IR 05000395/1990011
| ML20059A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1990 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A349 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-90-11-01, 50-395-90-11-1, NUDOCS 9008230003 | |
| Download: ML20059A353 (26) | |
Text
'
- a >
, , r t
> - ,r,
. . :
'
~-
, .!
. .
'
r
.- -e !
.7 ' ' ~..
,
. ' >
- '
>
c
,.
,
,
,
.}
.i 3 ,
- <
ENCLOSURE
'
i i- FINAL SALP REPORT
!
- .r
' '
.:
U.S.NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION(NRC) !
I
'
REGION 11 [
!
SYSTEMATIC ASSE!SMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE ',
-
INSPECTION REPORT NUMBER-
, ,
,
50-395/90-11'-
- 'SOUTHCAROLINAELECTRIC&GASCOMPANY(SCE&G).
', ,
,
a V. C.-SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION- -
L:
JANUARY 1,.1989 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1990 !
.
-
=!
.; ,
I ll l i
'
.t
.I
!
,
>
y n '3 .
a .
. . . , . . , __ _ , , _ . . . _ . . , . _, - . _ _ _ _ , ,__._..,_,___,_,.__,._..._.-e., _ ,_ _ ._.. t
. ..
.
7 I
i implement effective program During the assessment period, the licensee increased the health phvd e: (HD) staff by converting 5 of the 10-15 semi-permanent .ontract HP technician positions to permanent positions, and staff turnover has been low. In the latter part of the assessment period, the Associate Manager of f Health Physics vacancy was rapidly filled by a qualified (Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975) person from corporate ,
health physics. Under new leadership, the radiation protection i progran appeared to be functioning at the same high level of ,
performance as previously observe '
The licensee's training program in radiation protection radwaste, and chemistry were reviewed and found to be effective and consistent with ANSI standards and licensee internal procedure The licensee has implemented an excellent program to control radiation dose to workers. The collective dose in person-rem for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989 was 560, 511, and 52, l respectively. In 1989 the annual goal was to be ' under 23 l person-rem. However, the licensee experiei.ced five unscheduled-
'
outages that resulted in 29 additional person-rem. The collec-
'
tive deses from January through April 1990 was 314 person-re During this period the licensee performed a significant-amount i of steam generator (S/G) maintenance and removed the resistance '
l temperature detector (RTD) bypass manifoldr an all reactor
'
coolant loops. The licensee performance aga..st goals of 124 person-rem for RTD bypass line removal and 187 person-rem for i S/G maintenance was good. Actual collective dose for RTD work I was 103 nerson-rem and 96 person-rem for S/G maintenanc Although 'the refueling outage 5 ended one month after this assessment period most collective dose was acquired prior to April 30,199 Licensee overall collective dose reduction ;
L performance was good. The licensee completed the outage with l 384 person-rem, which was well under the goal of 450 person-re Additional collective dose reduction measures in progress are: i
'
(1) the reduction of mesh sizes of filters to decrease the amount and size of radioactive particles in the reactor coolant system. (2) replacement of some of the valves containing stellite, and (3) planning for the installation of a reactor-head shield during the 1991 refueling outag Attention and participation in the ALARA program appears to have increased during this assessment period and management is proactive in ALARA initiatives. Other strengths in the ALARA program included, the annual continuing training of HP personnel, the discussion of dose goal performance as part of each person's performance appraisal, and improved general worker knowledge of ALARA concepts and awareness of the need to minimize exposur _ _
. -
i o ,
$'
of the feedwater water hammer event were effectiv Engineering identification and evaluation of high energy line break impact ,
on intermediate building chiller capacity were effective and ;
demottstrated aggressive engineering involvement in phnt issue *
Engineering evaluation and resolution of the electishydraulic control relay card failure were comprehensiv ,
In contrast to the good performance of engineering on major ;
issues, engineering support is not as aggressive in response to
~
more routine problems. Examples were the untimely technical- ,
support provided by engineering in investigating and evaluating the steam generator resin intrusion problem which contributed to extended low power plant operation outside of recommended ,
chemistry limits, the condensor extraction line failure, and *
root cause determination for routine plant trips or equipment ,
failures prior to restar Control of design change activity has been adequate with the-exception of deficiencies identified related to post-modification testing. A MOV wiring modification deficiency was not identified by post-modification testing which resulted in the inoperability of one residual heat removal train. This wiring deficiency was i identified and corrected by the licensee during a post-modification review. Wiring errors in the main steam isolation valve test panel and .afety related battery modifications were also not identified by post-modification testin Following B safety related battery cell replacement, weak engineering guidaace for post-maintenance testing and poor work practices by maintenance, i resulted in battery installation with reverse polarity.
l The System Engineering program which the previous SAlp report identified as incomplete has been fully implemented. This ,
program has provided improved engineering support and is well L planned and implemente The licensed operator training program continued to be a strong L progra Initial examinations were administered to 5 reactor operator candidates with all candidates passing. This 100 per '
cent pass rate which has continued since 1984 demonstra'es the high quality of the V. C. Summer licensed operator training progra Significant resources were dedicated to the development of the licensed operator requalification program.
