I
: l
-
l .
, I l
1
l !
i
,
!
MARCH 1, :<986 - JULY 3:., :;987 :
- I
t
i
j i !
-
;
,
! , , I McGUIRE UNITS 1 & 2 I l I l l l
?
i ! i, !
.
\ I l ': OCTOBER 29, :c967 ! \.
3tNTERSVIUR , NOTH CAROUNA
, l 1
l: ,
i
t, _
...
. .. -.. --
_
,
..
e+
.g
,e .e ess . . ,
e
j
CommercialTape Division /3M
Scotc6 ,
j
584 Trans ..parency Mounting Frame St. Paul, MN 55144 Madein U S A :
oc ~ ,r.,.
l
. _- - _ - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _
__ _ __ ___ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- --- _.
.
_
.
-
. ..
...... ... ,9 -
.
.
,
/
SALP PRCGRAM OBJECTIVES :
.
'
,
.
4
'
. JEN"ITY TREs)S N _CENSEE 3ER70RVANCE
.
l
,
2. 3 ROV J E A BAS S 70 R A__0CA"ION
.
0,7 s RC RESOURCES
,
1
3. ,V 3 ROVE s RC REGL EORY 3ROGRAV
_ . . . .. ._ __.
. . . . .... .
)
3 Transparency Mounting Frame
Commercial Tape Division /3M
m o va ,w,
St. Paul, MN 55144 VMeoUSA
, , , ,
__ - --- - -- - -
. .
.- - - ._
-
..
\ .
.
.
.
.
"
. '
:
-
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS ~ l
.
l
-
3
i.
' FOR OPERATING REACTORS .
l
: i
! 1. Pl## OPOMT)0NS l
,i 2. RADIOLOGCN. CONTROLS
-
.
)1
! 3. MAINTENANCE ! 4
4. SURVEld#4CE ,
1
,
! 5. F)RE PROTECT)0N ; l
l
\'
i 6. EMERGENCY PREPMEDNESS : ! l ) 7. SECURHY j L : l 8. OUTAGES i i 9. QUAUTY PROGRAWS l 1 > l i
,
10. UCENSNG ACTMTES l
;
\ \
- 11. TRMW4G l
! i i 12. ENGINEERING SUPPORT ! i ! '
:
I. . . . . . . . . . _ . . _. . ._
. . . . . _ _ .
l
jdCj !
4 Tran:parency Mounting Frame Commercial Tape Division /3M
L* '
""'
"" "' ' St. Paul, MN 55144 Made m U S A. ;
'
._ _. _. - _. - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
p
~
,
UIOC: I
0. '
Q
,
.
.
. - . - - . -= --- -
~,
' AREA PERFORMANCE .
l
t
{
CMEGMY 1 :
1
;
.
!
(
REDUCED NRC ATIDm0N WAY BE APPROPRNE. :
!
t
UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENT)0N AND NVOLWWENT
i
l
i
ARE AGRESSNE AND ORIENTED TOWARD NUCLEAR
!
!
SAFET(; UCENSEE RESOURCES ARE AMPLE AND l
;
EFFECTMlY USED SUCH THAT A HK;H LEWL Of l
l
PERFORMANCE MTH RESPECT TO OPERATX)NAL l
j + l
SAFETY OR CONSTRUCTION IS BONG ACHEWD. l
-
1 j( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ .
- " ._- _ . .__ _. . -
. - . _ _ _ _- - _ - _ _ _ _ .
g g ,---
- _ -- - - -
'
.
-
-
G ,
l no. .
- . _ _- . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . - - - _ _ _ .
._ :
,
*
1P'+, i, * e
;,
- 1r] I t' 1 PS 1r
.-
<P' ir
,.
.
,
P'
,
4p f
,
3, , , , .
3, .,. .,
. .
s . . \,
,.
,
= .. ..... . . . . : -
. .. ... ,
i.
, _ - .. --. .
