ML20082C043
| ML20082C043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1991 |
| From: | Creel G BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| CAL-89-08, CAL-89-8, NUDOCS 9107170301 | |
| Download: ML20082C043 (4) | |
Text
.
og D ALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER e P,0. BOX 1475
- BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203-1475 Gros <ot C Cutet.
U Tr7ll',
July 1,1991 w
.e....,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 ATTENTION:
hir. F.T. hiartin
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2: Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 escument of Unit 2 Startup and Dual Unit Opgration
REFERENCE:
(a) letter from hir. T. T. h1artin (NRC) to hit. G. C. Creel (BO&E),
dated April 5,1991, Confirmatory Action Letter 89-08 Closcout Gentlemen:
This letter provides Baltimore Gas & Electric's assessment of Unit 2 startup and dual unit operation as requested in Reference (a). We have scheduled a meeting with you on July 12,1991 to discuss the results of this assessment.
This startup of Unit 2 was its first since the Unit was shut down in hiarch of 1989. Extensive outage work performed in the last two years included the replaecment of pressurizer heater sleeves, refueling, maintenance, repairs, procederal improvements, and various physical modifications. As a result of the magnitude of the work undertaken during the extended outage and the additional challenge of conducting this startup while continuing operation of Unit 1, we developed a formal Startup Plan similar to those used for previous startups of Unit 1. The plan included provisions for a Startup Review Board (SURB) consisting of all site managers and chaired by the Plant General hianager. The SURB reviewed the startup of Unit 2 and the escalation to power to achieve dual-unit operation, producing a Startup Self Assessment Report, a summary of which follows. A complete copy of the SURB minutes and its final report and recommendations are available for review, as are records of the Quality Assurance surveillances of startup activities.
STARTUP ASSESSMENT SUMM Al1Y The startup plan was adapted from the plan used to successfully startup Unit I twice in 1990. The plan was designed to ensure orderly, safe and deliberate actions while providing sufficient Oexibility to ensure safe operation of Unit 1 during startup of Unit 2. The plan was evaluated as having been adequate to meet that objective.
J 9107170301 010703 I
[m ADock osoooai7 i
~
i
. hir, T. T. hiar tin July 1,1W1 Page 2 The SURB noted a generally improving trend in the perforn.. ace areas reviewed. Operators were observed to perform professionally and with a good safety perspective. llousekeeping.md the overall plant material condition were improved over last September's Unit I st utup Compliance with personnel safety piocedures continued to be strong as evidenced by the three million manhotas worked without a lost work case. Procedure compliance was generally good, with the exception of the two events discussed below. Work control processes are getting more efficient but these continues to be room for improvement. A summary of our assessment by performance area is provided as an attachment.
The SUR11 particularly noted improvements in teamwork and coordination between groups. The interface between Operations and Nuclear Engineering was strong during physics testing and startup.
Good use was made of Chemistry, Radiation Safety and Industrial Salety representatives in shift briefings. System Engineering provided good support in reacting to problems and maintaining close communications with Operations as problems developed. hiaintenance worked well with both Operations and Engineering.
Two operational events clearly did not match management's expectations. An event involving an inadvertent containment spray initiation and an inadvertent engineered safety features actuation system actuation both resulted from procedural noncompliance.
The events were carefully examined, and corrective measures were taken. The SURB concurred with these actions, noting the need to reemphasiec a proper questioning attitude and thought process while performing procedures.
The SURll made several recommendations for continued improvement. While safety related equipment and systems were in good material condition and performed well pieparation of secondary systems for operation prior to startup could have been improved. Operability of secondary system chemistry equipment needed to be improved. When the need for major pressuriter repairs was eventually characterited on Unit 2, more emphasis should have been placed on immediate long-term lay up of shutdown equipment, including covering motors, etc. to keep dust and debiis out of internals. System Engineers provided excellent support, but should focus more on root cause analysis.
SUR11 members noted examples of positive management control. The. creased piesence of supervisors in the field was a strong indicator of management oveidgr acts during this startup. The Quality Assurance Surveillances specific to startup were in.
. nd constitute a good practice that should continue in future startups. Oversight and co. '.r, d activities i'. the Control Room throughout startup were strong.
DUAL,UNLT ASPIMTS Unit I was operating at pmver at the outset of preparations for Unit 2 startup. Unit I was brictly shutdown twice during the period covered by the SURI3. The integration of Unit 2 restart ef forts with those supporting h10DE changes of Unit I was smooth. We noted no confusion of priorities resulting from the competing requirements of the two units. The Plant General hianager's guideline that support of the operating unit's Operations Concerns List was top priority, with critical outage work on the shutdown unit, pre-outage planning for Unit 1, and Performance improvement initiatives taking lower precedence was clearly stated and generally understood.
Suocrvisor judgement was expected and, particularly at the Shift Supervisor level, was appropriately applied to arising situations.
.i
. hir. T. T. hiattin July 1,1991 Page 3 Operations handled the intermingled stages of startup activity on Unit 2 and maneuvering of Unit 1 proficiently. Chemistry and Radiation Safety also demonstrated the ability to control the extensive activities involved with the multiple htODE changes experienced. No operational events were attributed to the simultaneous activity on both units. A,propriate assessment of safety and interrelationship of activity between the units was further evic enced by the shutdown of Unit 1 as a result of :ontainment sump debris found in Unit 2.
Technical Support and hiaintenance capacity was sufficient to accomplish a larger number (about 50/ week) of maintenance orders arising from final closcout of Unit 2 items while at the same time making steady progress in reducing the Unit 1 backlog and planning the upcoming Unit 1 outage.
The ability of the enjineering, maintenance and procurement organizations to handle the large load of emergent work w lile continuing full support for Unit 1 operation shows evidence of a support capability which should continue to improve the material condition of both units.
CONCI,USION l
The safe return of Unit 2 to operation concurrent with the continued safe operation of Unit 1 is a major milestone for Calvert ClilTs. The observations conducted during this transition showed that the Startup Plan had effectively anticipated the requirements for dual unit operation. We expected that our Performance Improvement Plan would result in continued safe operation and impioving efficiency. In general, our observations matched our expectations. Spccifie exceptions were analyzed., and corrective actions were taken. We were particularly pleased to note evidence of improved inter. disciplinary communication and material condition. Ilased on these observations, we conclude that Calvert Cliffs' management effectively prepared for this phase of operation, and that the plant staff is capable of safely controlling both units over the full range of operating conditions.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
-Very truly yours,
/
GCC/DWM/hjd y
Attachment cc:
Document Control Desk D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC l
D. O. Mcdonald. Jr., NRC l
T. T. Martin, NRC L E. Nicholson, NRC R. I. McLean. DNR J. II. Walter, PSC t
ATTACHMEt4T
~
UtilT 2 STARTUP, GE?4ERAL PERFORMAt4CE
SUMMARY
UF4 SAT POOR SATISFACTORY SUPERIOR EXCELLENT Safety Perspective &
- X Professionailsm of Operat'ons X
Procedural Compliance
- X Systems & Equipment Performance X
Plant Material Condition Work Contro1 Processes:
- X (i)
Efficiency Work Control Processes:
- X Safety & Compliance Personnel Safety: Compliance
- X (industrial & Radiation)
PersonnelSafety: Awareness X
(industrial & Radiation)
- X Engineering & Technical Support X
Interface, TeamwrA and Communications Identification & Resolution
- X of Safetyissues X
Supervisory Oversight and Irr vivement
(*) = Unit 1, ? ytember 1990 Ratings (i) = improving