ML20117J489

Cp&L,Evaluation Rept Jul 1981

ML20117J489
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson, 05000000
Issue date:	07/31/1981
From:	INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS
To:
Shared Package
ML20114F819	List: ML20114F817 ML20114F901 ML20117J181 ML20117J193 ML20117J226 ML20117J307 ML20117J322 ML20117J357 ML20117J364 ML20117J397 ML20117J411 ML20117J446 ML20117J469 ML20117J489 ML20117J596 ML20117J639
References
FOIA-84-44 NUDOCS 8505150121
Download: ML20117J489 (45)

Text

e -e .

i Evaluation Report July,1981 i

H.B. 90ainson Unit #2 ,

Caroina .

3 0wer & _igT:

Comaany -

4 l

INPO 21 841121 A hhR OA PDR \

TOTTENB4,44 e

Oe==

a

. - . i.

EVALUATION OF

11. B. ROBINSON NUCLEAR PLANT Carolina Power and Light Company July 1981 k

1 j

b Y

i i

,./ , 2 .

s ROBINSON (1981)

APPENDIX Page 3 II.- CAROLINA POWER AND LIGIIT CORPORATE AND H. B. ROBINSON ,

STATION PERSONNEL CONTACTED Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer .

. Executive Vice President, Power Supply and Engineering i and Construction '

Vice President, Technical Services Vice President, Nuclear Operations -

Assistant to Vice President, Nuclear Operations .

Manager, Training i Manager, Quality Assurance i General Manager, Robinson Plant  !

Manager, Operations and Maintenance  !

Manager, Technical and Administration i Maintenance Supervisor l Operating Supervisor

• Engineering Supervisor Environmental and Radiological Control Supervisor Administrative Supervisor Training Supervisor '

Project Engineer Performance Engineer ,

Records Clerk Senior Records Clerk i Modification Technician f Plant Engineer Training Specialist Instrumentation and Control Engineer Instrumentation and Control Foreman Mechanical Maintenance Planner ,

Instrumentation and Control Maintenance Planner k

, Mechanical Foreman f

. .i Environmental and Radiation Control Engineer Senior Radiation Control Specialist )

"l Radiation Control Technician Foreman i q;; -

Radiation Control Technician General Employee Training Instructor

['

g 4 Operations Engineer  ;

Operations Technician '

e 1}t Shift Foreman Senior Control Operator Control Operator

' -" , j! Shif t Engineer za Auxiliary Operator Training Instructors s

l

. :i *

<j.

-d-q<

, il ROBINSON (1981)

. Page1

~

SUMMARY

The In:titute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) conducted its first evaluation of Carolina Power and Light's (CP&L) II. B. Robinson Nuclear Generating Plant during the weeks of February 23 and March 2,1981. H. B. Robinson #2 consists of one 665 megawatt (electrical) Westinghouse pressurized water reactor plant.

It is located near Hartsville, South Carolina on Lake Robinson. The plant was

.j placed in commercial operation in March 1971.

i.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE INPO condected an evaluation of site activities to make an overall determination of plant operating safety, to evaluate management systems and controls and to identify areas needing improvement.

The evaluation was based on preliminary INPO criteria, and information was assembled from discussions, interviews, observations and reviews of plant docu-ments. Emergency preparedness was not included in the scope of the evalu-ations, nor were corporate activities, except as an incidental part of the station evaluation.

The evaluation team examined station organization, training and qualifications,

, operations, maintenance, radiological and chemistry activities and site technical support. Since evaluations were based on best practices, recommendations are not limited to minimum safety requirements.

DETERMINATION Within the secpe of this evaluation the team determined the ohnt !s being safely operated. The following beneficial practices and accocpli.shments were noted:

~

N l

1

- 1

- e,

Improvements were recommended for the following

4 '

3

^..

A

• *^

~

. i' ROBINSON (1991)

Page 2 Recommendations are intended to augment CP&L efforts to achieve the highest possible standards in its nuclear operations. In taking corrective action, CP 2L should consider possible underlying issues of findings and recommendations.

.CP&L responses to the report are considered satisfactory. To follow the timely completion of these responses, INPO requests written notification upon achieve-ment of improvements at key target dates.

Specific evaluation findings are in the accompanying DETAILS, and information of an administrative nature is in the ADMINISTRATIVE APPENDIX. These findings were presented at an exit meeting at the plant on \ larch 6,1981, and were further discussed along with CP&L responses on May 19, 1981, in a meeting with CP&L management.

