ML20134J850

Summarizes 961105 Meeting W/Tva at Plant to Discuss Results of SALP Rept.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML20134J850
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	11/07/1996
From:	Lesser M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 9611180094
Download: ML20134J850 (15)

Text

. - . - . .

i November 7, 1996 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

President. TVA Nuclear and i

Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout Place

, 1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, DOCKET NOS. 50 260, 50-296

Dear Mr. Kingsley:

On November 5,1996, the NRC staff met at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant with representatives of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant staff. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the results of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Report. Enclosure 1 is a list of the individuals who attended the meeting, and Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the material supplied by the NRC at the meeting.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2.

Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. l 1

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. 1 Sincerely, W$5W Es.Lasser Mark S. Lesser, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50 260, 50 290 License Nos. DPR 52, DPR 68

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Handout Material cc w/encls: (See page 2) i 150082

~

9611180094 961107 PDR ADOCK 05000260

,i

e

• WA 2 cc w/encls:

Mr. O. J. Zeringue, Senior Vice Pres. Mr. E. Preston, Plant Manager Nuclear Operations Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place P. O. Box 2000 1101 Market Street Decatur AL 35609 Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 General Counsel Dr. Mark 0. Medford, Vice Pres.

Tennessee Valley Authority Engineering and Technical Services ET 10H t Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive 6A Lookout Place Knoxville, TN 37902 1101 Market Street Chattar,ooga, TN 37402-2801 Chairman Limestone County Commission Mr. R. R. Baron, General Manager 310 West Washington Street '

Nuclear Licensing Athens AL 35611 4J Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street State Health Officer Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Alabama Dept. of Public Health 434 Monroe Street Mr. P. Salas, Manager Montgomery, AL 36130 1701 ,

Licensing & Industry Affairs 4J Blue Ridge Distribution w/encls: (See page 3) 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Mr. R. D. Machon, Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ,

Tennessee Valley Authority  !

P. O. Box 2000 l Decatur, AL 35602 Mr. T. E. Abney, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609 I

i i

l ..

l TVA 3 l Distribution w/encls:

l E. W. Merschoff, RII M. S. Lesser, RII F. J. Hebdon, NRR J. F. Williars, NRR l

S. E. Sparks, RII.

'H. L. Whiterer. RII C. F. Smith, RII D. H. Thompson, RII J. H. Moorman, RII E. D. Testa RII l PUBLIC l - -

NRC Senior Resident Inspector

! U.S; Niiclear Regulatory Commission 10833 3 haw Road o Athen.",, AL 35611 l

[

l i

0FTfrF DRP/Rff .

SIGNATURE bb f,-

hAME $5 parks:vyg DATE 11 / h / % 11 / / 96 11 /~ / 96 11 / / 96 11 / /% 11 / / 96 COPY 7 YES NO YES NO YES NO - YES NO YES NO YES NO Ott1LIAL RLt,UKU LUFY _UU(,UMLNI NAM-. G;\BR6.BF\5)LPFKtd 5UM 7

=

i k

LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)

J. P. Jaudon, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RII M. S. Lesser, Branch Chief Division of Reactor Projects (DRP) Branch 6. RII H. J. Morgan Acting Senior Resident Inspector, Branch 6. DRP, RII J. F. Williams, Senior Licensing Project Manager. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation K. M. Clark, Public Affairs Officer, RII Licensee Attendees:

0. D. Kingsley, President. TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer M. O. Medford, Vice President. Engineering and Technical Services R. D. Machon, Site Vice President R. R. Baron, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance and Licensing K. W. Singer, Maintenance and Modifications Manager H. L. Williams, Site Engineering Manager T. Shriver Site Nuclear Assurance and Licensing Manager R. G. Jones, Operations Manager C. M. Crane Assistant Plant Manager S. G. Bugg, Acting Manager, Radiological Control and Chemistry T. Johnson, Browns Ferry Communications K. W. Whittenburg, TVA Communications Other Attendees:

H. E. iiicks, Jr., Morgan County Emergent.'y Management Agency S. Guerrera, Jr., Alabama Emergency Mar.agement Agency P. W. Williams, Alabama Emergency Management Agency M. Cash. Alabama Radiational Control T. Taylor Back, Alabama Radiationul Control H. Frost Lawrence County Emergency Management R. Yelverton, Limestone County Emergency Management K. Parton, Huntsville Madison County Emergency Management Agency R. Adams, Florence / Lauderdale Emergency Management Agency l M. K. Williams, Florence / Lauderdale Emergency Management Agency 1

