ML15261A123
| ML15261A123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1996 |
| From: | Crlenjak R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607230402 | |
| Download: ML15261A123 (20) | |
Text
July 10, 1996 Duke Power Company ATTN:
Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President Oconee Site P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION
Dear Mr. Hampton:
This refers to the June 27, 1996, meeting held onsite to discuss the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance for your Oconee facility. Our report, 50-269,270,287/96-99, dated June 10, 1996, had been previously sent to you. A list of attendees and a copy of our handout are enclosed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely, (Original signed by Caudle Julian for B. V. Crlenjak)
R. V. Crlenjak, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. NRC Handout cc w/encls:
(See page 2) 9607230402 960710 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
DPC 2
cc w/encls:
Mr. J. E. Burchfield County Supervisor of Compliance Oconee County Duke Power Company Walhalla, SC 29621 P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation Mr. Paul R. Newton 2650 McCormick Drive Duke Power Company Clearwater, FL 34619-1035 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242-0001 Mr. G. A. Copp Licensing - EC050 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Duke Power Company Executive Director P. 0. Box 1006 Public Staff - NCUC Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 P. 0. Box 29520 Raleigh, NC 27626-0520 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Mr. Robert B. Borsum N. C. Department of Justice Babcock and Wilcox Company P. 0. Box 629 Nuclear Power Generation Division Raleigh, NC 27602 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Distribution w/encls:
D. E. LaBarge, NRR Mr. J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
R. E. Carroll, RH Winston and Strawn R. V. Crlenjak, RH 1400 L Street, NW G. A. Hallstom, RH Washington, D. C. 20005 N. Economos, RH PUBLIC Office of Intergovernmental Relations NRC Resident Inspector 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Mr. Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 SEND TO PUBUC DOCUMENT ROOM?
YES NO OFFICE RII:DR SIGNATURE NAME R rroll:sam DATE 07/
/96 07/
/96 07/
/96 07/
/96 07/
/96 COPY?
NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
G:\\MTGSUM.OCO
LIST OF ATTENDEES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II (RH)
J. Jaudon, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RH H. Berkow, Director, Project Directorate 11-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
R. Crlenjak, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1, DRP, RII D. LaBarge, Senior Project Manager, NRR P. Harmon, Oconee Senior Resident Inspector, DRP, RH R. Hannah, Public Affairs Officer, Office of the Administrator, RH R. Trojanowski, State Liaison Officer, Office of the Administrator, RII DUKE POWER COMPANY M. Tuckman, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Department J. Hampton, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS)
B. Peele, Station Manager, ONS J. Davis, Engineering Manager, ONS Other Licensee Attendees ENCLOSURE 1
NRC HANDOUT ENCLOSURE 2
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION - UNITS 1, 2 & 3 Appraisal Period: October 30, 1994 through May 4, 1996 SALP Presentation: June 27, 1996
SALP PROCESS Resident Inspector Program Region Based Inspections
~SALP RGOA Licensing INATSALP BOAR*,,
ADMVINISTRATOR S
L Special Initiatives Event Reviews Master Inspection Plan
CATEGORY 1 - Superior Licensee attention and involvement have been properly focused on safety and resulted in a superior level of safety performance. Licensee programs and procedures have provided effective controls. The licensee's self-assessment efforts have been effective in the identification of emergent issues Corrective actions are technically sound, comprehensive, and thorough.
Recurring problems are eliminated and resolution of issues is timely. Root cause analyses are thorough.
CATEGORY 2 - Good Licensee attention and involvement are normally well-focused and resulted in a good level of safety performance. Licensee programs and procedures normally provide the necessary control of activities, but deficiencies may exist. The licensee's self-assessments are normally good, although issues may escape identification. Corrective actions are usually effective, although some may not be complete. Root cause analyses are normally thorough.
CATEGORY 3 - Acceptable Licensee attention and involvement have resulted in an acceptable level of safety performance. However, licensee performance may exhibit one or more of the following characteristics. Licensee programs and procedures have not provided sufficient control of activities in important areas. The licensee's self-assessment efforts may not occur until after a potential problem becomes apparent. A clear understanding of the safety implications of significant issues may not have been demonstrated. Numerous minor issues combine to indicate that the licensee's corrective action is not thorough. Root cause analyses do not probe deep enough, resulting in the incomplete resolution of issues.