- . . - . - . . - - - - .
-
,
.! .
! *
,
*
i
I. ;
.
l CUEGORY 2 i
.
)
'
i
. :
1 J I i
NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE WAINTMNED AT NORMAL !
!!.
.
,
.
LEVELS. UCENSEE WANAGEWENT ATTENT)0N #4D
t
, l
V
,
4
<
l- I j INVOLVEMENT ARE EMOENT AND ARE CONCERNED WITH
.
- ,
L
! ( l- NUCLEAR SAFETY; UCENSEE RESOURCES MIE ADEQUATE
- , l
. l !
l AND ARE REASONABLY EFFECTNE SUCH THAT SATlSFACTORY l l. ! .
PERFORMANCE WITH RESPECT TO OPERATION /L SVETY OR i
,
l
,- e
*
0
1
!
,
- !
.. !
>\
m
. . _ . . . . - . * * - e =
1 annsa ._ . _ _ _ _ . _ . - . . _ .
,
suo ect .
gi
10. .
.
. . - - - . - - . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . - . _ . _
._
-
.A33A;?3 FO HANC3 ,
!
l
C4TEGORY J
i
i
l
:
'
BOTH NRC AND UCENSEE ATTENTION SHOULD BE
INCREASED. UCENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION OR
:
INVOLEMENT IS ACCEPTABLE AND CONSIDERS NUCIIM !
,
!
SAFETY, BUT WEAKNESSES ARE EV10ENT; UCENSEE ;
!
!
! RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STMNED OR NOT EFFECTM1.Y , ! USED SUCH THAT WLN#MLLY SATISFACTORY PERFORWNT
l
,
l
\
I
!
! MTH RESPECT TO OPERAT)0WL SMETY OR CONSTRUCDON ( r 1 I
iS BONG ACHIEVED. I
l
:
'
~. .. .. . ... . .. . . . - . . . . .
$%#% #%
Ubject
8
0. .
g a _ M 4D+ M M .me- e ,e ee e e 49 M emp-ee_ pe ge gpsusp eang w -- _m gag p g . g _
$
EVAILATION CRITERIA
1. MANAGEMAENT WOUSENT N ASSURNG QUMJ1Y
,
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTKH Of TECHHKX. ISSUES
FROM A SAFELY STAH0PONT ,
.
'
3. RESPONSNENESS TO E0 NTIATNES
i
4. ENFORCEWENT- MSTORY !
5. REPORTNG AND ANALYSIS Of REPORTABLE EWNTS l
'
.
'
6. STAFFING (HCLUDNG MANAGEMENT)
,
l 7. TRAINWG EFFECINENESS AND QUAtlF)CATX)H !
- . _.......- .. . . _ . __. .. . . ._ _ . _ . .. ,
l '^'*M - __. - ._..-_____--_ _ __ - _ . _ __ _ - _ _- ._ - - _ _._ - _ - - . _ _--- .
I
-
..
**
* I . }[hQ.? *. ' .
c N,Y- W , M. *'d
.
4
/
VO X ON S VMARY
:
MARCH 1,1986 - JULY 31,1987
.. .
.
.
SEYERITY~ LEVEL I N 5 ,V y .
.
)
WcGUlkE1 0 0 3 21 8
, l : l ; ! McGUIRE 2 0 0 2 20 5 l
.
REGION 11 AVE 0 0 2 16 5
! i l l
l
f
. - -
. .. ..... .
d
l ansp:r:ncy Mounting Frame Commercial Tape Division /3M
'"
-
- _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . __ --__ _ ___ _ _.__
C' D d A* CC1dd
- -- :- --- --- --
. -
_ _ - _ . . _ -_ . . .
~
.
. '!
OPERATIONS PHASE VIOLATIONS / OPERATING REACTOR !
MARCH 1, 1936 -
JULY 31, 1987
so-- ,
;
'
4
~
so- - 3
s
a- - M
. .
x. .