I This program was upgraded to meet established NRC requirements
'
for operator requalification trainin Requalification
.-
examinations were administered to 24 candidates with 21 passin The plant specific simulator was upgraded with a new computer during this assessment period and is scheduled for certification in 1991. A rotational policy is being established to rotate two SRO's from on-shift duties to the training group on a two year
T' (
i
. o l
,
!
ENCLOSURE 3
'
MEETING SUMMARY OF JULY 10, 1990 A meeting was held at 9:30 a.m. on July 10, 1990, near Jenkinsville, South !
Carolina, to discuss the SALP Board Report for the Y. C. Summer Nuclear Statio ;
II. Licensee Attendees included:
L. M. Gressette, CE0/SCANA :
T. C. Nichols, President & C00 W. B. Timmerman, Executive VP i 0. W. Dixon, Executive VP 0. S. Bradham, VP Nuclear Operations !
J. L. Skolds, GM Nuclear Operations D. R. Moore. 'M Steam Generator Project A. R. Koon, Acting GM Nuclear Safety M. D. Quinton, GM Engineering Services The list of licensee attendees above does not include the large number of- s
'
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company employees that were present at the SALP presentation. The personnel were supervisors, plant operators, maintenance personnel, and various plant staff. This large turnout was beneficial to the SALP process and is highly recommended for future presentations, i 111. Sant? Cooper ,
J. Rainey, Chief Executive Officer K. Ford, Presider +
R. Tanner, Vice i'casident L. Carter, Manager, Corporate Forcasting I NRC Attendees C. W.Milhoan, Deputy Hehl, Deputy Regional Dicector, Administrator, Division Region II of Reactor Projects (RII) ), Ril (DRP G. Bagchi, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RII-E. G. Adensam, Director, Project Directorate 11-1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
K. M. Clark, Public Affairs Officer, RIl J. J. Hayes, Jr., Senior Project Manager, NRR F. S. Cantrell, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 18 DRP, RI!
R. C. Haag, Senior Resident inspector - Summer DRP, R11 L. P. Modenos, Resident Inspector - Summer, DRP, Ri!
- . .
'
-
. ,
,
!
i s ,t I
>e 'e
}
>.-
_
,
..
-;
. x .- =>
-- o . ~ Enclosure 3 2 .i t
i
.
' '
V.- Local Government Officials >
j s
t G. Schneider - State of South Carolina
'
J B. Reavis .' State of South Carolina
- B. Mortin Richland Count j)
R. Farr.- Lexington Count I S. Kelley - Lexington County .
'
C. Sheely - Lexirston County ~
-
,'
A. Frick - Fairfield County T. Longshore - Newberry County
' i
, u i f
'l g;
!
I j ;'.
.
-l t
'
I
.
' i:
.-
a
, . 1 l
-
l
.
- -
>
1<
c ,
~ .
'
_
1<
l t
!
'
l I
,
t !
i r
I , ( +
j r
o
$
i t
(
i s
.s
'
.
,,' . -
_
~
e a s ..r,-
-
- ,. , , -
.- ..,-n,
.
'
e !
,
-
,
ENCLOSURE 4
^
. -= - . - . _ _ _
,_ _
i L !
'
l
,
,
,
- '
L-
,
UNITED STATES . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY- :
COMMISSION :
l SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT l'
OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE -
(SALP) .
. -
..
.
.
,
t
,
..
>
>4.-
t
. . . , . . . . - - . . . . _ . - . . . - . . . . . . , . . - . - - . . . . _ . . . - - _ . . . , . - . . - . . _ . . _ . - . . . . . - - . . - - . - - . . . - . . . - - - . . _ - . . . - - - . - - - . - . . _ .
. ._ _ - -_ -_ .-- _ -__-- _ - -. _-
.
)
. .
.
!
