ML15222A040
| ML15222A040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1990 |
| From: | Jabbour K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007130096 | |
| Download: ML15222A040 (38) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 June 22, 1990 50-369, 50-370 50-413, 50-414 LICENSEE:
Duke Power Company FACILITIES: Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 18, 1990 MEETING WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY On June 18, 1990, the NRC staff met with representatives of Duke Power Company (DPC) on operational safety and performance at Catawba and related events at Oconee and McGuire.
After brief introductory remarks, DPC representatives made a presentation on their assessment of operations at the three stations and management actions at Catawba. The meeting attendees agreed to meet again in about six months to monitor the effectiveness of the actions implemented by DPC at Catawba.
Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1 and a copy of DPC presenta tion is provided in Enclosure 2.
Kahtan N. Jabbour, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects -
I/II
Enclosures:
As stated OFC: PM:PDII3 D:
NAME: KJabbour/rst DMatthews DATE 064lt/90 06/31 90 TP--
A)PDC
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket FiMe NRC & Local PDRs PDII-3 R/F OGC E. Jordan ACRS (10)
R. Borchardt NRC Participants as shown on list of Attendees,
'V Mr. H. B. Tucker Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Oconee Nuclear Station cc:
A.V. Carr, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.
422 South Church Street 3400 Sumer Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 1400 L Street, N.W.
Inc.
Washington, D. C. 20005 P.O. Box 929 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N 3100 Smoketree Ct.
York, South Carolina 29745 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. S. S. Kilborn 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Area Manager, Mid-South Area Atlanta, Georgia 30323 ESSD Projects Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief MNC West Tower - Bay 239 Bureau of Radiological Health P.O. Box 355 South Carolina Department of Health Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street County Manager of York County Columbia, South Carolina 29201 York County Courthouse Yurk, South Carolina 29745 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
N.C. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 629 S.C. Attorney General's Office Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P.O. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Mr. Robert G. Morgan tNLclear Production Department Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Duke Power Company 121 Village Drive P.O. Box 33189 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Dr. John M. Barry Project Branch #3 Department of Environmental Health U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mecklenburg County 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 1200 Blythe Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Mr. H. B. Tucker
-2 Duke Power Company cc:
County Manager of Mecklenburg County Manager, LIS 720 East Fourth Street NUS Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater) Florida 34623-1693 Mr. J. S. Warren Duke Power Company Office of Intergovernmental Relations Nuclear Production Department 116 West Jones Street P.O. Box 33189 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Honorable James M. Phinney Senior Resident Inspector County Supervisor of Oconee County c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walahalla, South Carolina 29621 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersviile, North Carolina 28078 Mr. Paul Guill Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Senior Resident Inspector Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Director Department of Enviornmental, Health and Natural Resources Division of Radiation Protection P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Division Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 MEETING HELD BETWEEN NRC AND DUKE POWER COMPANY REGARDING OPERATIONAL SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE JUNE 18, 1990 ATTENDEES NRC Duke Power Company J. Taylor W. Owen F. Miraglia H. Tucker S. Ebneter M. Tuckman J. Partlow T. Owen S. Varga B. Barron L. Reyes B. Travis D. Matthews T. McMeekin K. Jabbour D. Rehn D. Hood B. Futrell L. Wiens M. Mullen W. Orders S. Sheek.
P. Van Doorn B. Carpenter W. Borchardt S. Long W. Scott F. Manning Catawba Owners D. Cameron, NCMPA 1 J. Glover, PMPA P. Pappas, NCEMC NRC / DUKE MEETING 6118190
AGENDA INTRODUCTION H. B. TUCKER DUKE SELF-M. S. TUCKMAN ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF CATAWBA T. B. OWEN CONCLUSION H. B. TUCKER
DUKE SELF-ASSESSMENT HISTORICAL MEASURES / INDICATORS o
INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS o
PROBLEM INVESTIGATION REPORTS LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS o
QUALITY ASSURANCE / SELF INITIATED TECHNICAL AUDITS o
NRC VIOLATIONS I ENFORCEMENT SALP I INPO
RECENT MEASURES / INDICATORS o
SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS / COMPONENT FAIL URE ANALYSIS TRENDING (NPRDS) o PRECURSOR EVENTS o
EMERGING ISSUES
SUMMARY
OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED / ACTION TAKEN OVERALL CONCLUSIONS FROM REVIEW
PIRs PRECURSORS LERs INDUSTRY PIS NPRDS SS PIS INPO RC VIOLATIONS SAFETY.