'
'
8 ,
'
'y ! n
b , f .
. .
@,, ! . .
*
5 l n
to- - .
,
i
N.
'
I
~ o-- - - '
_ _ _ _ _ @ FPC FPL Ril AVE CPL VEPCO APC y .
3 ,
GPC McGUIRE MP&L DUKE SCE&G g_
'
--. - . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . 't
-- . _ - __ _
-
. . .
.
-
,e
ALLEGATIONS P ER U~ ILITY/ SITE
t
'
i
MARCH 1,1986 - JULY 31,1987
I m-
'
l
i
E $ i
.
!
I :
:
i
m, -
>
f - .
$
~
E. .
!g -
-
.
g
9 -
~
S io- -
\ m h
N
Q) o . . . .
.
. . . .
E.
o
:
o
:
'
,
'.O ' . GPC CP&L VEPCO FPC DUKE McGUIRE l 3
( kC \'~ FP&L Ril AVE MP&L SCE&G APC ')(
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - __. _. . __ - -_ _ ._ __ _ _ . _ _ _
- - .
- / n
l IAVE. RAGE NUMBER OF REACTOR TRIPS ABOVE ']g ,
15% POWER PER 1000 CRF~lCAL HOURS .
i '
APMil 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, 0
1987
l '
8.
! ~ @ ! i
.
.64
! s!
5'
j E!
El
.61
g . O
l ,
,
a
E . .
,;g
.
-
ll
'
l .
* -
.
. ... g
)-
'
I
, if .
% 8'
'
s'
.-
2-
-
N1
g;
- - - . .
- McGUIRE 1 NATIONAL AVG McGUIRE 2 ,! , ' gi
NOTE: NATIONAL AVERAGE INCLUDES "OLD" ER
jc- _
d
_
( . - - _ - _ - - . - _ - _ _ _ _ -
WESTINGHOUSE PLANT TYPES ONLY
. -
.
. .
_ _ . . . . . _
_ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ . .
_ _ _ _
. .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
. .
h
a
._ - .. _ -. .
_\ --- -
.
l
-
_ __
_ y. g
l :
'
ti
t
i .
.$ i
i l
WARCH
LERs PER UNIT
1984 - JULY 31, 1987
i
3[
&E
ll I 1,
.- : #R
1 Ez2 ;
'5
l ' )
l
.
-
S
E e
i
! ! . -
-
E1
! . Od
'"
h. .
, I- f e - -
-
, 34- 34
-
! g.i ! .
- : 2. _-
i E l
'
- g j 24 24 -
i Z l
M~ ~ -
,
y
l l 2 '
i : 8'
N l
l '
5
w -
i !
^ 8
i j -
'
,
-
l
'
; W 8
e;-
-
.
i j i
^
l
2 . a
, E:
. OE WEST. NATL AVE CE SatW -
MeOUIRE .
E{
t -- -. . - - - - - -_- - -- --a' ^w7 wan -- -- - -- -
--
- .m
__ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ ._ __ __ . . _-
'
- -
-
i
! . .
VcGm R- Rs
~
i
-
l q MARCH 1, 1986 J U LY 31 , 1987 .
** ! 47 LEGEND 5
l 4 l
4so PERSONNEL (OTHER) - '
l i
.- -
PERSONNEL (TEST-CAL.)
I ! PERSONNEL (MAINTENANCE'
me. -
PERSONNEL (OPERATING)
38' '
OTHER / OUT CAL
g b. ,, { J COMPONENT FAILURE
'
i
lg 22
DESIGN / CONST
,
i I 3* so- -
.
I PERSONNEL (TOTAL) )
-
is-
]
- '
qOa
8"
~ !!!!?i!3i!$i r !
O ' '
'
ija.k .
.
, -
.
-
.
-
,
4.y.
'3 O \ PLANT PERSONNEL i
i CD C %--..--------.- . - _ _ _ . . . . __ .. _
. _
. '{
_ _
- . . -- . . . _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i !