1 I

Enclosure 1

~

4  %>

l

• • • W SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF l 1

LICENSEE PERFORMANCE l (SALP)

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT l UNITS 2&3 i

APPRAISAL PERIOD: March 19,1995 through  ;

September 7,1996 PRESENTATION y,,1,,,,, ,

November 5,1996

i SALP PRQCESS Resident

-> Inspector Program ',,

'N Region \

x' g Based Inspections SALP REGIONAL Licensing SALP ADMINISTRATOR g >

w Special - -

Initiatives ,

/

z Event Reviews Master inspection SALPf'RO Cli3 00 __

l 1

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i SALP BOARD MEMBERS J

! o JOHNS JAUDON: Acting Deputy Director i Division of Reactor Projects l Region II o BRUCE MALLETT: Director j Division of Nuclear Materials Safety '

! Region ll i

o FRED HEBDON: Director

Project Directorate ll-3 l Office of Nuclear l Reactor Regulation i

~

PLANT OPERATIONS CATEGORYl STRENGTHS:

e STRONG MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT e OPERATOR KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE DURING PLANT MANEUVERS e EXCELLENT OVERALL PERFORMANCE DURING UNIT 3 STARTUP TESTING AND EFFECTIVE TRANSITION TO DUAL UNIT OPERATION e PLANT MANAGEMENT WAS RESPONSIVE TO CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS SALP REPORT:

CONTROL ROOM PROFESSIONALISM OPERATIONAL CONTROLS DURING SHUTDOWN CONDITIONS

CHALLENGES:

e QUALITY OF SOME SAFETY ASSESSMENTS AND '

EVALUATIONS t i

e CONTINUED IMPROVEMENTS IN SELF-ASSESSMENTS  !

l 1

i

MAINTENANCE 1

CATEGORY 2 i

j STRENGTHS:

o PLANNING HIGH RISK MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES I e LOW BACKLOGS MAINTAINED DURING UNIT 3

! RESTART

e IN-SERVICE INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND l EXAMINATIONS

e OUTAGE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES WELL COORDINATED WITH ACTIVE SUPERVISORY j INVOLVEMENT 2

e SAFETY SYSTEM AVAILABILITY e UNIT 3 POWER ASCENSION TESTING  ;

i I

i i

C11ALLENGES:

e IN-SERVICE TESTING AND POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING e

PROCEDURE ADHERENCE AND ATTENTION TO DETAIL e

CONTROLS AND SUPERVISION OVER ACTIVITIES e

EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES NOT SCHEDULED FOR RESOLUTION AND MAINTENANCE DURING OUTAGES e EQUIPMENT FAILURES CAUSED SOME PLANT l TRIPS AND TRANSIENTS l

l

)

ENGINEERING l

CATEGORY 2 STRENGTHS; e RESOURCES COMMITTED TO UPGRADE PLANT l PROGRAMS, PROCEDURES, AND FACILITIES e EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE LICENSING BASIS HAVE IDENTIFIED LONG-STANDING PROBLEMS e QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM i

I l

. ~

CHALLENGES:

e ENGINEERING SUPPORT TO OPERATIONS AND MAINTEN'ANCE e MODIFICATION TESTING TO CONFIILM TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS e IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50.59

PLANT SUPPORT CATEGORYl STRENGTHS:

i e RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL PROGRAM e ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND EFFLUENT CONTROLS I e EXCELLENT PLANT CHEMISTRY PROGRAMS .

l e EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS l

e IMPROVED SECURITY SYSTEM AND DETECTION l l

e REDUCED NUMBER OF FIRE PROTECTION l COMPENSATORY ACTIONS i e THOROUGH SELF-ASSESSMENTS CHALLENGES:

e CONTINUOUS AIR MONITOR MAINTENANCE

i 4

3 I

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNITS 2&3

SALP RATING

SUMMARY

l

! I i

i i

l FUNCTIONAL RATING RATING AREA THIS PERIOD LAST PERIOD PLANT OPERATIONS 1 2

\ MAINTENANCE 2 2 ENGINEERING 2 2

! PLANT SUPPORT 1 1 i

1 i

i i

e 1

._ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ ._._ _ _ _ _ -~

4 .