QA/SITA ASSESSMENT OF ENFORCEMENT AUDITS IS CONFERENCES OPERATIONS SALP
INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS o
EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY o
SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATOR o
UNPLANNED SCRAMS o
UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS o
FORCED OUTAGE RATE o
THERMAL PERFORMANCE 0
FUEL RELIABILITY o
COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE LOW LEVEL SOLID RADWASTE o
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
CONCLUSIONS o
PRIMARY FOCUS FOR DUKE POWER o
INDICATORS WHEN AVERAGED OVER 7 UNITS GOOD AND IMPROVING o
TOO MUCH COMFORT WAS DRAWN FROM THESE INDICATORS o0 INDICATORS DO NOT REINFORCE WHICH ISSUES MUST BE ADDRESSED
PROBLEM INVESTIGATION REPORTS (PIRS)
LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS o
PIR'S ARE A DUKE INTERNAL PROGRAM FOR IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS o
LERS ARE A SUBSET OF PIRS o
DETAILED ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED ON LERS o
LER TRENDS ARE DEVELOPED BY NUMBERS AND ROOT CAUSES o
NUMBERS HAVE DECREASED 1987 1990 o
CNS 1 & 2, MNS 1 LERS ARE HIGHER THAN AVERAGE FOR 4 LOOP WESTING HOUSE PLANTS
o HUMAN PERFORMANCE INCIDENTS HIGHER THAN INDUSTRY AVERAGE o
PRECURSOR EVENTS HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED OR TRENDED - ONLY INITIATING EVENTS WERE TRENDED o
PIR'S HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF INFO TO THE INDUSTRY ON GENERIC EQUIP MENT CONCERNS RAW WATER FOULING
-BORG WARNER VALVES MOLDED CASE BREAKERS
QA AUDITS o
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS RESULTED AS PIRS o
PROCEDURAL QUALITY I ADHERENCE IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMS DURING VARIOUS AUDITS o
TRADITIONAL AUDIT FINDINGS WERE INCONCLUSIVE REGARDING OPERATIONAL SAFETY
SELF-INITIATED TECHNICAL AUDITS LESSONS LEARNED o
DOCUMENTATION o
MATERIAL CONDITION o
TESTING / MAINTENANCE ACTIONS TAKEN o
OVER PRESSURE PROTECTION TRAINING o
TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA o
DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY POTENTIAL WEAKNESS o
FOCUS ON HARDWARE RATHER THAN OPERATING ISSUES
NRC VIOLATIONS / ENFORCEMENT I SALP INPO o
TOTAL VIOLATIONS HAVE DECREASED FROM 1987-1990 o
NUMBER OF ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES HAVE INCREASED o
CATAWBA ESCALATED ENFORCEMENTS HAVE INCREASED
SUMMARY
OF THINGS LEARNED o
DESIGN BASIS o
POST MODIFICATION J POST MAINT ENANCE TESTING o
HUMAN PERFORMANCE o
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT o
PROCEDURE ADEQUACY / ADHERENCE o
COMMUNICATION AMONG DEPARTMENTS
SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATOR COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS TRENDING (NPRDS) o SSPI IS A RELATIVELY NEW INDUSTRY INDICATOR FOR EMERGENCY POWER, HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION, AND AUX ILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEMS o
NPRDS INITIAL EMPHASIS ON FAILURE REPORTING o
MCGUIRE SAFETY INJECTION UNAVAIL ABILITY ABOVE INDUSTRY o
CATAWBA SAFETY INJECTION AND AUX ILIARY FEEDWATER UNAVAILABILITY ABOVE INDUSTRY o
> 90% OF SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY IS DUE TO PLANNED ACTIVITIES
0 o
SYSTEMS BEING OUT OF SERVICE CONTRI BUTE TO PRECURSOR EVENTS o
NPRDS AND SSPI ARE MUTUALLY CON CLUSIVE
PRECURSOR EVENTS o
DUKE HAS NOT BEEN LOOKING AT PRECURSOR EVENT METHODOLOGY o
NRC HAD IDENTIFIED 7 IN 1987, 2 IN 1988 o
DUKE REVIEW OF 1989 INDICATES 3 EVENTS USING A CONSERVATIVE AP PLICATION OF NRC METHODOLOGY o
DUKE REVIEW OF 1990 INDICATES NO EVENTS THROUGH 1ST QUARTER 0
CONCLUSIONS o
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER IS MAJOR SYSTEM INVOLVED 6 OF 12 EVENTS o