SOUTH CAROLINA i ELECTRIC AND GAS 1
.. . ;
COMPANY .-
SALP CYCLE 8 JANUARY 1,1989 THROUGH APRIL 30,1990 l
'l i
. V. C. SUMMER .
..
JENKINSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA l
JULY 10,1990 i
i
. - . - . . . - _ . ~ . . . _ . . . . - _ . . - . . . . . . . _ . _ - . _ , . . . , . - . . _ , , . . , _ - _ , . . . . . , . _ _ , . . _ , - - . . . - - , - , _ .
.
-
!
. . ,
.
,
SALP PROGRAM OBJECTIVES :
!
!
'
IDENTIFY TRENDS IN LICENSEE'-
-
! PERFORMANCE .
.
. PROVIDE A BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF NRC RESOURCES -
3. IMPROVE NRC REGULATORY PROGRAM
-
.
'
-
. ..
l l.
l i
i
---,,..-.v.,... . , , , . . , .,v.-.... - . . - ~- - - . -, . , - - - - , - + -. , - , - + , - , - - .- . -~~~ e - - - +-~.-w.-e e- +.-+
. . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - _
. _ _ _ ,
- ;
1 . . ;
-
, i a r REGION ll ORGANIZATION ;
t
!
t i
l t
l
'
l OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR 8.ESNETER
'
DEPUTY J. MILHOAN
,
w
.
TM PROJECT 8 B. WILSON ICHIEF ,
-
DIVISION OF DIVISION OF DIVISION OF .
,
REACTOR SAFETY RADIATION SAFETY EACTOR PROJECTS AND SAFEG'JARDS DI L.REYE8 DI A. OlB80N DI J. STOHR DEPUTY C.HEHL DEPUTY E. MERSCH0FF DEPUTY (MCANT)
___
,
---..--..mm.,- , , , , . . . . . _ . . . . , _ _ , . . , . . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ , , . . _ . _ - . , _ _ _ . . . _ . , , . ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ . ~ , . . - - . - - --
. . . .
.-
!
.
-
. . !
. .
., .
i i
P
- DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS :
, ORGANIZATION i
_
.
DIVISION OF REACTOR PROJECTS i
DI L.REYE8 t
.
DEPUTY C.HEHL l'
,
i mmmmmmmmmmmmm REACTOR PROJECTS c BRANCH N ,
CHIEF D.VERRELLI i
'
,
$
(
PROJECTS SECTION PROJECTS SECTION NO.1 A < NO. it I
CHIEF H. DANCE CHIEF F.CANTRELL L
i
BRUNSWICK .
FARLEY l GRAND GULF L
HARRIS i
ROGINSON SUMMER
<
l
.
.- . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ . , . _ . . - . _ . _ . _ _ . - _ . . _ _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - . . . _ - _ . . _ _ - . . . . . . . . - . . _ ~ . _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _
.
.
.. .
.
.
i NRR ORGANIZATION
,
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR 1_
,
REGULATION DIR. T. MURLEY
- -
SSOC. DIRECTOR FOR ASSOC. DIRECTOR FOR PROJECTS INSPECTION AND J. PARTLOW ECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
.
- DIV. OF ENGINEERING l DIVISION OF AND SYSTEM REACTOR PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY
!!!i 8. MRG A, DIR.1/11 ,,y ,
G. L AINAS, ASST, DIR.11 OPERATIONAL EVENTS E. ADENSAM, DIR. Il-l J. HAYES, PROJ. MO SUMMER DIV. OF REACTOR
-
INSPECTION AND DIVISION OF SAFEQUARDS l
I REACTOR PROJECT DIVISION OF lil/IV/V PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY P REPARE DN ESS u_.__._._- . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _
. _ _ _
,
.
.
. .
l
, i PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AREAS !
,
'
l FOR OPERATING REACTORS l
.
i l .
.. .
'
A. PLANT OPERATIONS .
,
! RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
.
. MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE ,
! EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS . SECURITY / SAFEGUARDS ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT
'" SAFETY ASSESSMENT / QUALITY VERIFICATION +
!
I
. . . . . . _ . - _ - . . , _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . . , _ _ . . , _ . . _ . _ , . _ . _ . . . . . - - _ . . . _ . . - . - - . . . . . - . . . . , . . _ _ . . _ - . . .