The evaluation staff appreciates the excellent cooperation received from all levels of the Carolina Power and Light Company.

l

. E. P. WILKINSON

! President J

t I

gy- h= N

.i  %;twe AV4.

'l 4

l

?

I s

I L .  : __

., , . , - - - -~ '

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 3 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Response Summary The INPO evaluation team concluded that the Robinson Plant Unit 2 is being safely operated. . Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) concurs. However, the company also is aware of areas where improvement is needed in order to ensure the highest standards of excellence are maintained. The evaluation has assisted in identification of some of these areas where improvement is needed, and INPO's recommendations have assisted in identification of additional corree-ti/e actions.

)

' d.

1

,d' g r:-

Specific ~Impicmentation dates have been established for many of the INPO j_ recommendations.

1 CP&L looks forward to a continuing close working relationship with INPO as we

'j work together to improve our operations.

4 i

1 t- i t

[f

s ..-

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 4 DETAILS This portion of the report includes the detailed findings. It is composed of six sections, one for each of the major evaluation areas. Each section is headed by a summary describing the scope of the evaluation and the overall finding in that area. The summary is followed by the specific findings, recommendations and utility responses related to each of INPO's evaluation procedures. Items which relate to criteria that have not been included in INPO procedures but which are generally recognized as desirable accepted techniques of industry and manage-ment are listed as Category II. The evaluation procedures used are listed in the ADMINISTRATIVE APPENDIX.

ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION The organizational structure, personnel qualifications, administrative controls, management objectives, quality assurance, information handling, industrial safety and equipment surveillance were evaluated.

As noted earlier, major strengths in this area are the goals and objectives program, the position descriptions and accountabilities in use and the industrial safety program.

OBJECTIVES (INPO Procedure OA-101, Revision 1)

The evaluation team examined the methods used to establish and disseminate management goals and cbjectives and the methocs used to track pecgress so timely completion of objoetives is ensured. The team also examined the objectives in use to determine if they provide substantive guidance to managers and supervisors and if they support the plant mission and company objectives.

The degree to which the objectives are used to guide day-to-day activities was t also examined.

Finding

• ll_

'3

-i ORG ANIZATION STRUCTURE (INPO Procedure OA-102, Revision 2) 3 "Ihe evaluation team examined the plant organization to determine if it supports J safe and efficient operation of the station. The team reviewed the responsibill-di ties, authorities and accountabilities of staff positions to determine if they are

' clearly defined, well understood and compatible with each other and if excessive

, burdens were placed on any individuals. They also reviewed the staffing levels to

!4 r

Wm

1, , .

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 5 determine if sufficient qualified people are available to provide backups for management personnel and to prevent excessive overtime. Methods used to evaluate the performance of individuals at the station were also examined.

1. Finding (Criterion A)

I Ylecommendation

Response

2. Finding (Criterion E)

Recommendation

Response

3. Finding (Critecion F)

Recommendation

Response

i

~

k 4

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (INPO Procedure OA-103, Revision 1)

The station administrative procedures were examined to determine if clearly defined controls are in effect and if adherence to these controls is maintained.

t

- - + +

g ROBINSON (1981)

Page 6 Finding (Criterion D) i Recommendation Response , , , , , , ,,

QUALITY PROGRAMS (INPO Procedure OA-104, Revision 4)

The quality assurance (QA) program was reviewed to determine if an approved program is in place which covers all aspects of plant operations, the program is adequately staffed and the organizational relationships ensure independence of the quality assurance staff from production responsibilities. The effectiveness of the quality assurance program was not within the scope of current evaluation criteria and was not evaluated.

Finding (Criterion A) 1.

l Recommendation f

Response

.,q . . . . .

i -. . .-

., ~~ .

'I 2. Finding (Criterion C)

.j E

.[

i

.i _ >

. . .: w ROBINSON (1981)

Page 7 Recommendation i

f Risponse

'IFORMATION PROGRAMS (INPO Procedure OA-105, Revision 5)

The team examined the methods used to process and evaluate cperational safety and reliability information to determine how such information is identified and if the review process ensures appropriate actions are determined and completed in a timely manner.

Finding (Criteria A,D)

Recommendation f

be.

't t

.' w e

4, 4

4

-t

.i i

'b i.

c_ j;- 0

, LE

• _ a

c-

=; . ',.

ROBINSON (1981)

Page8 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY (INPO Procedure OA-106, Revision 1)

The team examined the industrial safety program to determine if management is clearly committed to industrial safety, the program is supported at all levels of the station staff and the program is effective in minimizing safety hazards and accidents.

