ML18039A375
| ML18039A375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18039A374 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-98-99, 50-260-98-99, 50-296-98-99, NUDOCS 9806100220 | |
| Download: ML18039A375 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000259/1998099
Text
0
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF LICENSEE
PERFORMANCE
REPORT
BROWNS
FERRY 'NUCLEAR PLANT
50-259/98-99,
50-260/98-99
AND 50-296/98-99
BACKGROUND
The SALP Board convened
on April 30.
1998. to assess
the nuclear
safety performance of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant for the period
September
8,
1996. through April 18.
1998.
The Board was conducted in
accordance
with Management Directive 8.6,
"Systematic
Assessment
of.
Licensee
Performance."
Board members. were
B. S. Mallett (Board
Chairperson)
Deputy Director. Division of Reactor Safety:
L. R. Plisco.
Director, Division of Reactor Projects:
and F. J.
Hebdon. Director,
Project Directorate II-3. Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
This
assessment
was reviewed
and approved
by the Regional Administrator.
PLANT
OPERATIONS'his
functional area
assesses
the control
and execution of activities
directly related to operating the facility. It includes activities such
as plant startup.
power operation. plant shutdown.
and response to
It also includes initial and requalification training
programs
for licensed operators.
Overall performance
in the Plant Operations
area
was superior during
this assessment
period.
Management
involvement in all aspects
of plant
operations
was evident.
Management
and staff have carried out many
initiatives to further strengthen the performance of day-to-day
operations.
Decisions
on safety significant issues
were conservative.
'owever,
there were some instances
where operations
personnel
did not
aggressively
pursue
equipment operability determinations.
Control
room operators
continued to control
and execute operations
activities in a professional
manner.
The operators
responded to
equipment
problems
and plant transients
promptly and effectively.
Operational
decisions
were conservative
and focused
on safety.
Major
planned maintenance.
testing.
and modification activities were well
planned
and implemented.
Management
has
been responsive to -the concern regarding operator
inattention-to-detai l observed
during the previous
assessment
period.
Although improvements
were noted, inattention-to-detai
1 during routine
9806i00220 98052i
ADQCK 05000259
8
Enclosure
0
il
task performance.
especially. by auxiliary unit operators
~ continued
during this assessment
peri od.
The Nuclear Safety Review Board and Plant Operations
Review Committee
provided effective oversight to plant operations.
Nuclear Assurance
audits
and operations
self-assessment
activities have
been effective
throughout the period in identifying areas
needing
improvement.
However, the. effectiveness
of the audits .and self-assessment
activities.
particularly in the area of analysis of program results,
declined near
the end of the period.
There were two isolated
areas
where programs
were not as effective in
maintaining
a superior level of performance.
Control
room supervisory
oversight
was not consistently effective.
as evidenced
by the recent
control rod mispositioning event.
The licensed operator reactivation
program was not providing operators with necessary training.
The Plant Operations
area is rated Category 1.
III.
NINTENANCE
This functional area
assesses
activities associated
with diagnostic.
predictive. preventive.
and corrective maintenance of structures.
systems.
and components.
It also assesses
all surveillance testing. in-
service inspection
and other tests
associated
with equipment
and system
operability.
Maintenance activities were generally effective as demonstrated
by few
plant problems
caused
by equipment failures
and reliable safety-system
performance.
Planning,
preparation
and scheduling of maintenance
work
were excellent.
Implementation of modifications during the last outage
performed during the assessment
period was well controlled.
Overall
outage planning, scheduling,
and implementation were effective in
completing necessary
work and supporting startup with few equipment
problems.
One specific area that remained
a challenge
was the controls
in place for scaffolding installation.
Performance
in the areas of diagnostic,
predictive,
and corrective
maintenance
were generally very effective and well managed.
Post-
maintenance
.testing planning improved during the latter part of the
assessment
period.
In a few cases,
corrective actions for previous
problems did not preclude
subsequent
fai lures.
Enclosure
~'
In general,
surveillance testing
and in-service testing
and inspection
performance
were good and effective in identifying degraded
equipment.
Inattention to testing procedures
contributed to inadequate test results
in a few examples.
In-service examination activities were conducted
by
knowledgeable individuals.
A large number of maintenance activities were conducted during the
.. assessment
period and most were executed .in accordance
with
requirements.
Improvement
was noted in overall
human performance
compared to the previous
assessment
period:
however,
operational
challenges
continued to be caused
by inattenti'on-to-detail
by
maintenance
workers.
Adherence to procedures
was generally
good with
some problems
noted in isolated areas.
Plant material condition was good as evidenced
by reliable operation of
Units 2 and 3 during the period.
Improvements
were noted in the number
of fluid leaks
from equipment or systems.
Ouring the first half of the
assessment
period, certain equipment conditions contributed to
operations
problems.
Foreign material exclusion controls were also
noted to have problems early in the period.