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
-
1 .
l
- AREA PERFORMANCE 1 CATEGORY 1 l
'
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND INVOLVEMENT ARE READILY EVIDENT AND
'
PLACE EMPHASIS ON SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OR SAFEGUARDS ACTIVITIES, WITH THE RESULTING PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDING
'
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE RESOURCES ARE AMPLE AND EFFECTIVELY USED SO THAT A HIGH LEVEL OF PLANT ,
AND PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS BEING
'
ACHIEVED. REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIAT <
i
- .-- ._ _ ..,~-~-.__--_._-----.__.______------__-_m, -
_
-
_ . . _ _ . - - . . - - , _ _ _ _ - - - - _
--
_ _ ._ . - - . _ , - - . . . . - . . - - . - - , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . ,
- .
i
-
!
- -
.
. .
AREA PERFORMANCE l CATEGORY 2 i (
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO AND INVOLVMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE :
,
OF NUCLEAR SAFETY OR SAFEGUARDS ^
ACTIVITIES ARE GOOD. THE LICENSEE HAS ATTAINED A LEVEL OF i PERFORMANCE ABOVE THAT NEEDED TO MEET REGULATORY REQUIREMENT LICENSEE RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE
'
AND REASONABLY ALLOCATED SO THAT GOOD PLANT AND PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS BEING ACHIEVE !
'
NRC ATTENTION MAY BE MAINTAINED i
AT NORMAL LEVEL '
,
,
-
. .
i
,
AREA PERFORMANCE
! CATEGORY 3 l
! ;
'
!
LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND '
l lNVOLVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF l l
NUCLEAR SAFETY OR SAFEGUARDS
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT SUFFICIEN THE LICENSEE'S PERFORMANCE DOES
.
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEED THAT NEEDED TO MEET MINIMAL REGULATORY-REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEk RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STRAINED OR NOT EFFECTIVELY USED. NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE INCREASED ABOVE NORMAL
LEVEL l l
...-._.._.,._....._....._._..._.._._,..._,..__._._..__.._...____._._._._...,_.___.._.._...__-_____.__..__.....!
- - - . - - ---._- - . __ ____________
l
.. .. ,
- %
l
,
EVALUATION CRITERIA l
, MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING .. '
QUALITY -
-
j l
2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT L
3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES l
4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY-l l 5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF l i
REPORTABLE EVENTS
! ;
'
6. STAFFING-(INCLUDING MANAGEMENT)
.. ,
. ..
7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND QUALIFICATION
-_ - - - _ - _ . ___ _ _ _ _ - - _ -
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
'
!
=
, .
. .
.
L i L VIOLATION SUMMARY :
)
(CYCLE 8) :
I JANUARY 1,1989 THROUGH APRIL 30,1990 .
.. .
i
.- !
!
.
I ll lll IV V a
V. C. SUMMER 0 0 1 3 1 :
.
( .- '
REGION ii AV :1 18 2 ,
PER OPERATING
-
UNIT FOR' CY 1989 -
l
.
t
'
l l
m- -- _ _ _ _., .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ . . . , _ , . . . . - . . . , , . , _ . . - _ - - _ , . . . . . _ , . _ . _ , - - . , _ . , - . - - . . - . . . - - .
. ._ .. _ - . - . .. . - - --
.
!'
i l
!
SUMMER JANUARY 1,1989 - APRIL 30,1390 1-(CYCLE 8)
l i
i i
'~~ ~~~- -- - -
'
! COMPONENT .
OTHER l FAILURE OPERATING
! 26% .
- TEST /CALIB i-i PERSONNEL i
'
j l 55%
MAINTENANCE
!
-
-
.............-
,
i coNsT PERSONNEL 185 (17)
l TOTAL (31)
!-
l 1 L
,
LERs
!
! -
^
i
- _. ]
-
, .- ~
,,
_,, _
'
. .
. _ _ _
- _ . - - _ - - - -
I FUNCTIONAL AREA DISTRIBUTION l For Fourteen Region II Sites SALP CYCLE 8 Number of Sites 14 . '~
j 12-I g ~~ ~ ~
~~
0 .
j OPS RAD M/S EP SEC ENG/TS SA/QV
! Functional Areas l
CATEGORY l CATEGORY 2 M CATEGORY 3 i
..
,
e'
l- _
_ .
. - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ - - __ .
.
.
. . .
l
'
g .