Finding SURVElLLANCE PROGRAM (INPO Procedure OA-107, Revision 1)

The team examined the surveillance program to determine if adequate proce-dures, including acceptance criteria, are in use. They also evaluated the methods used to schedule surveillance tests, control operations so that safety is not adversely affected during testing, and identify and resolve deficient con-ditions ident'fied during testing.

Fin,d' q PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (INPO Proceduce OA-108, Revision 1)

The team examined the methods used to establish qualification requirements for each job position and to ensure positions are filled with qualified personnel.

. i, Finding, p *

,f

I d

4i s

i l

?-

i-

~

,1 .

1 4v e - -- W,~- .

n. 4

, , . . _ -. =:- =- v - -- = ~ ~ L 3 ,

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 9 TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION The following areas were evaluated:

training resources, licensed operator training and requalification, non-licen operator training, shift technical advisor training, maintenance training and training effectiveness. In these areas positive features were noted, including an extensive written training plan that describes the various methods of training, the formulation of training materials and the discipline training programs. Also, the licensed operator candidates are provided eight weeks of full scope simulator training on normal, examinations. abnormal and emergency conditions prior to their licensing findings listed below.However, some areas require improvement, as identified in the TRAINING ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT (INPO Procedure TQ 211, Revision 2)

In this area, the team examined the training organization and the administrative guidance used by the organization to develop, implement and evaluate training activities and programs used for the qualification of plant operations personnel.

1. Finding (Criterion B)

Recommendation ~

Response

s

-i 1 2. Finding (Criterion F)

~

e.

Recommendation 9

s .,w,--,m* .,e... - - - -.