=

i October 16, 1996

! Tennessee Valley Authority 1 ATTN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

2 President. TVA Nuclear and i Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout Place l 1101 Market' Street j Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (REPORT NOS. 50 260/96 99 AND 50-296/96 99) t

Dear Mr. Kingsley:

The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) has been completed for your Browns Ferry facility. The facility was evaluated for the period of March 19, 1995, through September 7. 1996. The results of the evaluation are documented in the enclosed SALP report. This report will be discussed with you at a public meeting to be held at che Browns Ferry site at 10:00 a.m.. Central Time, on November 5, 1996.

The SALP process assesses licensee performance in four functional areas:

Operations. Maintenance. Engineering and Plant Support. Your performance in Operations improved to a superior level, and the overall conduct in the area of Plant Support was superior. The functional areas of Engineering and Maintenance continued at the good level.

Operations was characterized by improved performance in corrective action program implementation, self assessments, control room professionalism and shutdown controls. An effective transition was made to dual unit operations.

Maintenance performance during outages. planning, and problem identification was good. Unit 3 systems were thoroughly tested during startup. Weaknesses were identified with in service testing, post maintenance testing and procedure adherence.

Engineering was characterized by continued good performance toward committing resources to upgrade plant programs.and facilities. Weaknesses were identified in support to operations and maintenance which resulted in equipment problems, inadequate safety assessments and testing problems.

In the area of Plant Support, there was continued superior performance in radiological controls, emergency preparedness security and fire protection.

___... _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ . . . - . - . _ . . _ . _ . . _ -

? .

TVA 2 Additionally, quality assurance effectively provided oversight review of plant activities and anticipated potential problems areas. Self assessments for Plant Support were thorough while improving in other functional areas.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

I look forward to discussing this assessment with you.

Sincerely.

(Original signed by S. D. Ebneter)

Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50 260. 50 296 License Nos. DPR 52. DPR 68

Enclosure:

SALP Browns Ferry Report cc w/ encl: (See page 3)

i 4

TVA 3

cc w/ encl

! Mr. O. J. Zeringue. Senior Vice President TVA Representative Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority i Tennessee Valley Authority One Massachusetts Avenue

, 6A Lookout Place Suite 300 l 1101 Market Street Washington, DC 20001 i Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 L General Counsel

Dr. Mark O. Medford. Vice Pres. Tennessee Valley Authority 4 Engineering and Technical Services ET 10H .

4 Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Sunnit Hill Drive i

6A Lookout Place Knoxville. TN 37902

1101 Market Street 4 Chattanooga. TN 37402-2801 Chairman Limestone County Commission 4

Mr. R. R. Baron. General Manager 310 West Washington Street Nuclear Licensing Athens. AL 35611

4J Blue Ridge

! 1101 Market Street State Health Officer i Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 AL Dept. of Public Health q 434 Monroe Street

Mr. P. Salas. Manager Montgomery, AL 36130 1701 Licensing & Industry Affairs

4J Blue Ridge INPO

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Distribution w/ enc 1

(See page 4)

Mr. R. D. Machon. Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant l Tennessee Valley AJthority

P. 0. Box 2000 i Decatur, AL 35602 J

t Mr. T. E. Abney, Manager i Licensing and Industry Affairs i Browns Ferry Nuclear P1 ant

. Tennessee Valley Authority

P. O. Box 2000

Decatur, AL 35609 1

L

1 1

i 4

l -

I -

I l

4 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REP 0Kr I

BR(MIS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i

j 50-260/96 99 AM) 50-296/96-99 I. BACKIROWS The.SALP Board convened on September 25. 1996, to assess the nuclear safety performance of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant for the period

March 19, 1995. through September 7, 1996. The Board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6. " Systematic Assessment of i Licensee Performance." Board members were J. P. Jaudon (Board Chairperson). Acting Deputy Director. Division of Reactor Projects

4 B. S. Mallett. Director. Division of Nuclear Materials Safety; and

! F. J. Hebdon. Director. Project Directorate II 3 Office of Nuclear i Reactor Regulation. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the ,

j Regional Administrator. l i i II. PLANT OPERATIONS

{

i This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities 1

directly related to operating the facility. It includes activities such  !

i as'startup. power operation plant shutdown, and response to transients.

