IR 05000413/1993020

Discusses SALP Insp Repts 50-413/93-20 & 50-414/93-20 on 920503-931002.Informs That Overall Performance at Plant Improved Since Previous Assessment

ML20058J340
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/17/1993
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Rehn D DUKE POWER CO.
References
50-413-93-20, 50-414-93-20, NUDOCS 9312140065
Download: ML20058J340 (11)

Text

-

c ,

.

hbV 171993 Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52 Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. D. L. Rehn Site Vice President Catawba Site 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745-9635 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-413/93-20 AND 50-414/93-20)

The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) has been completed for your Catawba facilit The facility was evaluated for the period May 3, 1992 through October 2, 1993. 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 the Catawba facility on November 29, 1993, at 1:00 The performance of your Catawba facility was evaluated under the revised SALP process implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 19, 199 Performance was evaluated in the functional areas of Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Suppor Overall performance at Catawba has improved since the previous assessmen Management's attention to plant safety resulted in very good control of plant activities and good monitoring of plant equipment performance trends. The Plant Support area was evaluated as superior while Plant Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering were evaluated as goo Your safety assessment programs for identifying and correcting problems were effective in certain area The active role of management was noteworthy in making improvements in configuration control in the second refueling outage. Continuing efforts to improve your work control process were noted, including the use of your Independent Plant Evaluation to identify risks during outages and appropriately schedule wor Two areas of continuing weakness indicate that additional management focus is necessary to achieve sustained performance improvements. Your initial and requalification training program for licensed operators remained at a marginally satisfactory level without significant improvement over the previous assessment period. Additionally, procedure adherence issues were noted as a problem in three functional areas: Plant Operations, Maintenance and Engineering. Procedure adherence had also been identified in the previous SALP as a problem in the Maintenance / Surveillance area. Your attention is directed toward these challenges in the licensed operator training program and 9312140065 931117 #

PDR ADOCK 05000413  ;

G ppg M4D 1

-

. .

9 -

.

Duke Power Company 2 NO\/171993 i

in your programs for procedural adherence. These require additional management ,

attentio Any comments you have concerning our evaluation of the performance of your Catawba facility should be discussed at the public meeting and should be i submitted in writing to this office within 30 days after the meetin

Sincerely,

'. Y &

Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Enclosure:

SALP Report l

cc w/ encl:

R. C. Futrell ,

Compliance  :

Duke Power Company 4800 Concord Road ,

York, SC 29745-9635 l l

A. V. Carr, Es !

Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242-0001 J. Michael McGarry, III, Es Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washi" .on, D. C. 20005

.

North Carolina MPA-1 Suite 600 P. O. Box 29513 Raleigh, NC 27626-0513 Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 cc w/ encl: See page 3

y

-

-.

.

Duke Power Company 3

, cc w/ encl: Continued Richard P. Wilson, Es Assistant Attorney General S. C. Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 Michael Hirsch Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, Sw, Room 840 Washington, D. C. 20472 North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation P, O. Box 27306 Raleigh, NC 27611 Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Saluda River Electric Cooperative, In P. O. Box 929 Laurens, SC 29360 T. Richard Puryear Nuclear Technical Services Manager Carolinas District Westinghouse Electric Corporation 2709 Water Ridge Parkway, Ste. 430 Charlotte, NC 28217 County Manager of York County York County Courthouse York, SC 29745 Piedmont Municipal Power Agency 121 Village Drive Greer, SC 29651 G. A. Copp-Licensing - EC050 Duke Power Company P. O. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 INPO

. . - _ - . . . - . - . . -

-

.

,

. .

Duke Power Company 4 NOV 171993  ;

,

l bcc w/encls:

Chairman Selin Commissioner K. C. Rogers Commissioner F. J. Remick Commissioner E. G. de Planque ,

J. M. Taylor, EDO .

J. Lieberman, OE '

J. F. Plisco, Regional  !

Coordinator, ED0 .

T. E. Murley, NRR -

L. J. Callan, NRR 5. A. Varga, NRR F. Allenspach, SALP Coordinator, NRR ,

Regional Administrators, RI, RIII l RIV, and RV  !

.. A. Reyes, RII E. W. Merschcff, RII  !

J. R. Johnson, RII A. Julian, RII i A. Peebles, RII E. Cline, RII .

• M. Collins, RII M. B. Shymlock, RII J. J. Blake, RII

>

L. L. Lawyer, RII W. H. Rankin, RII l T. Decker, RI; r K. P. Barr, RII .

D. R. McGuire, RII A. R. Herdt, RII l M. S. Lesser, RII r R. L. Watkins, RII .

R. J. Freudenberger, RII K. M. Clark, RII l FEMA i

Document Control Desk i,

.