m- - . . -*

Response

~

~

~~~

.m__

Y m_ -

, . . . .__ __.. m

.a ROBINSON (1981)

Page 10

3. Findmg (Category II)

Recommendation

Response

TRAINING RESOURCES (INPO Procedure TQ-221, Revision 2)

In this area, the team examined the training facilities, equipment and materials available to support the delivery of training programs for plant personnel.

1. Finding (Criterion A)

Recommendation

Response

'+ ..

j -

2. Finding (Criterion F) i

-*l j Recommendation

~ !;

, j

.i s

.~

4

'I

'k l

.ee-L-W s6 W

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 11

Response

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS (INPO Procedur TQ-231, Revision 2)

In this area, the team examined plant management and training organization practices relating to evaluation of training program effectiveness, audit of training activities and evaluation of instructor and trainee performance in training programs.

1. Finding (Criterion A)

Recommendation Response ,

2. Finding (Criterien C)

Recommendation

Response

4-1 1

l '

NON-LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING (INPO Procedure TQ-242, Revision 2)

In this area, the team examined the training program and training practices used to initially qualify non-licensed operator candidates and to maintain and improve the qualifications of existing non-licensed operators.

1

-t l

i l

t .

i ROGINSON (1981)  ;

Page 12 Finding (Criterion D) i-Recommendation

Response

,. . ~ . . 4 LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING (INPO Procedure TQ-243, Revision 2)

In this area, the team examined the qualification program and training practices used to maintain and improve the qualifications of licensed personnel.

1. Finding (Criterion G)

Recommendation

..-.~-w- . -

.i '

RW

~ - - - - - - - ~~- --- - ~ ' ' - '

).{ 2. Finding (Criterion I) s], ,._

1 -

t Recommendation 1 \.

l

,1 I

i

-, No. .

n _

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 13

Response

3. Finding (Category II)

Recommendation

Response

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING (INPO Procedure TQ-244, Revision 2)

An evaluation of the licensed operator requalification program was conducted to determine the' effectiveness of the program in maintaining a high IcVel of knowledge and skill for holders of operator licenses.

1. Finding (Criterion B)

~

l

~

l Recommendation i- , _ . __ _.

I

, 2. Finding (Criterion G)

-4 3 . ..-_ _

9 4

, _ _ , , , -m a n n.e.<m. ~

P

_ _ _ . _ . . . u___ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .2 __- _ . m_ _ _._ ___ _ _ __. _

ROBINSON (1981) z

/ Page 14 Recommendation r - -- - - - - - ^ . - - - - - - - . z-- -

'L

Response

.s

~3. Finding (Criterion D

. . _ - - ~. . .

Re6ommendation n a Response ,,

4. Finding (Category ID e

i

~

Recommendation

Response

e

, - - ., y._ .-

}

..I. , - . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - --- -

4

.y 4

f 6

, j.

f-e

.g-

.s-

?

8 e~. 1 - - .:-- ,s'

y ROBINSON (1981)

Page 15 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR TRAINING (INPO Procedure TQ-245, Revision 1) '

In this area, the team examined the qualification pro used to initially qualify shift technical advisor (STA) gram and training practices and improve the qualifications of the STA. candidates and to maintain Finding (Criterion A, B, C, D, & E)

$ 5

( . -= -.

R hommendation

. I -. - - - .. -

Response ~~ ~ - ~ ~ '-- ' ~ ~

t.

• '"4M.M g w -

we 6

?

,l -

.I s .1

-t i

1 t,

i e

e b

i' I

. . _ , ~ . .~ - . .-

1. , _ s.

ROBINSON (1991) f Page 16 g- OPERATIONS l -.

I In this area, the conduct of shift operations, tagout practices, organization and '

administration, use of procedures, plant status controls, operations facilities and

. equipment and shift turnover were evaluated. The team noted the shift personnel exhibit a professional attitude toward their duties, and the auxiliary operators show a good knowledge and understanding of plant systems and equipment. However, some areas need improvement, as identified in the findings .

listed below.

p CONDUCT OF SHIFT OPERATIONS (INPO Procedure OP-301, Rev. 2)

The team examined the conduct of shift operations to determine if operator activities are related to plant operation, cleanliness and order exist in the control room, log keeping is timely and accurate and out-of-tolerance instru-mentation is identified to the operators.

1. Finding (Criterion B) l Rscommendation i

h .

Response

i-

---_--~_-.

L, __

[- ]

l

'j 2. Findmg (Criterion C) j' !

j. i. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

Recommendation 1

.i .

}' . _ . .

m*-=-e- + = = -h . - -we.., . . -

-s.+-.%w .._w , . ., m , , , , , , , , _

I

' ;: e i

3

-% .~ ....

_A _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ m

~

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 17

Response

l l

1 i*

[

3. Finding (Criterion D) l Rhcornmendation

~~

Respe>nse TAGOUT PRACTICES

-(INPO Procedure OP-302, Rev. 2)

In this area, the team examined the formal tagout procedure to determine if it is i

highly respected and understood by the plant staff, senior reactor opera'.or (SRO) approval is required for removal of safety related equipment from service, a

double verification is required of safety related manual valves that do not have f control room indication, a second verification of tagged equipment takes place, tag coloring and numbering is not confusing and the clearance log is periodically 4

t reviewed.

2 1. Finding (Criterion A)

