IR 05000324/1997099
| ML20149G628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149G605 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-97-99, 50-325-97-99, NUDOCS 9707230378 | |
| Download: ML20149G628 (5) | |
Text
..
. -.
-.
..
.
'
4 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT M LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT l
BRUNSWICK STEAM EL'ICTRIC PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 50-325/97-99 AND 50-324/97-99 l
I.
BACKGROUND The SALP. board convened on June 11, 1997, to assess the nuclear safety u
performance of the Brunswick Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 for the period May 14, 1995, through May 24, ~997. The board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6 " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance." Board Members were Johns P. Jaudon, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (Board Chairperson), Bruce S. Hallett, Acting
)
Deputy Regional Administrator, Richard V. Crlenjak, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, and F. Mark Reinhart, Acting Director, Project Directorate II 1, 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, and response to transients.
It also includes initial and requalification training programs for licensed operators.
The previous SALP noted superior overall performance and a challenge with configuration control problems. Superior performance was
,
characterized by safe and reliable operations, a well trained staff with oversight from a strong management team, and clear expectations set and effectively communicated.
During this SALP period, performance in the area of Operations was superior with the overall quality of plant operations maintaining the level of performance established in the previous assessment period.
i Strong management oversight and safety focus led to only a few reactor trips during the first half of th;s SALP period. No plant trips occurred as a result of operator error, and there were no trips during l
the last half of this assessment period. The operators' response to these trips and to transients and off normal events was excellent, which further demonstrated operations' superior performance in this area.
Although configuration control problems, which could adversely affect plant operations, have been significantly reduced during this period, l
!
some configuration problems remain. Continued, isolated problems with
!
equipment tagouts and procedural errors resulting from a lack of operator attention to detail require additional management attention.
Management's use of self assessments and implementation of corrective l
actions were used to ensure a good safety focus and were noted as
strengths. The Plant Nuclear Safety Committee has maintained an appropriate safety focus in conducting their reviews.
!
9707230378 970630 l-PDR ADOCK 05000324 G
l PM
.
.
Operator training and requalification presented a challenge, and weak performance in these related areas demonstrated a need for active management involvement. Several operators failed their requalification examinations. Although successfully remediated, the operators' poor performance indicated a weakness in the effectiveness of the re ualification training.
Problems were also noted in the licensee's im lementation of the Initial Licensed Operator Training program.
The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.
III. MAIN 1ENANCE This functional area assesses activities associated with diagnostic.
- predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems and components; maintenance of physical condition of the plant;
,
and training of the maintenance staff.
It also assesses surveillance
'
testing. inservice inspection and testing, instrument calibration, operability testing, post maintenance testing, post outage testing, containment leak rate testing, and special testing.
A high level of maintenance effectiveness and quality was normally demonstrated over the period by the high availability of risk-significant components and record setting plant availability.
NRC observations of maintenance activities identified some strengths in the control and conduct of maintenance activities. Refueling outage times decreased, and units restarted following outage with only minimal problems.
Backlogs for preventive maintenance, operator work arounds related to maintenance, and corrective maintenance were low, indicating well focused and effective use of resources. The licensee has successfully used the "Fix It-Now" team to achieve expedited resolution of a large percentage of maintenance problems.
Risk insights have usually been incorporated into the planning and scheduling of maintenance activities.
Emphasis has been placed in the outage planning area on capturing and implementing the lessons learned from previous outages, which contributed to the licensee's success over
,
the assessment period in progressively reducing the length of refueling outages.
The Inservice Inspection (ISI) program implemented at the facility was wel' organized and supported, and it employed the latest technology 7.ilable. The licensee has stayed abreast of changes in ISI requirements. Areas where strong performance was evident included both reactor vessel and core shroud inspections.
An excellent training facility utilizing high quality training aids has been arovided for maintenance. Of particular note were system mockups and t1e ability to video tape training activities for enhanced feedback to students.
-
-
- -
-
.
.
Performance in the area of self-identification and correction of deficiencies was a challenge. Full advantage was not always taken of opportunities to identify component >erformance and material condition problems.,and the effectiveness of t1e preventive maintenance program in identifying such problems was occasionally limited.. At times, corrective action for known deficiencies was slow. When manage. ment attention was given to 3roblems, corrective action was normally timely with good follow throug1.
Progress has been made in implementing improved maintenance procedures. -
However, a challenge remain to sustain improvements with compliance and procedural controls in maintenance.
.
.._The Maintenance area is rated Category 1.
i IV.
ENGIEERING The functional area assesses activities associated with the design of plant modifications and engineering support for operations, maintenance, surveillance, and licensing activities.
