IR 05000250/1998099
| ML17354B155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17354B154 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-98-99, 50-251-98-99, NUDOCS 9810300161 | |
| Download: ML17354B155 (10) | |
Text
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 50-250/98-99 AND 50-251/98-99 BACKGROUND The SALP board convened on September 8,
1998, to assess the nuclear safety performance of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant for the period August 18, 1996. through August 22, 1998.
The board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6.
"Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
Board Members were B. S. Mallett (Board Chairperson).
Director. Division of Reactor Safety:
C. A. Casto.
Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects:
and F. J.
Hebdon, Director, Project Directorate II-3, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This Assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.
II.
"PLANT OPERATIONS This functional area assesses the control and execution of activities directly related to operating the plant.
It includes activities such as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and system lineups.
Thus, it includes activities such as monitoring and logging plant conditions, normal operations, response to transient and off-normal conditions, adequacy and implementation of emergency operating procedures
.and abnormal operating procedures, manipulating the reactor and auxiliary controls, and control room professionalism.
It includes initial and requalification training of licensed operators.
Overall performance in the area of Plant Operations was superior during this assessment period.
Effective management of programs and activities
.
supported safe. reliable plant'perations.
Strong management oversight of Operations was noted with the active u'se of safety committees, and by senior corporate and plant management involvement. Conservative decision
. making with a strong emphasis on safety risk assessment was evident throughout the period.
Quality Assurance activities contributed significantly to awareness and resolution of operational and process issues.
Management made effective use of self-assessments to identify problems.
Corrective actions implemented were effective in resolving issues.
Operators demonstrated excellent performance in the conduct of routine operations.
Control room conduct was effective in exercising controls to facilitate proper focus on safety.
including alarm response, communications, and access control.
Operators demonstrated a thorough understanding of'afety risk assessment, specific duties and responsibilities regarding the maintenance rule, and health physics requirements.
Operators responded promptly and with appropnate attention to safety for abnormal plant evolutions including reactor 98i0300ihi 9'8fOOi PDR ADOCK 05000250
trips-and transients.
Operators responded to events promptly to avert unnecessary challenges to plant systems.
Outage performance, including shut down and restart activities, remained strong and safety focused.
Full core off-loads were used during refueling outages to eliminate the risk associated with mid-loop operations.
Reacti.vity management controls were-effective as evidenced by mode changes, criticality, and power ascension testing all conducted with a focus on limiting risk and maintaining plant safety.
Safety system configuration control was good with some isolated
';problems.
System alignments were proper with system engineer involvement and knowledge evident.
Implementation of the equipment clearance process was strong including coordination with maintenance activities.
Most operating procedures provided sufficient guidance for system configuration.
Noted exceptions in configuration management were related to deficiencies in administrative controls.
Operator training was supportive of plant activities.
There were proactive efforts to conduct simulator exercises to train on upcoming plant evolutions.
Operator r equalification training supported safe operations.
Human performance in operations was good.
A negative performance trend was observed early during the assessment period.
Several significant human errors led to plant transients.
technical specification non-compliances and safety system inoperability.
Some human errors indicated knowledge deficiencies with equipment operation and were due to errors primarily during local system operation.
While this trend was identified and reversed through effective self-a'ssessment, some examples of human errors continued throughout the assessment period.
The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.
III.
MAINTENANCE This functional area assesses activities associated with either diagnostic, predictive, preventive.
or corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and components, or maintenance of the physical condition of the plant:
and training of the maintenance staff.
It also includes the conduct of surveillance testing, inservice inspection and testing, instrument calibrations, equipment operability testing, post-maintenance testing.,post-outage testing, containment leak ratd testing and special testing.
'upport to operations of the facility continued to be superior.
Response to emergent equipment problems and corrective maintenance was effective in preventing repetitive problems.
Maintenance was well planned and management and staff work controls resulted in excellent subsequent equipment performance.
Teamwork and interface between maintenance and operations was noteworthy.
There were only.isolated
f5I
instances of work control problems.
The licensee was aggressive in reductions and control of backlogged requests for. maintenance work.