.{ . .- .

5 i

h

_ _ _ ______A. .~ - - - - - - -

x; ROBINSON (1981)

Page 18

~--~~-" ~ --~~-~'~-~ ~

ReIsponse '-~~

l i, . .

2. Finding (Criterion F) i Recommendation

. Reisponse

.' h.:,.

3. Finding (Criterion G)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Recoinmendation

,I~

-~.-._ _ .-.---..---. - - .. . -_ _ .. .. . . . - .

p

_]._ 7j .-

~t=

< -i I

s I , ' . . I 1

t.

_-pnw.aq.

F l

1

,' ~

\

. I ROBINSON (1981)

Page 19

' OPERATIONS ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION (INPO Procedure OP-303, Rev. 2)

In this area, the team examined the operations organization and administration to determine if a well defined and understood organizational structure exists, department management has adequate authcrity to accomplish assigned tasks, adequate administrative support is provided to maximize productive time for personnel operating the plant, all instructions are issued in a businesslike manner, administrative programs are established for activities affecting em-ployees and position descriptions are available and utilized for all personnel.

1. Finding (Criterion A)

Recommendation Response ~~

2. Finding (Criterion D)

Recommendation

Response

3 Ei USE OF PROCEDURES

,. } (INPO Procedure OP-304, Rev. 2)

In this area, the evaluation team examined the use of procedures to determine if >

' management policies exist for use of procedures, procedures are being utilized, procedures are written clearly, instructions in emergency procedures allow quick and appropriate procedures responses to situations and a system for revising and controlling is in effect.

q W-

e s.-

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 20

1. Finding (Criterion B)

Y

~

Recommendation Reiponse ~

~

2. Finding (Criterion C)

Recommendation 1

~

Response

b

3. Finding (Criterion D)

Recommendation Resoor'me

.- .~. . ., -. . . .

t

.j -

. ', 4. Finding (Criterion E)

I . . . .. . .

).

Re6ommendation . .. .

--h_ ms m m.s = whee..m.~_mo * .gy e. - . e..

i w

f

~~

q 0: . -M' _ . _ _ . - . . . . . . . . - - . . -

' ~ .~

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 21

Response

l n ,

i- PLANT STATUS CONTROIS (INPO Procedure OP-305, Rev.1)

In this area, the team examined the plant status controls to determine if management approved policies exist .that give guidance in the area of plant status controls, operability status of equipment is properly controlled, a senior licensed individual is assigned responsibility for plant status controls, and special situations such as outages and post accident recovery have provisions for adequate plant status controls.

1. Finding (Criterion G)

~

" Recommendation

Response

2. Finding (Catergery II)

Recommendatica 5

--*w- =mh1 --

- +

%~m....m..ee. . . , . . , .,

i i

i

.- - +

1.

d . - - - . . - - - - - - - - -- -

4

(

3 3

1 s

s i -

m_.~. -. 5 '

W- =

n-- .-u._-

I ROBINSON (1981)

Page 22

{' OPERATIONS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT (INPO Procedure OP-306, Rev. 2)

In this area, the evaluation team examined the coerations facilities and equipment to determine if equipment is accessible for ' operation, programs are effected to maximize equipment availability, the working environment con-tributes to overall efficiency and safety of plant operations, communleation equipment is adequate and watch stations are adequate.

Finding m

SHIFT TURNOVER (INPO Procedure OP-309, Rev. 2)

In this area, the team examined shift turnover to determine if procedures specify shift turnover requirements for all operating shift positions; shift turnovers include mechanisms to communicate pertinent information regarding equipment status, operations or testing in progress; and pertinent togs are reviewed.

Finding (Criterion B)

Recommendation

Response

i

• i

i. ,

?

i o

s

!  ; e

-~..--w.w-

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 23 MAINTENANCE The maintenance organization, the preventive maintenance program, mainte-nance procedures, maintenance history and the administrative systems for controlling and documenting maintenance work were evaluated. Also, the methods used to control and calibrate test equipment and instrumentation, and the overall adequacy of the maintenance facilities and equipment were reviewed.

It was noted that a comprehensive preventive maintenance (PM) program is being initiated. Maintenance procedures are well written, definitive and' are a significant tool in the maintenance program. Material condition of the plant indicates a need for more detailed attention to identify and take action to correct deficiencies, such as: secondary leakage, routine calibration and maintenance on non-safety-related equipment, housekeeping and equipment history. Additionally, some problems exist in the control and storage of measuring and test equipment. Specific findings are detailed as follows:

MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION (INPO Procedure MA-401, Revision 2)

The mechanical and instrumentation and control (!&C) subunits were evaluated to determine if these groups are organized to accomplish required maintenance tasks. Particular attention was given to the interfaces between these groups and plant management. Other areas of interest included the availability of position descriptions, delegation of responsibilities and authorities, administrative pro-grams, safety and communications pregrams and the administrative / clerical work load on department personnel.

Finding (Category !!)

Recommendation