It also includes initial and requalification training programs for j licensed operators.

4

Overall performance in the plant operations area was superior throughout i this assessment period. Strong management involvement in all aspects of

! plant operation, including day to day operational activities, was clearly evident. Management policies and expectations for operations were effectively communicated to the plant staff.

Operator knowledge end performance during plant maneuvers were superior

tiroughout the period. This was demonstrated by handling plant

[ transients effectively and proper implementation of the emergency

responses for reactor trips and off normal conditions. Responses by the

!' Operations' staff were decisive and conservative. Particularly noteworthy were the excellent overall performance during Unit 3 startup testing and effective transition to dual unit operation.

f

. Plant management has been responsive to challenges iden b ified in the previous SALP report. Potential distractions in control room operations were addressed such that control room professionalism is now considered a strength. Three part communications by the control room staff.

improved control room logs, and an emphasized managerial role of the shift supervisor have contributed to im)rovements in this area. In

, addition, operational controls during slutdown conditions have been i strengthened.

Enclosure i Cf / 11 n I n n v/72 QU f f Uf UeL c

2 i

Improvements were also noted in self-assessment capabilities. These include critical external assessments, the implementation of an internal self assessment program conducted by all Operations department management, and an increased emphasis to lower the threshold of Operations

• generated problem evaluation reports.

Deficiencies were identified with the quality of some safety assessments :

and evaluations, indicating a need for a more questioning attitude. In  !

addition, there were occasional examples of operator inattention to detail which resulted in component mispositions.

The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.

III. MAINTENANCE This functional area addresses activities associated with diagnostic, predictive, preventive. and corrective maintenance of structures, systems, and components. It also includes all surveillance testing, in service inspection and other tests associated with equipment and system operability.

Management involvement in maintenance was good. Maintenance activities which presented a potential risk to reliable operations were recognized, j received management attention and were thoroughly evaluated for contingencies. Personnel performance was generally good. Errors due to inattention to detail caused one reactor trip and several safety.  !

equipment actuations. Continued attention is indicated in procedure '

adherence. Controls and supervision over some activities were not I always effective, and on several occasions this adversely impacted safety equipment.

Routine maintenance was effectively planned and scheduled using a twelve week rolling schedule. The licensee effectively merged Unit 3  ;

maintenance into the existing site program and effectively controlled i backlogs within established goals. Preventive maintenance was adequately implemented although difficulties occurred in completing some activities within specified intervals. Online maintenance was formally evaluated to consider risk and the impact of simultaneous activities. Corrective maintenance was performed well in most cases.

4 However, some activities were not performed on safety systems during planned outages and inappropriately scheduled shortly after a startup.

! Outage maintenance activities were well coordinated with active supervisory involvement.. Department morning meetings were effective in' ,

establishing priorities.and safety focus. A good interface with '

0:erations and Engineering was demonstrated with "Fix it Now" teams.

1 w11ch were used for troubleshooting and repairs that did not involve l

modifications or major components.

1 4

3 Maintenance personnel continued to be effective at problem identification and implementation of the corrective action program.

Iseediate problem resolution of degraded equipment was good, although the need for scope expansion was not always recognized. Strong sophasis was placed on independent assessments by quality assurance and third parties. Departmental self assessments were initiated toward the end of the SALP period and improved in quality.

Safety system availability was high, and was maintained at or above licensee established goals. Equipment failures caused.some plant trips and transients.

In service inspection procedures were well written and appropriate.

Examinations were effectively completed by qualified personnel.

Surveillance testing was effectively performed in accordance with requirements. Overall, procedures were observed to be good and personnel were knowledgeable. The Unit 3 power ascension testing program was effectively implemented. Equipment was thoroughly tested and exercised to demonstrate readiness of operation. Some in service pump and valve tests were not correctly implemented because of inadequate procedures or inadequate understanding. Some weakpssses were found_in post maintenance testing, and the process was found to be complex. Improvement of in service testing and post maintenance testing is considered to be a challenge.

The Maintenance area is rated Category 2.

'IV. EMillEERING This functional area addresses activities associated with the design of plant modifications, engineering support for operations, maintenance, surveillance, and licensing activities.

Plant management has committed significant resources to upgrading plant programs. procedures, and facilities. Considerable efforts have been made to improve reliability and functionality of key plant equipment.