Engineering performance had numerous problems with a variety of modifications during this assessment period. Although some of the problems identified had occurred prior to this assessment period, the resulting errors affected risk significant systems. One of these problems required all nuclear service water pumps to be declared
ino)erable, and this resulted in a dual unit shutdown. Many other
.
pro)lems, some self revealing and others NRC identified, of varying safety significance, were noted in the modifications area. The number i
i of modification issues and the fact that no sustained improving trend
'
j was found, indicated that this is a problem requiring management t
attention. There were reorganizations and management changes in
!
engineering. This instability delayed the rapid recognition and
correction of some emerging issues.
Engineering performance on the power up rate project was mixed. The
.
original licensee submittal contained several errors, which were i
subsequently identified by the licensee prior to actual implementation
'
of the power up rate. While the licensee was very responsive in correcting the errors, the late self identification of the problems resulted in a significant delay in actual implementation of the power
.
up rate. Correction of the errors required an in depth review of work performed by the licensee and its principal contractor in supporting the
power up rate. The root causes of the problems were the licensee's failure to define adequately the calculation inputs and acceptance
'.
criteria and the failure to detect errors in material developed by the contractor. The licensee's performance with res)ect to evaluations
,^
under 10 CFR 50.59 was adequate. Only minor )ro)lems with evaluations were found. Other licensee correspondence su)mitted to the staff was
usually characterized as good.
N
- ~,
,
-
,,
, - - -
-
-
- -. -.. - - -
. -
_ - - - - _. -
. _ -. -
l
.
.,
The licensee's self assessments were generally effective in identifying problems;. however, implementation of the licensee's corrective action program within engineering has not always been fully effective.
Trending of technical areas did not serve to highlight and then cause
[
. correction of the areas in which increased management attention was i
warranted. The problems with the Environmental Qualification program
)
l did not receive effective management support until after regulatory
intervention.
In this instance, the corrective action eventually
!
undertaken was comprehensive. Other examples of inadequate corrective action continued to be identified throughout the assessment period.
)
\\
l Engineering support to operations was strong this assessment period.
The Rapid Response Team provided effective proactive support
. The ability to implement effective corrective actions is a challenge.
The Engineering area is rated Category 2.
V.
PLANT SUPPORT
!
This functional area assesses activities related to the plant support function, including radiological controls, radioactive effluents and waste, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection and housekeeping programs.
!-
Radioactive waste program controls were superior and contributed significantly to minimal releases of radioactive materials to the environment. Actions by management and staff caused the elimination of
,
i several problems with systems that had previously caused surface contamination challenges for radiological controls.
l Attention to maintenance of emergency preparedness equipment and i
facilities resulted in a superior level of performance of these during
,
exercises and actual events. The licensee was proactive in providing training to individuals to assure technically sound response capabilities. Actual response to emergency events was prompt and thorough with some 3roblems in communication and delay in classification
,
during an exercise 1 eld early in the period.
Problem identification and
'
correction in the emergency preparedness area was thorough.
As in the previous assessment period, the control of external radiation sources had some deficiencies. This resulted in high values for collective radiation dose at the site. Radiation dose control programs were successful in reducing the cumulative dose achieved from one outage to the next. Radiation doses to individuals were controlled to levels well below limits in NRC regulations.
!
Control of radioactive contamination in the plant was effective in l
providing access to most areas during operations and limiting the spread
to uncontaminated areas. The problems in the control of personnel
!
i contamination events noted in the previous assessment, continued during
!
this period. The licensee was not effective in limiting these even in i
i areas designated as " clean" throughout the assessment period. Proactive I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, - _. -. _
_. _.
.,. -
.. _.
.._,...,...m.._
,
__
_
. _ _. _ _ _ _ _
-
._-
__
-
'
,.
l
steps taken during the last six months of the period were effective in significantly reducing these type events during operations.
Programs cnd )rocedures for carrying out radiation practices were excellent. Tiere were several instances identified by the licensee and the NRC, wherein poor practices or failure to follow procedures, were noted as the result of inattention. Self assessments in the i
radiological controls area had a low threshold for identifying problems:
and the assessments and corrective actions were thorough.
Fire protection performance was assessed as very good. The fire
,
protection program exhibited some deficiencies in implementation, but brigade responses to events and during drills were timely and thorough.
.
Security operations continued to be implemented in an excellent manner i
with management and staff focus on a high level of wrformance.
Response to events and challenges was excellent. Tiere were thorough
,
'
audits and timely attention to corrective actions. The licensee
!
identified significant deficiencies in the fitness for duty and access authorization programs, which were corrected during the latter part of the assessment period.
,
l Housekee)ing had some problems noted during certain work conducted l
during t1e assessment period.
Management and staff attention
significantly improved performance in these areas once problems were noted. The licensee continued to be aggressive in pursuit of cleaning
.
up targeted areas.
The Plant Support area is rated Category 2.
i l
i
,
!
l i
i i
i