Response

.f 4

. i t

} PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

(INPO Procedure MA-402, Revision 1)

A review was made to determine if preventive maintenance (PM) activities are being performed and whether a well defined and effective program is in place.

, e t

+is - - *=*em

. ~  ;-

. r a

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 24 The administrative procedures governing the program and the station organiza-tion established to implement the procedures were also examined. Other areas of interest were criteria used to define the equipment included in the program, the use of equipment history files in conjunction with the program, the adequacy of individual PSI procedures for safety-related equipment and inspection frequencies.

Findmg (Criterion B)

Recommendation

Response

alAINTENANCE PROCEDURES (INPO Procedure 31A-403. Revision 2)

A review was made to determine the existence and adequacy of maintenance procedures and vendor manuals for safety-related and major balance-of-plant i

work activities. Procedures and manuals were examined to determine the types of activities covered, scope, level of detail, review and approval cycle, document 8

control requirements and methods of revision. An evaluation was also made of the effectiveness of procedures in controlling and documenting work and inspection activities.

Finding

-e ee i

t ,

i i

• 1 E.

i

.- ~

1 ROBINSON (1991)

Page 25 WORK CONTROL SYSTEM g (INPO Procedure MA-404, Revision 1)

A review was made of the administrative mechanism used for identifying and reporting equipment problems. An evaluation was performed to determine if the work control system was effective for planning and documenting the completion of maintenance work. Specific areas of interest included the administrative  ;

procedure for requesting corrective maintenance and those provisions in the '

system related to planning, authorizing and documenting the work.  !

1. Fir. ding (Category H) ,

Recommendation l

t

Response

j I

l

. , . l

2. Finding (Criterion B 7)

{

Recommendation g

o -

Response

b i

MAINTENANCE HISTORY (INPO Procedure M A-405, Revision 2)

A review was made to determine if complete, functional maintenance history records are being retained and used in evaluation of equipment performance.

Specific areas of interest included the amount and types of equipment included I

in the program, traceability and retrievability of records and methods used for

, review and evaluation of maintenance histories.

l

.ew.

aw==- am .r

_ = - - - - -- - -

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 26  ;

Finding (Criteria A,B,C,D & E)

_ *w e sw ee vs wouauattuss as estauw Ut une IllulitteltdHCU !!!5 tory.

Recommendation

Response

t CONTROL AND CALIBRATION OF TEST EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION (INPO Procedure alA-406, Revision 1)

A review was made to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of methods used for calibration and control of test equipment and instrumentation Speci-fically, methods used for identifying, calibrating, storing and issuing measuring and test equipment were examined. Procedures establishing and governing the calibration program and existing calibration records were also reviewed.

1. Finding (Criterion A)

Recommendation

Response

j s. .

'd

• Finding (Criterion E) 8 Regommendation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1 Response ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ ~

i Ebb 0

i f

. . - ~

>b

_ .. - _ .~

l. . , .. . .

.2 .

ROBINSON (1991)

Page 27

3. Finding (Criterion F)

Recommendation

Response

4. Finding (Criterion G)

Recommendation Response '

MAINTENANCE FACIIJTES AND EQUIPMENT

(!NPO Procedures MA-408, Revision 1)

A review was made to determine the adequacy and condition of maintenance fccilities and equipment. The location, size and condition of office, work and l

stornge space were examined, along with the condition of maintenance tools and equipment. Work and storage facilities and equipment were found to Se ide-Quate, except .d noted below:

Fincing(Criterien E)

Recommendation f

G - -.. . . _ _ . . - . ... ..-. -. .. .

Rasgense

-I

!t q x . ._. .

l

, i -

l t .

l l  ;

l l

L

\ ,

_____.__._m_..

~

, ROBINSON (198 t)

Page 28 RADIATION PROTECTION & CHEMISTRY Radiation Protection and Chemistry were evaluated by reviewing the perfor-mance of radiological protection training, dosimetry, internal and external exposure control, radioactive waste control and water chemistry control. This portion of the evaluation was primarily an examination of plant programs and facilities as they function under normal (non-outage) conditions. With this in mind, it was concluded that the plant's radiological protection and chemistry programs were adequate to protect the public, plant workers and the environ-ment. However, there were areas which require improvements.

RADIATION PROTECTION AND CHEMISTRY ORGANIZATION

& ADMINISTRATION (INPO Procedure RC-501, Rev.1)

An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the radiation protection and chemistry organizations and their associated administrative control mechanisms. Areas reviewed included the formal organizational struc-ture, procedures for cor. duct of operations, staffing levels, training and re-training programs, position descriptions and management authority.

Finding 4 ALARA PROGRAM (INPO Procedure RC-502, Revision 1)