Predictive and preventive maintenance program performance was strong with a focus on safety.
Management and staff attention to material condition resulted in few operational problems during the last half of
~the'asse'ssment period.
One area in which performance was not strong was the extent of condition monitoring associated with corrosion of piping and supports.
Conduct of surveillance testing and instrument calibration activities
'-significantly improved from that observed during the previous assessment
.
= period.
Ownership and proactive oversight resulted in few plant
'roblems because of individuals performing testing.
Attention to industry problems and safety system vulnerability and/or risk to system roblems was strong throughout the assessment period.
Troubleshooting y Instrumentation and Control technicians and attention by maintenance and operations staff were effective in preventing and addressing emergent problems during testing in all but a few examples.
In-service inspection and testing activities were planned well and were effective in detecting degradation of equipment arid/or structures.
Management and.staff were quick to effect corrective actions for deficiencies identified during inspection and testing activities.
Selt-assessment and quality assurance audit performance was thorough and aggressive in scope.
Feedback and corrective action of identified issues were timely and complete in addressing the issue.
Management and staff were proactive in integrating assessment and audits into the day-to-day plant operations.
The Maintenance area is rated Category 1.
IV.
ENGINEERING This functional-area assesses the adequacy of technical and engineering support for all plant activities.
It includes all licensee activities associated with the design control; the design, installation, and
. testing of plant modifications: engineering and technical support for operations.
outages.
maintenance.
testing, surveillance, and procurement activities: configuration management:
design-basis information and its retrieval: training of engineering staff; and support for licensing activities.
Performance in Engineering continued.to be at a superior level.
The licensee's review of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
was a proactive approach to identifying potential problems with design
documentation.
Programs for controlling and maintaining the current-licensing basis were generally effective in finding conditions that are outside the design basis of the plant.
The licensee has been aggressive in analyzing these conditions and implementing corrective actions when necessary.
-Hodificetions were designed.
implemented.'-tested, and documented with attention to design control and priorities to improve safe operations.
There was a focus on adequate planning, preparation, and thoroughness in safety screening and analysis.
'Engineering continued to demonstrate strong support for operations.
Day-to-day interaction and resolution of plant operational issues were timely and thorough. with proper attention given to safety.
Support to outages was well planned and organized to effect efficiency and a focus on safety.
Support for evaluation of risk and on-line removal of
- equipment from service was comprehensive and an effective aid to operati.ons.
Engineering involvement and interface with other organizations were strong.
Good teamwork was observed in many areas including outages.
modifications, and testing.
A noteworthy example was the excellent
'erformance by reactor engineering in the performance of the initial criticality and low power physics tests during restart from the Unit 3 refueling outage.
The Event Review Team activities were thorough, demonstrated good root cause assessment.
and corrective actions were appropriate.to address the identified problem.
Engineering support for maintenance was excellent as evidenced by focused attention on safety issues such as the reliability of the auxiliary feedwater system.
and by implementation of the performance standards, outlined in the NRC's Haintenance Rule regulations.
Testing and surveillance programs were comprehensive.
well documented and controlled.
However, the initial analysis to support corrective actions for recent problems with corrosion in piping was not well-documented.
In general, licensing submittals were timely and of excellent quality.
Host submittals were well written and completely addressed the issues needed to support the request.
Special engineering.projects wer e conducted with thoroughness and a high technical quality.
A noteworthy example was a safety system engineering audit of the auxiliary feedwater system.
The licensee was well informed of industry's experience and regulatory requirements.
The safety evaluation program. including 10 CFR.,50.59 reviews, was effective in identifying and resolving safety issue /
The*System Engineering group was involved in ongoing problems.
A strength was noted in the System Engineers'nowledge of their
.respective systems.
In contrast to this, however, there were some deficiencies in knowledge in the use of the standards outlined in the NRC's Maintenance Rule.
The licensee conducted proactive-self-assessments with attention to detail and completeness.
The Plant Review Board process for modification prioritization was effective and demonstrated strong management oversight of the site's long range planning activities.
Excellent preparation and knowledge of'he subject areas and the
'odification 'were displayed during design review meetings.