. .
. .
.
; .
f
t .
.
I
l l
VcG RE _ERs
>
JULY 31,1987
' -
'
; MARCH 1,1986 -
.
i .
! l ! ! PERSONNEL
1
J ! l
46.8%
-
.
I
.
..
j I i ~ -
: OTHER -
I 27.7% 17% .,
l
4 j
I COMPONENT FAILURE
l
!
,
N
DESIGN 8.5%
!
.
) I -----
iO
! .O
;D' ,i
i Q.;i V
a ox ;-
r,
I _ -_ C_
.__ _ ~ _ - _ _ __
. . _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _-__ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _-. . - - _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - . . .- _ _ . . _ . _.
.
.
.- .
__
-
s-
,
eC
( -
E
O i
3
c
'
MCGm RE _ERs (a ersonne') Ei!,-
-
&
n-
(" JULY 31,1987 l AF
.S - MARCH ',,1986 - -
w2
~
,d
,. .
@j
.
-
r. MAINTENANCE
?!~ Ea
. .
'
.
-
05.
.!
'
'
. -
-
13.6% .
. -
OPERATING
OTHER 13.6% .
.
31~.8%
: "A
. . ..
.
40.9% E.
.
Ecn j
!
s. E!
gl
-
TEST & CAllBRATION
k$
~
P Tei
1
~
el e
.
E.6 l
cW
i - ,
-
_ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ ' _w b _
! i, li iij:l :
_- n
*bOL40_JUc
S gyo
o < e-
i 1 1
2 4
_
-
- ~ -
o_
_
-
-
-
-
;5
O 's *T5 F
S
P J ll i b (j U
F N
% ' ;
' h^ OC
RIT
'
FD
UC
NO
f) llfh f) f EOY,
O
CN RN T I OM ';
'.
'
'** i EA
GL
- '
NIA. f) lfh f, .f2 ANT I L 2? OA A RS -
my ~ 8- NR
EU. fJ
llhF)(j l E
AR h2gm
l
l
A
V Sm
U
E
M ,,
-
bm AFC
O
~
. ~ '
P. f) lhf)(j l[ S Nm C
R
E
P
~sg I
L P
M
I
TA
-
A o,2ni g b
A o >yur
- a I
..
tW%nT
t
:
s o
,c w
u c u
xna eA nF m ER
i
A i
L l s v u.
o
Mo o s cI SIS
G' ,. A u tu
t o
c- r
e D
-
L
wMu
S E' e mE
aw pu kT
PnA R
u
-
.
E O
>" cos .
G
l
Ebwsr
u *3 I
E N
E
3AE tea
ne e
r%$ C
iFLAL A C C N
-
H tr >A A~ A
GE sT uc6P l
;t
1
T D
( H r_
s
iA -
uL A .G _t- E
urP r G o
MMvE cAr
- cr
eEsOR O C
r.w s s R i
y s
M tT
o
t
Y
i
.H An aT. uuY
.<
Y
Oth -
eTs
F 3 2 -
1
T 1
Ius r o
c '.
" _
NUMBER OF FACIlmES
RECEMNG RAllNG
? i i i i i
3 swwwss 3Ooz3
g N w N W W W X W W X W 3 to (c 7 2 -) l
BM8M8N 2 (nya C
m h % % % % NA M M M M M h N3 8 N J 9 Z
m NwwwwAN
'1 0 EBR8M:M 2(tzr.)
s c m.; OO
C
2q
4 z O
2 hM%M MNNNM%%W 6(**) ZZ
l --j m hwwNWAN s(x3) my
gr o
gr
? 0
Ok
g@88888ME%8M8M8i8M8M8
nwwNwwwwwww11(on)Z 5 o,"c) Z
g
9 NNNmNm%Y 3 6e w) Z>
.' 5 8888G8M8M
A w w203rd w w w w w w w V 11(on)9 O
b g
a sumx1 2 (ava O
$AWNwhWwwwwT
o88888888888888M8 Msg 8 4 c2sa)
1 0(c$2) F 5
,
-T
d>
.