Because the margin to unacceptable performance in important aspects is small, increased NRC and licensee attention is required.
PLANT OPERATIONS CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
- OPERATOR PERFORMANCE:
- KNOWLEDGE, PROFESSIONALISM, AND TRAINING
- TRANSIENTS AND ABNORMAL EVENTS
- SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY VERIFICATION:
- SELF-ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
- SITE EVENT INVESTIGATION TEAMS
- PLANT OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE
- LOWERING PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION THRESHOLD CHALLENGES:
- CONTINUE IMPROVEMENT IN OPERATIONAL FOCUS AND OPERATIONS' COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE PLANT
- CONFIGURATION CONTROL
- TIMELINESS AND QUALITY OF EVENT REPORTS
MAINTENANCE CATEGORY 2 STRENGTHS:
- QUALITY MAINTENANCE BY A QUALIFIED STAFF
- BACKLOG MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES:
- HUMAN PERFORMANCE
- FUEL HANDLING
- RANDOM AND/OR AGE RELATED EQUIPMENT FAILURES
ENGINEERING CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
- TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
- BACKLOG REDUCTION:
- WORKAROUNDS
- ENGINEERING WORK ORDERS
- PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION PROCESS REPORTS
- IDENTIFICATION/RESOLUTION OF LONG STANDING DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
- SAFETY ASSESSMENT/QUALITY VERIFICATION
- SELF-ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
- SITE EVENT INVESTIGATION TEAMS CHALLENGES:
- CONTINUED MANAGEMENT OF BACKLOGS
- ENGINEERING SUPPORT TO IMPORTANT PLANT MODIFICATIONS
PLANT SUPPORT CATEGORY 1 STRENGTHS:
- RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
- HOUSEKEEPING CHALLENGES:
- CONTINUED FOCUS ON RADIOLOGICAL WORK PERMITS, FRISKING, AND PERSONNEL CONTAMINATIONS
- SECURITY OVERSIGHT AND DIRECTION:
- EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCESS AUTHORIZATION
- OPERATIONAL SAFEGUARDS RESPONSE EVALUATION PREPARATIONS
- CONTROL OF SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT SALP RATING
SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL RATING RATING AREA THIS PERIOD LAST PERIOD PLANT OPERATIONS 1
2 MAINTENANCE 2
2 ENGINEERING 1
2 PLANT SUPPORT 1
1
REQ(,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 290 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303-0199 JUN 10 1996 Duke Power Company ATTN:
Mr. J. W. Hampton Vice President Oconee Site P.O. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION (REPORT NOS. 50-269/96-99, 50-270/96-99, AND 50-287/96-99)
Dear Mr. Hampton:
The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) has been completed for your Oconee facility. The facility was evaluated for the period of October 30, 1994, through May 4, 1996.
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 Oconee site on June 27, 1996, at 1:00 p.m.
Oconee's performance improved markedly during this period in the functional areas of engineering and operations; with sustained superior performance in the area of plant support.
This improvement was due in part to an aggressive self-assessment and corrective action program, as well as the development of a questioning attitude while raising standards on the part of operations and engineering. You are encouraged to continue efforts already underway to further improve operational focus and to strengthen operations' command and control of the plant.
Performance in the functional area of maintenance remained good, with notable improvement in some areas.
However, key challenges in the areas of fuel handling, human performance, and equipment failures will have to be appropriately addressed before overall improvement can be realized.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.,
DPC 2
Should you have any questions or comments, I would be pleased to discuss them with you. I look forward to discussing this assessment with you on June 27, 1996.
Sincerely, Stewart 0. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55
Enclosure:
Oconee SALP Report cc w/encl:
Mr. J. E. Burchfield Compliance Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679 Mr. Paul R. Newton Legal Department (PB05E)
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242-0001 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff -
NCUC P. 0. Box 29520 Raleigh, NC 27626-0520 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock and Wilcox Company Nuclear Power Generation Division 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. J..Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D. C.