NON-SAFETY CONDENSER DUMP VALVES INVOLVED IN 2 EVENTS o
STEAM GENERATOR PORVS CONTRIBUTED TO 4 EVENTS o
WE DID NOT TREND CAUSES OF PRE CURSORS - ONLY OF THE INITIATING EVENTS o
PRECURSORS ARE NOT TYPICALLY ASSO CIATED WITH ENFORCEMENT EVENTS, ALTHOUGH THEY IMPLY A DECREASED MARGIN OF SAFETY o
FIVE PRECURSOR EVENTS RESULTED IN HEIGHTENED NRC INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES OR AIT)
o PRECURSORS ARE A GOOD WAY OF MEA SURING THE LEVEL OF PLANT SAFETY o
WE WILL INCLUDE PRECURSORS IN FUTURE PERIODIC SAFETY ASSESS MENTS
EMERGING ISSUES OF INTEREST o
EVENTS DURING SHUTDOWN OPERATION o
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT DURING OUTAGES o
REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT o
HUMAN PERFORMANCE MANY OF THESE ISSUES DO NOT CURRENTLY REACH THE THRESHOLD OF REPORTABILITY FOR THE INDICATORS DISCUSSED
SUMMARY
OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND ACTIONS TAKEN DESIGN BASIS o
NEED IDENTIFIED AFTER ONS SSFI AND OTHER EVENTS o
SIGNIFICANT EFFORT UNDERWAY ON THIS PROJECT o
PROJECTED COMPLETION IS 5 -YEARS o
SELF INITIATED TECHNICAL AUDIT PROGRAM BEGUN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DESIGN AND STATIONS o
INCREASED FORMALIZATION OF MODIFICATION PROCESS o
DESIGN REORGANIZATION ALONG STATION LINES o
DESIGN SITE OFFICE IN PLACE
POST MODIFICATION TESTING o
EFFORT BEGAN IN 1987 AS A RESULT OF A CNS INCIDENT WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE ENFORCEMENT o
WORKING GROUP FORMED AND COM PLETED PROGRAM END OF 1988 o
PROGRAM HAS IMPROVED CONSIDER ABLY AND HAS HIGH AWARENESS
POST MAINTENANCE TESTING PROGRAM o
EFFORT FORMALLY BEGAN IN 12188 AFTER RECOGNITION OF AN INCREAS ING TREND IN INCIDENTS IN 1988 o
TASK FORCE FORMED TO DEVELOP DEPARTMENTAL APPROACH TO POST MAINTENANCE TESTING o
DEPARTMENTAL DIRECTIVE APPROVED 1190 o
INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTING PROCED URES WILL BE IN PLACE AT ALL 3 STATIONS BY 12190 o
CONSIDERABLE EFFORT IS CURRENTLY BEING EXPENDED AT EACH STATION AND AWARENESS IS HIGH
HUMAN PERFORMANCE o
REVIEW OF INCIDENTS INDICATED INCREASING TREND OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS EARLY 1989 o
TASK FORCE FORMED LAST YEAR TO DETERMINE APPROACH TO HELPING THIS SITUATION SELF VERIFICATION / COM MUNICATIONS HUMAN PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE TEAM CONFIGURATION CONTROL o
ENVELOPES COMMUNICATION AND PROCEDURE ADHERENCE o
INCREASED EMPHASIS AT CNS
PERIODIC SELF-ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL SAFETY o
OVERALL SAFETY ASSESSMENTS WILL BE CONDUCTED PERIODICALLY o
ASSESSMENT WILL BE PROVIDED TO MANAGEMENT FOR AWARENESS ACTION
- 0 ASSESSMENT WILL BE PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW BOARD
PIRs PRECURSORS LERs INDUSTRY NPRDS PIs SS PIS NUREG/EPRI DOCUMENTS, EMERGING NRC SAFETY VIOLATIONS ISSUES PLANT QA/SITA ENFORCEMENT AUDITS IPERFORMANCE CONFERENCES DATA INPO SALP SAFETY ASSESSMENT PERFORMED BY NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY ASSURANCEINENDT NSRB REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS FROM REVIEW o
ATTENTION TO MODIFICATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PRECURSOR EVENTS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO OPERATIONAL SAFETY o
SCOPE AND METHOD OF SELF ASSESSMENT NEEDS IMPROVE MENT o
DATA ON SAFETY INJECTION, AUX ILIARY FEEDWATER UNAVAILABILITY WERE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED o
HUMAN PERFORMANCE DATA IS HIGHER THAN EXPECTED o
QA AND SITA AUDITS NEED TO BE MORE PERFORMANCE ORIENTED
"WE HAVE FOCUSED TOO MUCH ON TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT ISSUES.