"
H @iY
mm
{ Jh{ (A U
~ish
c
^ it-
g;! ll 9
5[ F, O
,5 g ;Ss A g Z
-g ggo o o z
'Ej-
' A [a -
'N NMN O
epU,8 8 8
d p'S 8 8
s$ 5 8 R -< -< <
s 3, 4 su "-
.
.
9'i kk i
'
sub ect
noc
lq
-
'
/
/
4-
1 meg ~ IRE *
'
.
,
t
4
,
CJTEGORY 1 AREJS .
,
i
,
:
;
. l
' i . EV ERGENCY ?E3AREJN ESS ! i . 4
i l
i
' ,
,
e
t
* *e'* * * 4*** *4 * e e+w, e e e +a. ,
em .,, . . , ,.g ,,
CenenM
Sub ect
'
10
nom .
. - . . - . . . _.
. _ -
-
-
MeGUIRE
:
b CMEGORY 2 AREAS
.
-
1. PLA4T 0? ERAT 10NS
2. RA)0_0G CAL CONTROLS
3. MA \ TEN AsCE
4. SU RVEl_LAN CE
5. FIRE 3ROTECTON
'
6. SECURITY
7. OUTAGES
i 8. QUAUTY PROGRAMS
9. LK:DSNG AC"M"ES
'
? 10. TRA N NG i 11. ENGl4EER NG SUP30RT
- . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . .
- e--.-u
.
_
;
y
$ g ~ ~
MeGUIR;E
~
.
'
, ,
'
_
CJTE%RY3 ARE4S
'
%0sE ,
.
'
;
- ;
. . . . ... . __. . . _
, !otci
- Ran Commercial Tape Division /3M
!"'"'p:rency* " ' ' Mounting Frame *
St. Paul, MN 55144 MaMn U S A. ..r..
. .... ENCLOSURE--4
O
4,
o- ..
'
*
DuxE POWER GOMPANY
P.O. BOX 33189
cuAntorrz.x.c.s8s4s
HALB. TUCKER maPasown
we enseme.v - ,
, (704) ar3 4arn
.mu.* ~ l . ,1 -
November 30, 1987
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corranission
Region II
101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Subject: IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/87-33
50-270/87-33
50-2e7/87-33
50-369/87-29
50-370/87-29
50-413/87-26
50-414/87-26
Dear Sir:
By letter dated October 20, 1987, NRC transmitted the Systematic Assessment of
Licensee Performance (SALP) report for Oconee, McGuire and Catawba. Meetings
were held to discuss these reports on October 27 and October 29 at the respective
stations. Attached please find our corrrnents on these evaluations. Although we
agree with the ratings in these particular categories, we do consider that these
corrrnents are necessary to clarify certain statements contained in the SALP
reports.
We believe that on the whole, these SALP reports adr@ ately represent the quality
of performance at our stations as clarified by our consnents in the attachment.
We will continue to factor in the observations by the NRC in the SALP reports and
subsequent meetings in our overall efforts to further improve performance at our
nuclear stations.
Very truly yours,
f
/
Hal B. Tucker
NAR/1036/sbn
Attachments
97 r i i 00 ^4 5-(0- .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.. ...
