ML15261A353
| ML15261A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15261A351 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-97-99, 50-270-97-99, 50-287-97-99, NUDOCS 9712300084 | |
| Download: ML15261A353 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1997099
Text
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION
50-269/97-99, 50-270/97-99, AND 50-287/97-99
I. BACKGROUND
The SALP board convened on December 1. 1997, to assess the nuclear
safety performance of the Oconee Nuclear Station for the period May 5,
1996, through November 15, 1997. 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. Mallett, Acting Deputy
Regional Administrator; Loren R. Plisco, Deputy Director, Division of
Reactor Projects: and Herbert 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 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.
Overall performance in the area of Plant Operations during this
assessment period was good. Operator performance during the numerous
plant startups and shutdowns was professional, and the evolutions were
well managed and controlled. Operator response during plant transients,
automatic reactor trips and runbacks, forced shutdowns, and off-normal
conditions was prompt and effective. Operational decisions were
typically conservative and appropriate.
Complex, non-routine evolutions were thoroughly planned, well
coordinated, and methodically controlled. The appropriate level of
management involvement was evident in risk-significant evolutions such
as mid-loop operation and special tests.
Procedure adherence and procedure quality issues provided challenges
during this period. Operating procedure deficiencies and the failure to
follow procedures by Operations personnel contributed to several
operational events during the period. Other specific areas of weakness
identified during the period included control room logkeeping practices,
Enclosure
9712300094 971219
PDR ADOCK 05000269
0
2
operator monitoring of reactor coolant system inventory changes, and
operator examination preparation.
Weaknesses identified during the previous assessment period regarding
fuel handling and event report timeliness and quality have shown
improvement during this period. Configuration control issues have also
shown improvement with respect to the number of issues: however, there
were several significant mispositioning events during this period that
indicated continued challenges in
this area.
Self-assessment activities have been thorough and effective, especially
during the last six months of the period. Evaluations were completed in
the areas of communications, procedures, and configuration control that
recommended comprehensive corrective actions for identified weaknesses.
The Plant Operations area is rated Category 2.
III.
MAINTENANCE
This functional area assesses all activities associated with diagnostic
predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures,
systems, and components, and maintenance of the physical condition of
the plant. It also assesses the conduct of surveillance testing,
inservice inspection and testing, instrument calibrations, equipment and
system operability tests, post-maintenance testing, post-outage testing,
containment leakrate testing, and special tests.
Overall, performance in the Maintenance area and support to Operations
and Engineering continued to be good during this period. Management
involvement, training, and backlog management continued to be program
strengths. The licensee addressed previously identified challenges and
improvement was noted, particularly in the effectiveness of corrective
actions and self-assessments. Other areas such as plant equipment
reliability, procedures, and human performance continued to be
challenges. A safety-conscious attitude was evident in maintenance
activities.
A large number of significant maintenance activities were completed
during the period, and most were implemented with high quality, skill
and good planning by well-trained and highly qualified personnel. The
Enclosure
3
maintenance training program has been enhanced to add more structure and
depth.
Strong management support for maintenance activities continued, both
from the Oconee site and from Duke's General Office. This was evidenced
by funding support for physical improvements, supervisory and management
presence, and organizational and programmatic enhancement initiatives.
A number of events during the period indicate that both primary and
secondary system equipment was continuing to degrade with a high failure
rate. Some of these failures and degradations had roots in maintenance
program weaknesses in prior years. Oconee management has been
addressing the issues, and, while there was no indication of a pervasive
material condition problem, equipment reliability continues to be a
challenge as the plant ages.
The licensee made efforts to address previously identified deficiencies
in adherence to and quality of maintenance procedures. Despite the
significant focus on improving overall human performance, there were
many examples where personnel error, lack of attention to detail,
failure to follow procedures, or procedural inadequacies challenged
system operability and adversely impacted operations and personnel
safety.
Self-assessment capability and effectiveness in the Maintenance area
improved during this period as a result of several licensee initiatives
and development of indicators to measure the performance and health of
the organization.
The Maintenance area is rated Category 2.