20005 cc w/encl cont'd:
(See page 3)
DPC 3
cc w/encl cont'd:
Mr. Max Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, SC 29621 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, FL 34619-1035 Mr. G. A. Copp Licensing -
ECO50 Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 1006 Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Ms. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice P. 0. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 INPO 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION 50-269/96-99, 50-270/96-99, AND 50-287/96-99 I. BACKGROUND The SALP Board convened on May 22, 1996, to assess the nuclear safety performance of Oconee Nuclear Station for the period October 30, 1994, through May 4, 1996.
The Board was conducted in accordance with Management Directive 8.6, "Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
Board members were E. W. Merschoff (Board Chairperson)
Director, Division of Reactor Projects; J. P. Jaudon, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety; and H. N. Berkow, Director, Project Directorate 11-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.
II. PLANT OPERATIONS This functional area'addresses the control and execution of activities directly related to operating the plant. It includes activities such as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and response to transients.
It also includes initial and requalification training programs for licensed operators.
Performance of the Oconee facility during this assessment period has been characterized by a professional control room with alert, well trained operators. Operator performance during the five reactor trips, three refueling outages, and ten startups indicated the operators were well trained in both routine and abnormal operations and were appropriately sensitive to shutdown risk. Attention to the control boards and operating parameters has been excellent, and verbal communications within the crews has been crisp and professional.
The operations functions have been well planned and managed, with appropriate involvement of the various levels of management in assuring continued safe operation of the facility. Operational decisions are typically conservative and appropriate.
The threshold for problem identification was lowered during this period, leading to successful identification and resolution of a number of long-standing deficiencies which, in the past, operators had tolerated. The.Plant Operations Review Committee. which was implemented during the latter part of the previous assessment. :eriod. has continued to have a positive impact on the safe operation of the facility.
Weaknesses identified during the previous assessment period regarding operator workarounds and procedural adherence and procedural quality have generally snown improvement during this period. Self-checking and the use of innovative Probabilistic Risk Assessment tools such as the Out-Of Service Risk Assessment Matrix have helped Oconee achieve these improvements.
Operations involvement in and ownership of activities ENCLOSURE-
2 occurring outside the control room, such as fuel handling, needs strengthening, as does configuration control and event report timeliness and quality.
Self-Assessment has been effective throughout the period and has contributed to the overall improvement noted in the operations area.
The routine Self-Assessment program is aggressively implemented, with challenging standards. The off-normal Significant Event Investigation Teams (SEITs) are typically deployed promptly after an event, are staffed with qualified and knowledgeable members, and result in substantive findings and recommendations.
The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.
III. MAINTENANCE This functional area addresses activities related to diagnostic, predictive, Preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and components. It also includes all surveillance testing, inservice inspection, and other tests associated with equipment and system operability.
Overall-performance in the area of Maintenance was good and, in some respects, improved. Management involvement and oversight were effective in assuring that work was competently planned and scheduled. Maintenance personnel were generally well trained and qualified. Work quality was good with a low rate of rework, and backlogs were well managed and appropriately maintained. During the previous assessment period, challenges had been noted in the areas of preventive maintenance, corrective actions, and procedural adherence. While improvement was noted in the first of these challenge areas, the areas of corrective actions and procedural adherence continue to warrant attention.
The plant-has generally operated well during this period. with safety systems operating reliably when called uoon.
However, as illustrated by the five reactor trips and the number of forced shutdowns and power reductions during the period, random and/or age related equipment failures provided a significant and continuing challenge.
Maintenance of the Keowee facility reached an acceptable level late in the assessment period. This was achieved after a long period that included modification work and other maintenance activities, including testing, which on occasion were found to have problems. The use of predictive -aintenance techniques such as lubricating oil analysis, vibration analysis, and thermography kept pace with industry trends in the use of these techniques.
Procedural adherence and the effectiveness of corrective actions continued to provide challenges during this period, particularly in the area of fuel handling; both spent and new fuel handling events occurred.