THIS TRAINING WILL HELP US TO BEGIN A RE-DIRECTION OF OUR EFFORTS TOWARD THE HUMAN ELE MENTS OF OUR WORK."
TONY OWEN OCTOBER, 1989
REVIEW OF CATAWBA INTRODUCTION MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PROCEDURE ADHERENCE I ADEQUACY COMMUNICATION CONFIGURATION CONTROL CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF EVENTS o
HUMAN PERFORMANCE o
PROCEDURES o
CONFIGURATION CONTROL MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON OTHER PROBLEMS o
EQUIPMENT I SYSTEM RELIABILITY 0
INTRODUCTION (CONT'D)
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS o
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS o PROCEDURES
- COMMUNICATIONS o CONFIGURATION CONTROL
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS INTERNAL CUSTOMER SERVICE -- MID 1989 o
FOCUS ON HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS o
COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURE REVIEW - MARCH 1990 CNS MANAGEMENT MEETINGS o
CLARIFY EXPECTATIONS FOR PERF STD o
QUALITY VS SCHEDULE SELF VERIFICATION / COMMUNICATION TRAINING
PROCEDURES DEDICATED PROCEDURE REVIEW GROUPS o
PERFORMANCE o
PROCEDURAL ERRORS - PERSONAL TESTIMONIES o
EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS PROCEDURE HOTLINES
-PEER EVALUATION GROUPS o ~HUMAN PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE TEAM
COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL ROOM BRIEFINGS (OPS-SUPPORT GROUPS) o CRITERIA o
OBJECTIVES PURPOSE ANTICIPATED RESPONSES ANTICIPATED CONTROL RM ALARMS SUPERVISORY INVOLVEMENT
CONFIGURATION CONTROL o
OUTAGE MANAGEMENT o
ADDITIONAL MODE CHANGE REVIEW o
CONDITIONAL CHANGE REVIEW o
9 VS 4 CHECK POINTS
CRITICAL PAl'S BID UTMA AD M= 5 3SF NEW 3 HV DfLDO I FUU
350or>5 6
- 6)
NO SET FILL NODa 4 HOD 2
DRtAIN MODE BRAD AND
< 350OF
< 51A CC"IGURAT0KI Cc1ITOm WSDRAIN MODS 5
o PO HsAD HVE4 V1) 3 NOON 2 NDEI 1 NODESET
<3500F
< 3507 5
>5
- =man3 HLD POIWI'
d CONCLUSIONS REVIEW OF LER'S, PIR'S, EVENTS 0
PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS ACTIONS UNDERWAY 0
PROCEDURES 0
COMMUNICATIONS 0
MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IS OUR GOAL
FINAL
SUMMARY
BY H. B. TUCKER
NUCLEAR PRODUCTION Our Vision We will be the best operators of nuclear plants in the world and recognized as such.
Our Mfission Our mission is to safely generate electricity from nuclear energy, reliably and efficiently, in a manner which earns trust.
Our Guiding We are dedicated nuclear professionals.
Principles We enhance our skills through training, self-development and experience, we work within the bounds of regulations and procedures and we are personally responsible for our actions and decisions.
Nuclear safety is paramount.
We will keep our responsibility for nuclear safety in front of us at all times and will consider it in all of our actions and decisions.