IV. ENGINEERING
This functional area assesses activities associated with the design of
plant modifications and engineering support for operations, maintenance,
surveillance, and licensing activities.
Engineering performance in the area of self-assessment was mixed.
Corrective action for problems that were self-identifying was usually
strong. Frequently though, problems were not identified and resolved
prior to becoming self-revealing. This was reflected in the operating
Enclosure
4
history of the three units during the assessment period, which revealed
that many of the operational transients experienced had roots in
engineering issues.
There were several examples in which Engineering had failed to
incorporate technical requirements into plant procedures or programs.
These were manifested as inadequate followup on older, generic issues.
The failure to implement adequate corrective actions in
the area of non
destructive examination of high pressure injection nozzles resulted in a
failure to detect the initial indications of a through-wall pipe crack
before it occurred on one unit and a failure to identify degraded
conditions on an injection nozzle of another unit. There were other,
less significant examples, but taken as a whole they represented a
decline in Engineering performance.
Design control was assessed as good in some areas, but with problems in
other areas. The upgrade of the low pressure service water system was
an example of the former, as was the technical work done in support of
the one time testing of the emergency power system. There was an
instance in which a modification to the emergency power supply system
was done outside the modification process, resulting in
no post
modification testing.
Engineering support for implementation of the maintenance rule was good.
The knowledge of system engineers was a strength, and the program to
have them conduct periodic walkdowns of assigned systems was also a
strong point. There were some weaknesses manifested in other areas of
maintenance support.
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 effluent and
radiation waste, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire
protection and housekeeping programs.
Programs for personnel radiation exposure control continued to exhibit
strong performance in reducing collective site radiation dose. Day-to
day radiation controls were effective in notifying workers of radiation
Enclosure
hazards, restricting access to high radiation areas and monitoring for
radioactive material leaving the radiation controlled areas in most
instances. The problem with workers not following procedures when
monitoring for contamination upon leaving radiation controlled areas as
noted in the previous assessment period was reduced to only a few
instances during this period. Proactive steps resulted in the reduction
in the total number of personnel contamination events; however, there
continued to be a challenge in contaminations resulting from areas
designated as "clean" from radioactive contamination.
Management and staff attention and involvement in the control of
radioactive effluents and radioactive waste maintained releases to the
environment that were well below NRC regulatory limits. Performance
continued at a superior level in the areas of radiation monitor
operability and the environmental monitoring program.
The primary and secondary water chemistry program continued to maintain
key parameters well within Technical Specification limits. Management
and staff were aggressive in seeking ways to aid operations in reducing
the radiation source term at the site.
In
the emergency preparedness area, staffing qualifications, activation
of emergency response facilities and response to actual events continued
with superior performance. Training was particularly noteworthy and a
significant contributor to good command and control, classification of
events, interface and notifications to offsite response agencies and
technically sound response to the safety aspect of actual events and
exercise postulated events.
Fire prevention and protection implementing procedures were well written
and supported excellent performance with the exception of fire fighting
procedures for the fire brigade in some safety-related areas. Staffing
and training of the fire brigade organization resulted in good
performance during drills with the exception of performance during a
drill late in the assessment period. Attention to equipment maintenance
resulted in good material condition and a relatively low number of
degraded fire components. Staff and management were aggressive in
identifying and correcting deficiencies. In addition, general
housekeeping continued to be good.
Audits and corrective actions to identified problems were thorough and
Enclosure
6
contributed to a superior level of performance in the area of security.
Security staff training and qualifications were superior. Security
related equipment performed as designed with minimal problems due to
proactive steps to keep it maintained and resolve problems. Root cause
analysis of events was a strength and resulted in prevention of
recurring problems, with the exception of nuisance alarms on perimeter
detection equipment. Routine security programs provided effective
controls throughout the assessment period. An Operational Safeguards
Response Evaluation conducted in May 1997 identified significant
problems that were verified to be corrected during subsequent
evaluations. Improvements were noted in corrective actions for problems
noted in the previous assessment period in the areas of access
authorization and control of safeguards information.
The Plant Support area is rated a Category 1.
Enclosure