- . - . ,
J- ,
Duke Power Company
Comments On SALP Report Dated October 20, 1987
STATION: Oconee
SALP CATEGORY: Engineering Support
DUKE COMMENT:
This section of the report accurately reflects oconee's perfornance except for
the discussion regarding the Unit I reactor vessel flange-to-shell weld
indications discovered by ultrasonic testing. The SALP report indicates that
there was a reluctance on the part of Duke to take additional steps to resolve
technical issues following the discovery of the ultrasonic indications in the
Unit 1 Reactor Vessel. The SALP report states that the licensee, following
meetings with the NRC, agreed to perform additional review of the ultrasonic
procedures using the mockup reactor vessel at the Babcock and Wilcox Mount Vernon
facility. We have reviewed a chronology of events concerning this issue. In our
opinion, the NRC statements within the SALp report appear to be inconsistent with
the chronology. In support, we offer the following brief synopsis:
Date Discussion
03/21/86 preliminary evaluation of the ultrasonic testing data
indicates the possibility of flaws in the Unit 1 Reactor
Vessel flange-to-shell area. The evaluation could not, with
reasonable certainty, conclude that the indications were
geometric reflectors, thus they were treated as flaws.
03/27/86 preliminary testing performed on the mockup reactor vessel at
the Mount Vernon facility.
04/03/86 Notification of April 8, 1986 meeting in Atlanta was received
with request for information.
04/08/86 First meeting with NRC staff in Atlanta where Duke presented
details of the inspection, evaluation, results and conclusions
including preliminary information of a program at the Mount
Vernon facility concerning the development of ultrasonic
testing techniques for future inspections.
In sunnary, the NRC statements in the SALp report implies we were reluctant to
take additional steps to resolve this technical issue. We consider that the
chronology shows 1) the flaw indications were treated conservatively, 2) research
had already started at Mount Vernon and that 3) we were committing at the Atlanta
meeting to continue such research.
a STATION: Catawba
SALP CATEGORY: Quality programs and Administrative Con'trols Affecting Quality
,
_ - - _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ._ _-_.
.
".
.
... -2-
,
y .
, DUKE COMMENT:
i
Duke does not take issue with the rating of this functional area based on the
understanding that NRC Region II requires consistent category 1 ratings in other
functional areas to be rated category 1 in this area. However, we do believe the
'
analysis of this area relies too heavily on the technical capability of the
Quality Assurance organization itself. This section of the SEp appears to be
heavily influenced by the results of an NRC quality verification organization
j inspection conducted late in the SEp period. This inspection report was
, received by Duke in mid November. Consnents on that report apply here as well and j are being forwarded separately.
1
i As stated in the SEp report, our emphasis on achieving quality is within the
I
line organizations; therefore, technical resources are maintained in these line
, organizations. This does not mean that Duke believes its QA organization does '
1 not need technical capability or credibility. However, it does lead to line
organizations seeking out their problems and solving them, without waiting on or
,
relying to heavily on the QA organization to perform this function.
4 { We recognize that the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of QA audits conducted 4 in technically oriented areas is a direct function of the technical awareness of l personnel performing and leading those audits. To achieve this needed level of I
technical expertise, the Duke Audit group routinely obtains technical expertise,
from other line or staff organizations to provide this awareness to specific
!
audit teams. Duke is perhaps better able than most utilities to do this and i maintain independence trom the audited organization, since we have a Design
l Engineering Department and seven operating units at three different locations. j Thus a chemistry specialist or SRO from one location can be utilized as a member ! of an audit team at another location. Approximately 70% of the audits conducted j during this SEp period utilized technical expertise in this manner to not only 1 help identify technical difficulties, but to aid in evaluating the deficiencies
found by others on the audit team.
! '
In addition to utilization of technical experts from outside the audit group,
Duke recognized the need to provide training to auditors in the nuclear
operations area. Accordingly, in June 1985, a training program to provide
,
detailed technical training to auditors was developed and implemented.
l This training program consists of a total of 71 weeks of training, involving 41 '
weeks of classroom instruction at the Technical Training Center and 30 weeks of
On-the-Job Training. The training consists of New Engineer / Professional
l 2 On-the-Job Training, Task Inventory program Training, Basic Thermodynamics and
Nuclear physics, Basic Operator Training, Health physics and Chemistry Group
On-the-Job Training, and Basic Operator Training.