, PLANT OPERATIONS (CATEGORY 1}
!
l- *
/~ CONSISTENTLY EXHIBITED A CONSERVATIVE AND SAFE APPROACH TO PLANT
-
OPERATIONS
- STRENGTHS i
'
-
MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT TO QUALITY
" -
CONTROL ROOM PERFORMANCE I
-
IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS
,l -
MRB ACTIVITIES
-
IMPROVED DRAWING AND PROCEDURES
/l -
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS TRAINING ,
t CHALLENGES .
i
-
NUMBER OF FORCED OUTAGES :
I -
L- * RECOMMENDATIONS ;
l l l - CONTINUE-MANAGEMENT ATTENTION TO IMPROVE OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE
!
x l
e
_,----..m-_,._.-.., , . . , _ _ _ , _ . . . , _ - _ . - , . _ . . _ . , , , . . _ m __ _____,._, __ _ _ _ . . . - - - . - . - - - - . - - . - - - ----- - - - - .--_-.
..
,'. ,
!
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL !
'
L
-
(CATEGORY 1> l r
- PREVIOUS HIGH LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE l CONTINUED i L !
'
- STRENGTHS l
-
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
-
OUTSTANDING CONTAMINATION CCNTROL 1
-
RADIATION DOSE CONTROL - ALARA ,
-
EFFECTIVE TRAINING
-
EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
-
CONTROL OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS
-
LABORATORY MEASUREMENT EXCELLENT
'
- CHALLENGES
-
AGGRESSIVENESS IN SECONDARY CHEMISTRY
- RECOMMENDATION
-
CONTINUE EFFORTS TO MINIMlZE SOURCE TERM i
L
. _ . - .. _ _ - . - _ ._. _ . - ---_ - . . . -.-. - ., - .. - .-.. . - . - .. - - - - - . . - - - .
- _
,
!
-
,
,
. .
. . +-
l
'
MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE :
L' CATEGORY 1)
,
- OVERALL MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE IS l STRONG; SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM -
l FUNCTIONED WELL l
- STRENGTHS
- MANAGEMENT ATTENTION
- COMMUNICATION AND TEAMWORK
- TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION PROGRAM
- LOW TURNOVER RATE
- STAFFING
- EQUIPMENT CONDITION ;
- PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
- BACKLOG REMAINS LOW
- MODIFICATION GROUP
- CHALLENGES t - CONFIGURATION CONTROL / PROCEDURAL ADHERANCE ,
- SECONDARY PLANT PROBLEMS
I
,,..e,.. e,-._ _ . , . . . - - . . - -- - - - , . . . . . .6
.
. -
. .
. .
-
(CATEGORY 2)
e PERFORMANCE CONTINUED TO BE GOOD j
-
'
- STRENGTHS
- MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
. - PERFORMANCE DURING ACTUAL s EVENTS ;
- STAFFING
- FACILITIES
- CHALLENGES
- TIMELINESS OF DOSE ASSESSMENT / PROJECTIONS
- RETRAINING
>
i
-'
,
-
-
'--- - . - . . . . . . . .
s1-
. : .
"
.
~
.
"
SECURITY
-
,
- (CATEGORY 1)
l
- ,
e 'SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTG RESULTED R u IN SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE ,
-
- STRENGTH MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
[
/
-
- AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM OVERSIGHT
- AUDIT PROGRAM L E - HARDWARE IMPROVEMENTS 1
- FORCE MORALE AND CAPABILITY
-
-
- TRAINING- PROGRAM t - CORRECTED ACCESS CONTROL :
.
- FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM
_
= CHALLENGES
_
- SUSTAINED MOMENTUM b -
-
i V .;
=
-
- g
-
_
_
,
>
<
' _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . .
i 1
,.
't O-
'O *
ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT '
(CATEGORY 2)
- PERFORMANCE CONTINUED TO BE GOOD-
- STRENGTHS '
- MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
- EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
- INCREASED STAFFING >
- DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTATION
- INVOLVEMENT IN SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- CONTROL OF DESIGN CHANGES 3
"
- SYSTEM: ENGINEERING PROGiRAM
- LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING e CHALLENGES
'
- AGGRESSIVE INVOLVEMENT. IN ROUTINE ISSUES P
~ POST MODIFICATION TESTING c
e 4ff
, .
L, ;
l.:..'.
l:: SAFETY ASSESSMENT / 1 QUALITY VERIFICATION (CATEGORY 2 IMPROVING TREND)
j e PERFORMANCE WAS. GOOD AND CONTINUING TOIMPROVE
- STRENGTHS
- ISE l
- SAFETY. SYSTEMS REVIEWS
- NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEE
-
- LERS l
- AGGRESSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION FOLLOWUP
- MAJOR EVENT EVALU.ATIONS
- PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES l
- CHALLENGES
- LICENSING SUBMITTAL QUALITY l
l I
c
!b
!
~ - . - . _ - . .