IR 05000400/2017008
| ML17296A727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/2017 |
| From: | Steven Rose NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RPB4 |
| To: | Hamilton T Progress Energy Carolinas |
| References | |
| IR 2017008 | |
| Download: ML17296A727 (13) | |
Text
UNITED STATES ober 23, 2017
SUBJECT:
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05000400/2017008
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
On September 28, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a Problem Identification and Resolution Biennial Inspection at your Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, and discussed the results of this inspection with you and other members of your staff.
The inspection team documented the results of this inspection in the enclosed inspection report.
Based on the inspection samples, the inspection team determined that your staffs implementation of the corrective action program was adequate to support nuclear safety. In reviewing your corrective action program, the team assessed how well your staff identified problems at a low threshold, your staffs implementation of the plants process for prioritizing and evaluating these problems, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken to resolve these problems. In each of these areas, the team determined that your staffs performance was adequate to support nuclear safety.
The team also evaluated other processes your staff used to identify issues for resolution. These included your use of audits and self-assessments to identify latent problems and your incorporation of lessons learned from industry operating experience into plant programs, processes, and procedures. The team determined that your staffs performance in each of these areas was adequate to support nuclear safety.
Additionally, the team determined that your plants management maintains a safety-conscious work environment adequate to support nuclear safety. Based on the teams observations, personnel are willing to raise concerns related to nuclear safety through at least one of the several means available.
On the basis of the samples selected for review, the inspectors concluded that in general, problems were properly identified, evaluated, and corrected. The team did not identify any findings or violations of more than minor significance. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding, of the NRC's Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRCs Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Steven D. Rose, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Projects Docket No.: 05000400 License No.: NPF-63
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000400/2017008 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
REGION II==
Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63 Report No.: 05000400/2017008 Licensee: Duke Energy Progress, LLC Facility: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: 5413 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, NC 27562 Dates: September 11-28, 2017 Inspectors: D. Jackson, Project Engineer, Team Leader L. Dymek, Reactor Inspector A. Patz, Resident Inspector M. Toth, Project Engineer Approved by: Steven D. Rose, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure
SUMMARY
Inspection Report 05000400/2017008; September 11-28, 2017; Duke Energy Progress, LLC,
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Biennial Inspection of the Problem Identification and Resolution Program.
The inspection was conducted by three regional inspectors and a resident inspector. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 6.
Identification and Resolution of Problems The inspectors concluded that problems were properly identified, evaluated, prioritized, and corrected. The licensee effectively identified problems and entered them into the corrective action program (CAP) for resolution. Generally, prioritization and evaluation of issues were adequate, cause evaluations were adequate, and corrective actions specified for problems were acceptable. Overall, corrective actions developed and implemented for issues were generally effective and implemented in a timely manner.
The inspectors determined that audits and self-assessments were adequate in identifying deficiencies and areas for improvement in the CAP, and appropriate corrective actions were developed to address the issues identified. The licensee appropriately evaluated industry operating experience for relevance to the facility and entered applicable items in the CAP. The licensee appropriately incorporated industry and internal operating experience in its cause evaluations.
Based on discussions and interviews conducted with plant personnel from various departments, the inspectors determined that personnel at the site felt free to raise safety concerns and to use the CAP to resolve concerns.
No findings were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution
.1 Corrective Action Program Effectiveness
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees CAP procedures which described the administrative process for initiating and resolving problems primarily through the use of nuclear condition reports (NCRs). To verify that problems were being properly identified, appropriately characterized, and entered into the CAP, the inspectors reviewed NCRs that had been issued between August 2015 and July 2017, including a detailed review of selected NCRs associated with the following systems: essential services chilled water, emergency service water, high head safety injection, instrument air, and AC power (including the emergency diesel generators and 480V breakers). To ensure samples were reviewed across all cornerstones of safety identified in the NRCs Reactor Oversight Process, the inspectors selected a representative number of NCRs that were identified and assigned to the major plant departments, including organizational effectiveness, emergency preparedness, health physics, and security. These NCRs were reviewed to assess each departments threshold for identifying and documenting plant problems, thoroughness of evaluations, and adequacy of corrective actions.