'"J #

g8 S*RII

.

RII RII J RI RII RWatkins er AHerdt JJo Nson JJaudon  !

II/f/93 MLes,g/93 I1/T II/7/93 II/9/93 11/p93 {

RII RII RI '

BMallett DMatthews . eyes  !

II/$/93 II/7/93 I //f 93 f

!

l i

,

h

'

- _ .

.

l

i

!

Duke Power Company 4 [

N  :

bcc encls:

Chairm n Selin Commissipner K. C. Rogers  ;

Commissioper F. J. Remick  ;

Commissiorier E. G. de Planque  :

J. M. Tayloh, EDO  ;

J. Lieberman,\0E  !

J. F. Plisco, Regional l Coordinator, ED0 '

T. E. Murley, NRR  !

-J.- C. Partion NRR- C" b  !

S. A. Varga, NPR F. Allenspach, SALP Coordinator, NRR i Regional Administrators,MI, RIII  !

RIV, and RV '

L. A. Reyes, RII  : W. Merschoff, RII ' R. Johnson, RII A. Julian, RIl A. Peebles, RII , Cline, RII Collins, RII

\ >

l M. B. Shymlock, RII j J. 'J. Blake, RII  :

L. L. Lawyer, RII ,  ;

\

W. H. Rankin, RII  !

T. Decker, RII K. P. Barr, RII i D. R. McGuire, RII  !

A. R. Herdt, RII  !

M. S. Lesser, RII l R. L. Watkins, RII  ;

R. J. Freudenberger, RII i K. M. Clark, RII  ;

'

FEMA Document Control Desk l l;

!

RII R RIJ RII RII C >

tab j %29 Cs !

'

RWatkins / sser AHerdt JJohnson Jaydon 11/c4/93 11/5/93 11/8/93 11/ /93 11'/p/93 :

\ !

RII RIL RII 'N

!

e fg'f4 w <.  ;

BMakiett DMattbfebs LReyes l 11/(/93 11/f/93 11/ 93 l

!

!

~

I

r

.

!

SALP REPORT - CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION  ;

50-413/93-20 and 50-414/93-20  ; BACKGROUND ,

l l The SALP Board convened on October 19, 1993, to assess the nuclear :

safety performance of Catawba, Units 1 and 2, for the period May 3, l 1992, through October 2, 1993. The Board was conducted pursuant to NRC

'

Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance." Board members were Jon R. Johnson, (Chairperson) Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII; Johns P. Jaudon, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII; Bruce Mallett, Deputy Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS), RII; and David B. Matthews, Director, Project Directorate II-3, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).  !

,

II. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS - PLANT OPERATIONS ,

This functional area consists of the control and execution of activities directly related to operating the facility. It includes activities such l as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and response to ,

transients. It also includes all activities related to initial and requalification training programs for NRC licensed operator Duke Power Company's attention to operational safety. resulted in a good l level of performance. Corrective actions taken by station management as 1 well as the operations staff were very effective in improving ;

performance during the Unit 2 refueling outage. Weaknesses in controlling the proper configuration of plant equipment had continued ;

into the first half of this asse::sment period. Most of these were caused by personnel errors, improper use of tagouts, and system lineup !

procedures during a refueling outage on Unit 1. Procedures were revised for maintaining containment integrity, and training was held regarding-block tagouts and valve lineup proce-dures. Management focused {

attention on these areas, and assignments were made to specific !

individuals on shift to be responsible for certain operational functions I such as containment closure. As a result, no significant tagout or configuration control problems occurred during the Unit 2 outag !

l Station management was very effective in review of refueling outage ;

schedules in order to minimize risk during shutdown periods. The time j that the reactor coolant system was in mid-loop condition has been minimized through planning and scheduling as well as through techniques such as vacuum vent and fill of the reactor coolant system at the completion of the outage. Of special note was the use of a temporary diesel generator as a backup source of power for decay heat removal system The operations staff exhibited effective teamwork and was active in I addressing the root cause of plant operational issues by discussions in l l

'

i

)

l

.

.

,

,

.