This area was evaluated te determine if the company is making a substantive effort to maintain exposures as low as reasonably achievatile (ALAR A). Those aspects of an ALARA program specifically addressed were issuance of s senior management policy statement, assignment of responsibility for implementation,

' comprehensiveness and mechanisms for setting goals and measuring the success of the program.

.: A formal ALARA program is implemented with two permanent" staff members i

asulgned the responsibilities for the coordination and implementation of the program. Examples of good ALARA practices were the design review of the new j radioactive waste facility, involvement in outage pinnning, review of new plant procedures and plant modifications. However, the formal ALARA program has ~

only been in existence for about a year and its success in reducing exposure cannot yet be measured.

Finding l 6

?

i

• ROBINSON (1981) i Page 29 PERSONNEL DOSIMETRY (INPO Procedure RC-503, Rev. 2)

An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the plant's dosimetry program in measuring, evaluating and recording occupational radiation exposures. Areas examined included the scooe of the dosimetry program and procedural controls for use. Determinations were made as follows:

Finding (Category II) l }

L ~ ~ ^ ~

Recomen idation Respcase I

I

• I RADIATION SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL i

(INPO Procedure RC-504, Res.1)

An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the plant's rad!> logical surveillance program and radiological work control mechanisms in a

4 I

- _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - . . _ - _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - . . - . - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - . _ . - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . e$ a

. - .. . - - - _ -. . . - -- . =

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 30 identifying radiologicalconditions to workers and management and in minimizing j the radiation and contamination levels. Areas of interest included surveillance program procedures and scope, radiological conditions in the plant, surveillance

, methodology and the level of management review of surveillance data. The 7 radiologica1 surveillance and work control methods were generally effective but problems were noted in identifying and controlling the spread of contamination t-at the source. Determinations were as follows:

Finding (Category II) i r

t Recommendation

Response

t I

)

1

,,b .

!' .l i

s t

i l ,) e I

t h r s

0 c 1

,l e

~ ~

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 31 WASTE AND DISCHARGR CONTROL (LIQUID)

(INPO Procedure RC-505, Rev. 2)

This area was evaluated to determine if there is a system of controls that will minimize the generation of radioactive waste, reduce the likelihood of having an inadvertent release, detect the presence of contamination in systems where it  ;

should not be and ensure that all activities related to this srea are effectively '

coordinated between different departments involved in radioactive waste han-cUng. Determinations are as follows:

F'nding (Category !!)

and methods of solidifying waste.

Recommendation

Response

P RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY EQUIPMENT CONTROL AND CALIBRATION

(INPO Procedure RC-506, Rev. 2) i An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the plant's

, radiological survey equipment control and calibration program in maintaining a

' sufficient Inventory of instruments with a high degree of accuracy for the

'i radiological measurements made with these instruments. The evaluation covered procedure *:, storage conditions, reference standard trecent ~..ty, operational l , response cheeks and equipment identification. The Instrument control and calibration program was effective in accomplishing its intended purpose. Deter ~

minations were made as follows: "

1 i

~ mno.- - h

7 i..

a ,

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 32

1. Finding (Category II)

/

Recommendation t

Response

2. Finding (Category II)

Recommendation

Response

i PERSONNEL HEALTH PHYSICS INDOCTRINATION UNPO Procedure RC-507, Revision 2) " '

o i An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the plant's health l physics indoctrination program in informing personnel of the risks associated

with radiation exposure and available methods for minimizing exposure. Areas reviewed included management polley, scope and depth of the Indoctrination, the training environment and training Indoctrination.

'l' The plant had recently implemented a company-wide general employee training program whleh was developed to standardize training within the company. Taken as a whole, the indoctrination program appears to be structured and conducted in a manner that achieved the objective of preparing personnel to work in radiologi-cally controlled areas of the plant.

i i

m- -. .... . . s

r

.~ .

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 33 Finding The finding concerning the classroom training facilities is reflected in the training section of the report.

PROCESS WATER CONTROLS

'(INPO Procedure RC-508, Rev. 2)

An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of plant process water controls in maintaining the integrity of plant systems. Areas reviewed included procedures, laboratory quality control, bulk chemleal, cleaning agent and reagent control, training and systems chemistry.

1. Finding (Criterion B) it'ecommendation Response -

2. Findin.I(Criterion A)

Recommendation

• i

(