Engineering reviews have improved plant procedures and operational flexibility.-

Efforts to improve the analytic and licensing basis have been effective in identifying long standing problems which otherwise would not have been recognized. Prompt action was taken to correct the deficiencies.

Probabilistic safety analyses have been updated beyond licensing couaitments and have been incorporated into routine planning. ,

The quality monitoring program made effective use of outside reviews and has taken the initiative to review performance comprehensively in areas of. significant regulatory interest.

i l V l

. i i

i

}

i 4

l Engineering support to operations and maintenance has not been fully

) effective. Plant transients have resulted from ineffective assessment J and resolution of problems. Resolution of equipment issues needs to be improved to avoid repetitive problems which unnecessarily reduce j equipment availability.

i Major modifications generally made effective use of comprehensive review 2 and testing of systems. as evidenced by the successful restart of i Unit 3. However, after Unit 3 restart, emphasis shifted to smaller i scope modifications and testing, which do not have comparable, broad j programatic requirements. Engineering personnel and processes have not

always ensured effective and thorough implementation of technical and

regulatory requirements. This problem was illustrated by difficulties

observed in developing appropriate tests to confirm adequacy of modifications or to fulfill test requirements. Design personnel have

! not always considered actual plant process conditions or all relevant j regulatory requirements in analyses.

I Problems have been identified with site insiementation of 10 CFR 50.59.

which permits certain facility changes to se made without prior imC

review and approval. The site 10 CFR 50.59 orogram did not clearly

implement all regulatory requirements. Furt1er, instances have been observed where inadequate safety assessments have been performed.

i Recent safety assessments have lacked complete documentation of critical j thought processes.

! Plant management has taken steps to address these problems, including ,

additional engineering management review of design changes, review of l procedures and inclusion of systems engineers in design review. Site j

engineering also recently completed.a lengthy reorganization.

l I

! The Engineering area is rated Category 2. I i

i V. PUUIT SLPPORT l This functional area assesses activities related to the plant support

' function. including radiological controls, radioactive effluents and

waste. plant chemistry, emergency preparedness. security, fire

! protection and housekeeping.

i The licensee exercised strong radiological controls throughout the assessment period. As a result of oroactive management, radiation dose

to individuals and for specific worc units on site remained well within regulatory limits and goals. Planned initiatives significantly reduced 4

radiation source terms to As Low As Reasonably Achievable. The program l to control the spread of radioactive contamination was successful in achieving very low levels of individual and facility areas of 7

contamination. Aggressive environmental monitoring and effluent

controls maintained plant radioactive material releases well below j regulatory limits. Radioactive waste was processed with attention to i dose and contamination and reducing volume to external burial.

1 l

. - - . , .~. --. .. . _ . - ,, , - . - ,

0 i

}

l 5 i Radiation monitoring instrumentation performance was generally good.

l with some attention needed to continuous air monitors used to assess environmental radiation levels in the plant.

I Plant chemistry programs were excellent in control of parameters within standards and in support of plant operations. Laboratory asememment

! capabilities and staff qualifications were maintained at a level above i I

that required by the NRC.

l The emergency preparedness performance was superior. . Management and 4

staff exhibited timely and technically sound responses during exercises and actual events. The licensee was aggressive in maintaining i equipment. facilities and individual response capabilities at a level well above minimum regulatory requirements. Lessons learned were

! utilized to improve performance.

! Plant security system and detection performance improved from the previous assessment period. Control of safeguards information and fitness for duty programs remained at a high level of performance throughout the assessment period. Qualifications of staff and training continued to be strengths in the program. The licensee was proactive in looking for and implementing tools to improve performance and reduce compensatory measures.

Fire protection was good with timely and effective steps taken to address emergent issues. Fire brigade qualifications and response performance were program strengths. Fire protection systems and equipment were in good condition as a result of management support. The licensee was proactive in examining ways to improve performance.

Implementation of compensatory fire watches during maintenance and modification work was not always at the expected level of performance.

Housekeeping controls and attention remained successful in keeping frequently accessed areas clean and free of hazards.

Self assessments and audits in all areas were thorough and contributed significantly to strong performance. Management and staff were diligent in identifying and correcting problems durir the period.

The Plant Support area.is rated Category 1.

. - . .