,

2  ;

the form of a quality improvement team. They have received quality ,

improvement or " excellence" training and have participated in recommending solutions to improve operator monitoring equipment such as modifications to the diesel generator annunciator panel and the emergency safeguards feature bypass panel. Operators have also visited other power plants for bench marking and have initiated improvements in -

tagging, lateling, and reduced the number of lit annunciator ,

Catawba operations management did not always maintain proper oversight and plant operational performance was challenged by procedural adherence and weaknesses in plant system knowledge. Lack of adequate system j knowledge and inadequate referral to the appropriate alarm response i procedure resulted in operation of a coolant charging pump without a i suction path. Improper procedure adherence and coordination also resulted in a failure to drain the fuel transfer canal prior to removing ,

the blank flange. In addition, subsequent to improper operator response :

to an RHR system piping failure, the licensee's self assessment did not identify this as a performance weaknes '

Management did not focus sufficient attention on initial and requalification licensed operator training program performance proble Weaknesses were observed in procedural use, crew communications, observation of control board indications, and attention to detail. A significant number of examination failures occurred, and the requalification program was judged marginally satisfactory for the third time in a row, indicating lack of progress in correcting these performance problems. During the most recent requalification i examination in May, 1993, deficiencies continued to be observed in the -

formality of communications and non-emergency procedural adherenc Steps taken to improve the operator training program included revision ;

to the Emergency Operating Procedures (to bring them in conformance with !

the Westinghouse Owners Group guidelines), management observations of :

licensed operator training in the simulator, and assignment of an i operations staff member to direct licensed operator training. The !

continuing problems in this area indicate a need for management to focus ,

attention in this are l

The Operations area is rated Category l

,

III. PERFORMANCE ANAL.YSIS - MAINTENANCE i This functional area addresses those activ! ties related to diagnostic, predictive, preventive and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and components. It also includes the conduct of surveillance !

testing activities, inservice inspection and testing, and special tests. i Sood overall performance in the maintenance of plant equipment resulted in improving trends in the number of plant transients. Management ;

oversight of field activities improved but needs to continue. This ;

improvement is attributed to the extensive upgrades to the mechanical !

maintenance and instrumentation procedures and to various licensee l

t

- - .,

'. 1

.

initiatives to improve personnel performance. Bu u'servations u indicate that additional oversight is needed to assure proper implementatio Examples included: failure to follow a diesel generator load sequencer calibration procedure, which resulted in the blackout of the Unit 2 train B emergency bus; and failure to follow procedures for safety injection pump motor bearing maintenance, resulting in motor failur Maintenance training programs were well supported. The maintenance area was adequately staffed with knowledgeable and skilled personnel. The licensee's corporate level training for maintenance personnel addressed generic areas such as team building managerial and supervisory skills, and communication skills, as well as ;ompany goals and policies. During this assessment period the licensee has continued to use mock-ups in its training program. These now include mock-ups for the emergency diesel, valves, valve motor operators, breakers and relays and the steam generator lower head regio Excellent plant material condition and superior housekeeping demon-strated strong management support and attention. Leaks have been anticipated and directed to appropriate collection points resulting in a small amount of contaminated area thus facilitating ready access for plant operations, surveillance and maintenanc Improvement was made in the quality of maintenance procedure The licensee continued with an initiative to upgrade instrumentation and control procedures. Although this effort is not scheduled to be i complete until late 1996, a major milestone has beea reached in that the ;

two of three higher priority categories have been complete '

Planning and scheduling for outages improved during this period. A Unit I refueling outage was extended in September 1992 due to leaking conoseals and the need for repairs to establish correct reactor coolant pump seal leakoff flow. A subsequent Unit 2 refueling outage was completed four days ahead of schedule with minimal need for rewor This outage included the major tasks of moisture separator reheater tube bundle replacement and replacement of numerous large nuclear service water system valves. The valve replacement reflected good preplanning i and good cooperation / coordination among the various groups involve Overall, this Unit 2 outage was one of the most effective done at Catawba. The January 1993 repair of the control room ventilation chiller compressor motor and the June 1993 replacement of the Unit 1 service water piping to the containment ventilation units were also accomplished in a well controlled manner with good coordination between the various groups involve Inservice inspection (ISI) activities early in the assessment period i reflected adequate management and control of the ISI program, and Nondestructive Examination examiners and procedures were of high qualit Steam generator eddy current testing analysis and tube i sleeving activities were generally thorough and detailed. Concerns with inadequate examination of a pulled steam generator tube plug weld in the :

Unit 1 outage in September 1992 were adequately correcte A later

.

~ ', *

.

"

!