4 t I i

4 3

1 i

I i

I ww-,-. . - - . . womeen i

= * ,

L ,

, ROBINSON (1981)

Page 34

)

Response i I.

ilEALTli PflYSICS FACILITIES AND EQUlf"1ENT UNPO Procedure RC-509, Revision 2)

An evaluation was performed to determine the adequacy of the plant's chemistry and health physics faellities and equipment in satisfying plant needs and in contributing to safe and effleient plant operation. Areas of interest included the number and types of instruments and equipment, the protective clothing inven-

., tory, the design and working environment of facilities and the esse of access to and physleal conditions of the radiologleal controlled areas.

l

( The original plant design does not provide adequate space for health physics and J

chemistry feellities within the auxillery building. Plant personnel have at-tempted to utilise the available space in the best possible manner. Improve-f ments in the facilities are needed as noted belows Finding (Criterion 5)

A w

i l '.

l t

,, . w ,.. - u".=e w e ****

.i ROBINSON (1981)

Page 35 l

l Recommendation f

i Ree' pons'e F

RESPIRATORY PROTECT!ON PROGRAM (INPO Proceduro RC-511, Revision 2)

- An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the plant's respiratory protection program in protecting personnel from alrborne hazards. '

Areas reviewed included polley and procedures, identifteetion and control of

, airborne hazards, selection and use of respirators, respirator maintenance, whole

-! body counting and emergency capabilities. The plant program was judged to be 76 adequate for the protection of personnel from known hazards. Determinations 1 were made as follows:

l. Finding (Criterion C) i RFoommendation

\'

t

~y e

ROBINSO N (1981)

Page 36

Response

purity.

2. , Finding (Category II)

Recommendation

Response

e 0

0 m.. .. mu.. --

a g *,

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 37 TECHNICAL SUPPORT On-site engineering support was evaluated in light of current INPO criteria, it was noted that improvements could be made regarding control of plant modifica-tions, performance monitoring, training of engineering personnel and reliability of the plant computer. These improvements are discussed in detail below:

ON-SITE ENGINEERING SUPPORT (INPO ."rocedure TS-702, Revision 1)

An evaluation was performed to determine the effectiveness of the on-site engi-neering support group in resolving problems and concerns of a technical nature.

Areas reviewed included organizational structure, size, assignment of resoonsi-bilities and effectiveness of coordination with other groups. In addition, programs for control of design changes, on- and off-site incident review, plant performance monitoring, reactor engineering and other such engineering activi-ties were reviewed. Determinations were made as follows:

1. Finding (Criterion 3) f ReeemmendeLion

.i

-I

~ '

MM~ w. - , s,m

. ,s /

ROBINSON (1931) [,

Page 38

)

l l

t' r,

I k

1 i

l u

i

Response

i I

l l

lli

(

h A4' 1

J i

e b

e I

o o=..-.. . w . .-. - .---. . . - < - - . . - - + ~ ~ . . - <~*

- - - - - - - - - - , - - - - . , ------.-e---- e. --. , . - -- - - , _----e m - ,-.- w - , , , ~ ~ . - - . --,nw,- w -----en-a---o- ~n,..-,- .-- --.

_ _ . . _ . ~ .

/.

, ROBINSON (1981)

- Page 39

2. Finding (Category II)

Rec. ommendation Respondo t

t0 g l

t t

l fa

\

h s n.-- ~ ~ - - . ,-.c.

. . . - . . . -. . . . __ . . - . . . . . . ~. . . ~ . . - -..

t. .

g ,

_ _ . . . _ _ ~- .. .- - .- .

t-g 7-

._, ,s .,

ROBINSON (1981)

Page 40

3. Finding (Category II) 1-r- Recommendation i

,J t

l -.1 l.

Response  :

I i I-I 4. Finding (Category II) .

l l- Recommendation t

l N@U88 e

f i

k 1

g J-(

k

.,, t i

i I

l

, O t

-- Weam- .

m

-,e '

ROBINSON (1981)

APPENDIX Page1 ADMINISTRATIVE APPENDIX I. LISTING OF AREAS EVALUATED ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OA-101 Objectives OA-102 Organization Structure OA-103 Administrative Controls OA-104 Quality Programs OA-105 Information Programs OA-106 Industrial Safety OA-107 Surveillance Program OA-108 Personnel Qualifications TRAINING TQ-211 Training Organization And Management TQ-221 Training Resources TQ-231 Training Effectiveness TQ-242 Non-Licensed Operator Training TQ-243 Licensed Operator Training TQ-244 Licensed Operator Requalification Training TQ-245 Shif t Technical Advisor Training OPERATIONS OP-301 Conduct of Shift Operations O P-102 Tagout Practices OP-303 Operations Organization and Administration OP-304 Use of Procedures OP-305 Plant Status Controls OP-306 Operations Facilities and Equipment OP-309 Shif t Turnover

.l MAINTENANCE I MA-401 Maintenance Organization and Administration -

.t MA-402 Preventive Maintenance MA-403 Maintenance Procedures n MA-404 Work Control System

MA-405 Maintenance history

' MA-406 Control and Calibration of Test Equipment and Instrumentation MA-408 Maintenance Facilities and Equipment o

.~

h, _.__.2_______._..__i_._________

.r,c 4 ',.

• - % ROBINSON (1981)

,. . APPENDIX Page 2 RADIATION AND CHEMISTRY RC-501 Radiation Protection and Chemistry Organization and Administration RC-502 ALARA Program RC-503 Personnel Dosimetry RC-504 Radiation Surveillance and Control RC-505 Waste and Discharge Control (Liquid)

RC-506 Radiological Survey Equipment Control and Calibration

- RC-507 Personnel Health Physics Indoctrination RC-508 Process Water Controls RC-509 Health Physics Facilities and Equipment RC-511 Respiratory Protection Program TECHNICAL SUPPORT TS-702 On Site Engineering Support i

I a

_ . - -