Where possible, the inspectors independently verified that the corrective actions were implemented as intended.
The inspectors conducted plant walkdowns of equipment associated with the selected systems and other plant areas to assess the material condition and to look for any deficiencies that had not been previously entered into the CAP. The inspectors also reviewed maintenance history, work orders and requests, and associated system health reports. Items reviewed mostly covered a period of two years; however, in accordance with Inspection Procedure 71152, Problem Identification and Resolution, a five-year review was performed for selected systems for age-related equipment issues.
Control room reviews were also performed to assess operator challenges and to ascertain if deficiencies were entered into the CAP. The inspectors reviewed the main control room deficiency list, operator workarounds, and operator burden screenings and verified appropriate compensatory measures were implemented for deficient equipment.
The inspectors conducted a detailed review of selected NCRs to assess the adequacy of the root cause, apparent cause, and quick cause evaluations of the problems identified.
The inspectors reviewed these evaluations against the issues discussed in the NCRs and the guidance in licensee procedures, AD-PI-ALL-0101, Root Cause Evaluations, AD-PI-ALL-0102, Apparent Cause Evaluations, and AD-PI-ALL-0103, Quick Cause Evaluations. The inspectors assessed if the licensee had adequately determined the cause(s) of identified problems, and had adequately addressed operability, reportability, common cause, generic concerns, extent of condition, and extent of cause, as required.
The review also assessed if the licensee had appropriately identified and prioritized corrective actions to prevent recurrence for significant conditions adverse to quality.
The inspectors reviewed site trend reports to determine if the licensee effectively trended identified issues and initiated appropriate corrective actions when adverse trends were identified. The inspectors observed the centralized screening team meetings, where NCRs were screened for significance, to determine whether the licensee was identifying, accurately characterizing, and entering problems into the CAP at an appropriate threshold. The inspectors also attended various plant meetings to observe management oversight functions of the corrective action process. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment Problem Identification Based on reviews and walkdowns of accessible portions of the selected systems, the inspectors determined that generally, deficiencies were being identified and placed in the CAP. The inspectors determined that the licensee was generally effective in identifying and entering problems into the CAP, and there was a low threshold for entering issues into the CAP. This conclusion was based on a review of the requirements for initiating NCRs as described in licensee procedure AD-PI-ALL-0100, and licensee managements expectation that personnel were encouraged to enter issues into the CAP in accordance with the procedure. Additionally, site management was actively involved in the CAP and focused appropriate attention on significant plant issues.
Problem Prioritization and Evaluation Based on the review of NCRs sampled by the inspection team during the onsite period, the inspectors concluded that problems were generally prioritized and evaluated in accordance with the NCR significance determination guidance in licensee procedure AD-PI-ALL-0100. The inspectors determined that in general, adequate consideration was given to system or component operability and associated plant risk.
The inspectors determined that licensee personnel had conducted root cause and apparent cause analyses in compliance with the licensees CAP procedures and assigned cause determinations were appropriate, considering the significance of the issues being evaluated. A variety of formal causal-analysis techniques were used to evaluate NCRs depending on the type and complexity of the issue consistent with the applicable cause evaluation procedures.