. ! i
The utilization of technical experts from outside QA and the training program
described above resulted in a total of 23 technical issues identified by QA
! departmental audits. These audits were conducted at the Catawba Nuclear Station i during the period of January 1, 1985 through July 1, 1987 in such areas as Health l physics, Chemistry, Independent Verification Activities, and Surveillance ] Testing. The number of technical issues raised constitute approximately 30% of 4
all items identified at Catawba during this period. These figures indicate that
I a significant number of technical issues were identified by QA departmental f audits. ! !
,__ ____________ ___ ______. __ _ _ . _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ______ . _ _ _____
e P., -3-
,
Site QA surveillance personnel undergo 46 weeks of Basic Nuclear Operator
Training and 8 weeks of System Specific Training. Additional classroom
instruction and On-the-Job Training is provided in the areas of their
specialization. The involvement of QA department employees in the operations of
the plant will increase as a result of the training provided.
In regard to the Catawba Unit 2 Startup test program, QA surveillance provided
coverage of start up activities through the tour surveillance program. The tour
surveillance program was specifically designed to be observational and impromptu
in nature. These tour surveillances are documented and did provide many checks
on fuel load, precritical checks and power ascension. We feel that the NRC gave
little or no credit for these tour surveillances.
The SALP Board recommended increased management attention to scope and depth of
inspections, findings and effective resolution of those findings. Duke
management has taken soveral initiatives to strengthen QA involvement. The
training programs described above involve significant resources over a long
period of time and indicate a commitment to long term improvement in the
technical education of audit and surveillance personnel. The initiation of a
formal Quality Assurance performance Assessment (QApA) procedure recognizes a
need to focus QA attention more heavily on performance problems and less on
programmatic coverage. A major initiative in the area of improving technical
auditing ability is our Self Initiated Technical Audit (SITA) program. This
program provides for an audit team composed solely of technical experts selected
by upper management. It incorporates many of the features of the NRC Safety
System Functional Inspection (SSFI) program. It is not tied to programmatic
compliance by regulation and is administered by experienced QA Lead Auditors.
Catawba is scheduled to have such an audit in 1988.
Our use of technical experts in regular QA audits will continue. The source of
technical expertise Sithin Duke is perhaps more substantial than within most
utilities; therefore, the aeed to maintain highly specialized technical personnel
in the QA organization is, in our opinion, decreased.
~
While the above initiatives indicate our commitment to increase and improve its
technical abilities within QA, we will still emphasize line management's
responsibility for quality. This includes actively seeking out problem areas and
working toward solutions irrespective of how, or by whom, the problem was
identified. The Testing Task Force originated by line management at Catawba
during this period is an example of this philosophy. This emphasis, coupled with
the initictives to improve technical abilities within QA, points out the
importance our management attaches to the functional area of Quality programs.
STATION: Catawba
SALp CATEGORY: preoperational And Startup Testing (Unit 2)
DUKE COMMENT:
The last paragraph states that "there appeared to be no management supplied
impetus to completing the test program".
There was a clear management-supplied directive not to put the plant through any
unnecessary transients just for the sake of expediting completion of the test
.
_ _
e
, ' *; , -4- ,
I
program. The adequate response of plant systems to full power trips had been
previously demonstrated, so there was no safety concern in delaying the Unit Loss
of Electrical Load Test. Our approach was to wait for more opportune periods
when this test could be completed.
STATION: Oconee, McGuire and Catawba
SALP CATEGORY: Licensing
DUKE COMMENT:
Statements are made in these sections that experienced individuals in the
Licensing Staff seem to be overburdened and that Licensing seems to be the
training ground for newcomers who have not been indoctrinated in the regulatory
environment. While it is true that any staff may be overburdened during periods
of unusual regulatory activity, Duke's Licensing Staff does possess a depth of
experienced personnel. The 17 technical personnel in Licensing have an average
of 10 years nuclear experience, 5.5 years of which is Licensing experience. Only
6 of the 17 Licensing personnel were hired directly into Licensing with no prior
nuclear experience.
>
}}