The Engineering area is rated Category 1.
V.
PLANT SUPPORT This functional area assesses all activities related to the plant support function. including radiological controls.
security, chemistry, and fire protection.
It also includes activities associated with occupational radiation safety; radioactive waste management; radiological effluent control and monitoring; transportation of radioactive materials; licensee performance during emergency preparedness exercises and actual events that test emergency plans; emergency plan notifications: interactions with onsite and offsite emergency response organizations during exercises and actual events; safeguards measures that protect plant equipment, including physical security. fitness-for-duty, access authorization, and control of special nuclear. material; housekeeping controls; and training of staff.
The radiological control program was 'effective in controlling radiation source terms.
As a result, individual and collective radiation doses were well below regulatory limits.
Although knowledge of radiation work control dose limits was sometimes deficient, implementation of good radiation practices was strong throughout the assessment period.
Management and staff continued to be proactive in reducing the amount of radioactive material in gaseous and liquid effluents released into the environment.
This diligent attention and oversight also resulted in effective controls for the amount of radioactively contaminated materials in inventory onsite.
In contrast to these results, multiple occurrences of inattention resulted in inadequate control of contaminated material and personnel contaminations.
Aggressive chemistry control for primary and secondary water quality maintained key parameters well below action levels and resulted in few instances of equipment and piping problems caused by chemical, interactions.
There was excellent teamwork between the chemistry and radiological control. organizations to effect processes to aid in the control of the radiation exposure source term in pipin t Management and staff performance in the emergency.preparedness area continued at a superior level as evidenced by performance during exercises and in response to actua'1 events.
The primary emergency response facilities
'and individual responders were effectively maintained and qualified, respectively.
through surveillance and training programs.
There were some instances of poor performance in off-'hour timely augmentation of facilities. attention to changes, and Operations Support Center exercise activities.
Security program performance continued at a superior level with a key contributor being management and staff attention to day-to-day
-'perations'he l-icensee.was proactive in identifying problems and effecting changes to improve the controls and performance.
A noteworthy example was the improvement in the fitness-for-duty program.
Equipment performance continued to be very reliable because of focused efforts to maintain and promptly correct emergent problems.
Qualifications and training of staff remained strengths.
Early in the assessment period, some human performance problems were noted in the implementation of the access authorization program.
Self-assessments were effective with notable efforts recognized in security and emergency preparedness.
The fire protection program was well implemented with strong fire brigade performance'.
Equipment and piping were in very good materiel condition because of an effective maintenance and testing program.
Cleanliness and housekeeping of the nuclear plant. facilities were good in most areas with few deficiencies noted in infrequently inspected areas.
The Plant.Support area is rated Category (
FPSL
Distribution w/encl:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan L. J. Callan.
EDO H. L. Thompson, Jr.,
DEDR M. Tschi ltz, Regional Coordinator, EDO S. Collins, NRR A. Galante.
CIO J.
Miraglia, NRR W. Hehl; RI G. Grant. RIII P.
Gwynn.
RIV K. Perkins, WCFO J
~ Lieberman, OE A. Hodgdon.
OGC B. Keeling,'PA/CA D. Gamberoni, SALP Program Manager.
NRR L. Plisco. RII K. Clark, RII.
PAO L. Wert. RII S. Rudisail, RII K. Jabbour,.NRR G. Hopper, RII DRS Branch Chiefs PUBLIC NRC Senior Resident Inspector U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 1448~.
Homestead, FL 33090 Federal Emergency Management Agency ATTN:
Mr. William McSwain. Chief Technical Hazards Branch 3003 Chamblee-.Tucker Road
~ Chamblee, GA 30341 OFFICE SI GRATINE D
/Rl SR isai L.vyg DRP/RI I LIJert DRP/RlI CCasto DRS/Rl I FH ORA/RII JJohnson DATE 10/
)
/98 10/
)
/98 10/
)
/98
/98 10/
i
/98 10/
/98 RO YES RO OFFICIAL RECSS GPY DOCNIENT NAME:
G.~
TXSALP~TPSALP 10/
/98 YES NO