Effectiveness of Corrective Actions Based on a review of corrective action documents, interviews with licensee staff, and verification of completed corrective actions, the inspectors determined that overall, corrective actions were timely, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues, and effective, in that conditions adverse to quality were corrected. For significant conditions adverse to quality, the corrective actions directly addressed the cause and effectively prevented recurrence. The team reviewed performance indicators, NCRs, and effectiveness reviews, as applicable, to verify that the significant conditions adverse to quality had not recurred. Generally, effectiveness reviews for corrective actions to prevent recurrence were sufficient to ensure corrective actions were properly implemented and were effective.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Use of Operating Experience
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors examined licensee programs for reviewing industry operating experience (OE), and licensee procedure AD-PI-ALL-0400, Operating Experience Program. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees OE database to assess the effectiveness of how external and internal OE information was used to prevent similar or address recurring problems at the plant. Licensee evaluations of selected OE documents (NRC generic communications, 10 CFR Part 21 reports, licensee event reports, vendor notifications, plant internal operating experience items, etc.), issued since August 2015, were reviewed to determine if the licensee had appropriately evaluated each notification for applicability to Shearon Harris, and whether issues identified through these reviews were entered into the CAP. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment Based on a review of documentation related to the review of operating experience issues, the inspectors determined that the licensee was generally effective in screening OE for applicability to the plant. Industry OE was evaluated at either the corporate or plant level depending on the source and type of the document. Relevant information was then forwarded to the applicable department for further action or informational purposes. OE issues requiring action were appropriately entered into the CAP for tracking and closure. Additionally, OE was included in root cause and apparent cause evaluations in accordance with licensee procedures.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Self-Assessments and Audits
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed audits and self-assessment reports, including those which focused on problem identification and resolution, to assess the thoroughness and effectiveness of the licensees audits and self-assessments. Additionally, the inspectors verified that problems identified through those activities were appropriately prioritized and entered into the CAP for resolution in accordance with the applicable licensee procedures. The inspectors also verified the audits and self-assessments were consistent with the NRCs assessment of the licensees CAP. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment The inspectors determined that the scopes of self-assessments and audits were adequate. Self-assessments were detailed and critical, as evidenced by findings consistent with the inspectors independent review. The inspectors verified that NCRs were created to document all areas for improvement and findings resulting from the self-assessments and verified that actions were completed consistently with those recommendations. Overall, the licensee performed evaluations that were technically accurate. Site trend reports were thorough and a low threshold was established for evaluation of potential trends, as evidenced by the NCRs reviewed that were initiated as a result of adverse trends.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.4 Safety-Conscious Work Environment
a. Inspection Scope
During the course of the inspection, the team assessed the plants safety-conscious work environment through a review of the plants Employee Concerns Program (ECP)and interviews with various department personnel, including contractors. The team reviewed a sample of ECP issues to verify that concerns were being properly reviewed and identified deficiencies were being resolved and entered into the CAP when appropriate. Both informal discussions and formal interviews with plant personnel were used to develop a general perspective of the safety-conscious work environment at the site and to determine if any conditions existed that would cause personnel to be reluctant to raise safety concerns. The team also reviewed the sites most recent safety culture assessment. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
b. Assessment Based on the interviews conducted and the NCRs reviewed, the inspectors determined that licensee management emphasized the need for all personnel to identify and report problems using the appropriate methods established within the administrative programs, including the CAP and the ECP. These methods were readily accessible to all personnel. Based on discussions conducted with a sample of plant personnel from various departments, the inspectors determined that workers felt free to raise issues, and that management encouraged personnel to place issues into the CAP for resolution.
The inspectors did not identify any reluctance on the part of the licensee staff to report safety concerns.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
On September 28, 2017, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Ms. Hamilton and other members of the site staff. The inspectors confirmed that proprietary information was not retained by the inspectors or documented in this report.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel
- R. Andrews, Engineering
- L. Bennett, Aging Management Program
- J. Duhon, Performance Improvement
- B. Flood, Engineering
- J. Glasser, Engineering
- T. Hamilton, Site Vice President
- C. Jernigan, Operations
- K. King, Radiation Protection
- G. Moreno, Operations
- M. Parker, Radiation Protection
- B. Rhoades, Engineering
- B. Scharff, Engineering
- N. Sealander, Engineering
- M. Setzer, Engineering
- T. Stephens, Regulatory Affairs
- B. Thompson, Performance Improvement
- C. Tucker, Engineering
- T. Wagner, Engineering
NRC personnel
- J. Zeiler, Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Rose, Branch Chief
LIST OF REPORT ITEMS
Opened/Closed/Discussed None