,

review of similar areas in February 1993 revealed no weaknesses in the implementation of the ISI program. The licensee continued to maintain an effective and conservative flow accelerated corrosion program to maintain high energy carbon steel piping systems within acceptable wall thickness limit ;

The Maintenance area is rated Category '

I PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS - ENGINEERING The functional area of engineering addresses the adequacy of technical -

and engineering support for all plant activities. Design contr'1 and i modifications are encompassed as are engineering and technical support -

for operations, for maintenance, for outages and for testin Engineering and technical support of day-to-day plant operations was i very good during this assessment period. Strengths in engineering :

support to the site included effective control of the engineering backlog, the ability to trend parameters and to identify problems, the consideration of risk as a factor in planning and sequencing work ,

activities, and the strong communications between engineering and operations, especially during plant testing and startup after outage Parameters that were trended and tracked by the licensee included steam i generator and service water system performance. Additionally, the

~

i licensee provided comprehensive engineering response and strong technical expertise for issues regarding steam generator tube degradatio Station engineers demonstrated generally strong performance in correcting problems, such as a design inadequacy with the auxiliary feedwater controls (involving the interaction of non-safety-related equipment with safety-related control circuitry), the electrical distribution safety system functional inspection findings, and the significant problems uncovered in testing and maintenance of motor operated valves. The problems in this latter instance, inadequate control over torque switches, resulted in service water system 1 inoperability and escalated enforcemen !

Communications between reactor engineering and plant operators were inadequate early in the assessment period. In one instance, the computer program to calculate thermal power was not changed at the appropriate point in power ascension to reflect tempering flow to the .

steam generators and thereby to determine reactor power accuratel In the other instance, procedural steps associated with hot channel calculations were not completed correctly. These early instances indicated a potential problem with procedural adherence and inter-departmental communication ;

Technical support provided to licensing, as exhibited in docketed i submittals, was generally superior. The licensee's packages were ,

usually complete. In those instances when questions or discussions were ;

necessary, the licensee provided adequate technical information quickl l l

I

.

,

While certain engineering and technical support self-assessment activities were viewed as improving or having a positive trend by the end of the assessment period, the licensee faced the challenge of resolving long standing issues such as service water system degradatio The Engineering area is rated Category PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS - PLANT SUPPORT i

'

This functional area covers all activities related to plant support

[

functions, including radiological controls, emergency preparedness,

,

security, chemistry and fire protectio Throughout the assessment, the licensee e,.hibited strong performance in identifying and responding to plant support issues. Self-ascessment programs were performance-based and thoroug Responses to assessment findings and to events were technically sound, complete and timely. A significant contributor to this was the well qualified staff in all areas. The licensee did a superior job in addressing the challenge of procedural adherence problems noted during last assessment with no problems noted this tim Trending and analyzing data resulted in improvements in physical security assessment aids (e.g., image capture system and improved cameras) and contributed to examining methods for reducing radiation doses for individual groups. The use of electronic dosimetry was a good tool initiated to aid in tracking ways to reduce dose. There are challenges that were not resolved. Self-identified problems with access controls (i.e., unsecured vital area doors and misread security badge events) continued to be a significant portion of the licensee's loggable events. An excellent initiative was used to identify locations where the radiation source term exceeded the general area dose rates (i.e.,

hot spots); however, the licensee had not completed the necessary next step to reduce or eliminate the spot The licensee continued to be proactive in controlling contaminatio The continued reduction of the amount of contaminated areas was superior and improved accessibility to the majority of the plant. Also noteworthy were the steps such as use of drip bags to prevent potential recontamination of areas. Personnel contamination events were reduced from the previous assessment period even though the challenges were

,

simila The ALARA program was good and supported by good communications between plant functional groups. This contributed to initiatives which reduced dose to personnel. Examples included use of mock-up equipment and pretraining for outages and chemical flushing during shutdown The radiological effluent monitoring and chemistry programs were effective in maintaining essential chemistry parameters and radiological releases well below regulatory limits. The licensee had improved the

-- .

. .

,

..-

l

'

.

6 ,

i availability of effluent monitors but continued to have some isolated l problems in this area. Some of these were self-identified (i.e., I failure to initiate grab samples when the turbine building sump l radiation monitor was declared inoperable and a number of malfunctions i in the equipment used for environmental monitoring). Another problem ,

was the licensee's failure to question a significant increase in the :

gaseous effluents as an adverse trend (subsequently determined to be l related to a measuring methodology change). Although this was.an ;

isolated case, it was an example of inattentio '

The emergency preparedness organization and management controls were j excellent in assuring timely completion of required tests and ;

surveillances. Performance during the annual emergency exercise in May ;

1993 was excellent with the exception of a single weakness. The :

licensee's staff had created a challenging scenario. Although there

'

were some problems in the correctness of the anticipated emergency i classifications, exercise participants exhibited excellent capability to I analyze plant conditions and to identify and correct problems. The fire ,

brigade response was prompt and effective. Some minor problems with ,

emergency notification information continued; however, the licensee had corrected the problem of timely notifications identified during the '

previous assessment perio Emergency response facilities were well maintaine The Plant Support area is rated Category :

,

E I

!

,

!

!

!

>

l i

t

!

!

__