ENCLOSURE
3 In some cases, weaknesses in management oversight, training, aid procedural adequacy contributed to the deficiences noted in fuel handling. Self-assessment, while generally strong, was not effective in identifying and resolving some deficiencies.
The Maintenance area is rated Category 2.
IV. ENGINEERING This functional area assesses engineering and technical support for plant activities. It includes design control and configuration management; design, installation, and testing of plant modifications; and support for operations, maintenance, outage, procurement, and licensing activities.
Significant overall improvement was evident in the engineering area during this period. With few exceptions, technical support for operations and maintenance was consistently strong. Emergent issues were promptly and effectively addressed. In addition, operator workarounds, some of which were long-standing, had been greatly reduced. The backlog of engineering-related Problem Identification Process reports and work orders were significantly reduced and effectively tracked and managed.
Reduction of the drawing change backlog was significant. The drawing change process was also modified and formalized to require timely changes. Because of the many unique design features and the age of the plant, effective management of engineering backlogs and drawing updates will require continued management attention.
The licensee has been especially aggressive during this period in identifying and resolving long-standing design deficiencies, many existing since original construction. A large number of such identified deficiencies and errors received timely, effective, and conservative corrective action, with early involvement of NRC staff when appropriate.
The quality of supporting engineering calculations and analyses improved significantly during the period.
The licensee continued to develop and conduct excellent self-assessments as an effective tool for identifying strengths and areas needing improvement. Assessments were comprehensive and objective and made effective use of both site and corporate expertise. Followup of findings was structured and well-managed. Significant Event Investigation Teams provided excellent event analyses and root cause determinations.
Notwithstanding the licensee's generally superior engineering performance, especially in the area of technical support, there were a few instances where engineering support for important plant modifications was deficient. These instances involved calculational errors, failure to verify drawings and procedures, and planning/scheduling deficiencies.
While the licensee has taken positive actions to address these identified ENCLOSURE
4 lapses, continued management attention is appropriate to preclude such occurrences in the future.
The Engineering area is rated Category 1.
V. PLANT SUPPORT This functional area addresses all activities related to the plant support function, including radiological controls, radioactive effluent, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection, and housekeeping controls.
Continuing management support for the "As Low as Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) program was evident from the steady reduction in total dose. The percentage of the radiologically controlled area which was contaminated was also maintained very low. This was also an indication of a well implemented comprehensive radiological controls program.
Gaseous and liquid effluents were only a small fraction of the Technical Specifications-allowed quantities'.
This fact, coupled with excellent chemistry controls, provided additional demonstration of an effective and integrated approach to controlling radioactivity in the plant. Generated solid waste was also maintained well below goals.
There were some problems noted with worker adherence to radiological work permits, specifically with assuring that tasks were performed while the worker was logged on the appropriate permit. This was more evident early in the assessment period but is an area in which continued improvement is needed. There were also some problems with workers not following procedures for frisking out of radiologically controlled areas.
The trend in the number of personnel contaminations was also higher than expected, in that there were more than twice the number in 1995 as were experienced in 1994.
These two issues represent an additional management challenae.
The licensee's staff made appropriate emergency classifications for the few opportunities presented, all of which were "Notifications of Unusual Events."
-Management assured that proficiency was maintained in this area by conducting aggressive drills. There were no adverse trends noted in emergency preparedness drills and exercises. The critiques of drills and exercises were effective, identifying substantive issues, and emergency preparedness audits effectively utilized appropriate expertise.
Communications between the licensee and off-site agencies involved in emergency response were excellent.
Management involvement in security did not produce as strong results as in the other areas of Plant Support.
While corrective actions taken were generally thorough for the issues identified, there were problems found with the control of information identified as "safeguards."
There were also questions about the uniform effectiveness of the access ENCLOSURE
5 authorization program. While training was intense at the working level for the Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation which was scheduled outside of the assessment period, management oversight and direction was not evident. Compensatory measures for detection system problems were generally timely, and security readiness was enhanced by the qualification of additional personnel in multiple weapons.
Housekeeping was generally very good, and there were no significant problems identified in the fire protection area.
The Plant Support Area is rated Category 1.
ENCLOSURE