Improvements
were noted in
both these
areas
by the end of the assessment
period.
The self-assessment
process
continued to be
a strength.
Self-assessmerit
of maintenance
deficiencies
and equipment
problems
was very effective in
identifying and pursuing areas
needing
improvement.
Ouring refueling
outages
~ there
was good use of Quality Assurance oversight to identify
deficiencies.
The Haintenance
area is rated Category 1.
ENGINEERING
This functional area
assesses
the adequacy of technical
and engineer ing
support for plant activities.
It includes activities associated
with
the design
and testing of plant modifications: engineering
and technical
support for operations.
maintenance.
outages
~ testing,
surveillance
and
procurement;
configuration management;
training of the engineering
staff:
and support for licensing activities.
Engineering
management
and staff, were knowledgeable of the plant
systems.
The knowledge
and experience
were incorporated into the day-
to-day site functions.
Enclosure
0'l
Engineering
reviews
and assessments
of emergent
issues
and design
modifications improved over the performance
noted during the previous
assessment
period in attention to thoroughness
and completeness.
Design
control was good for modifications.
Some continuation of inattention-
to-detail
was noted in engineering
products for plant changes
such
as
calculations.
. Support to operations
used industry experience
and was. in general.
responsive to resolving the issue.
Pursuit of issues
by engineering
staff resulted in identification and resolution of problems with
equipment
and systems
not functi'oning as designed.
There were instances
where the support
was not thorough:
and two instances
where engineering
actions
caused
a challenge for operations of the plant.
Support to maintenance activities was good with thorough evaluation of
problems
once identified.
Problems 'noted during the previous
assessment
with repetitive equipment
problems were not noted during this
assessment.
Engineering specifications
and scoping of testing were
generally good.
Performance
continued to show instances
where data
was
not adequately
reviewed or incorporated into testing criteria.
The
Haintenance
Rule Expert Review Panel's
screening of equipment
and
systems for trending was
a strength.
Efforts to update
and correct license
and plant discrepancies
in the
updated final safety analysis
report were comprehensive.
Safety
assessments
for licensee
event reports
were incomplete in some cases.
Poor quality and incomplete considerations
were noted in documents
and
analyses
submitted for license
changes.
Self-assessments
and event investigations
were effective. but limited to
only a few engineering
areas
selected for review.
Failure to follow
licensee
processes
for problem evaluations
caused
delays
and incomplete
initial corrective actions in some cases.
The Engineering
area is rated Category 2.
PLANT SUPPORT
This functional area
assesses
activities related to the plant support
function, .including radiological controls,
radioactive effluents
and
waste,
plant chemistry.
emergency
preparedness,
security, fire
protection
and housekeeping.
Enclosure
'l
0
~ External
and internal radiation exposure controls continued.to
be
aggressively
managed.
which resulted in site coll'ective radiation doses
to individuals at levels well below regulatory limits.
Planning
and
monitoring processes
were used
by management to effect doses to
individuals as low as reasonably
achievable for work in the plant.
Management
and staff were aggressive
in controlling contaminated
areas,
which created
access
to plant areas
necessary
for routine operations.
This performance contributed significantly to
a very low level of
personnel
contamination
events.
Controls for keeping contaminated
material within controlled areas
were successful
in most cases.
Chemistry and radiological controls
management
and staff interfaced well
to reduce radiation source terms.
Those efforts were significant
contributors to low collective doses
in the period when leaking fuel
continued to cause
.an increase to the source term.
Strong adherence to
goals
and special initiatives to control inputs and process
liquids
resulted in continued releases
of radioactive effluents well below
regulatory limits.
Response to emergency exercise
scenarios
and to actual
events
was done
well in most cases.
The emergency
preparedness
programs for maintaining
equipment
and. facilities continued to exhibit strong performance with
timely resolution of problems.
Responders
successfully mitigated
accidents
during exercises
and drills.
The security program performance
continued to be superior in day-to-day
operations
and response
to emergent
issues.
There were few equipment
problems
and m'inimal compensatory
measures
because of concerted efforts
by management
and staff to monitor and correct problems.
The training
and qualifications program continued to provide highly qualified
security staff.
Implementation of the fire protection program was good.
The control of
combustibles
was especially effective.
Due to a strong surveillance
program, the maintenance
and material condition of the fire protection
equipment
was good.
Performance of the fire brigade continued at
a high
level.
General .housekeeping
within the plant was very good.
Controls for
storage of radioactive materials in -the containment.
reactor building
and radwaste
storage
areas
was good.
Enclosure
0
II
.Self-assessments
and audits continued to be comprehensive
and effective
in identifying performance
problems or areas
where performance
could be
improved.
There were
some instances
where the review to determine
performance
adequacy
was not as thorough
as other audits.
The Plant Support area is rated Category 1.
Enclosure
lt
II'