ML20150D286

Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-440/88-200 on 880314-25.Sound Procedures & Programs Developed & Implemented & Staff Had Good Positive Attitude

ML20150D286
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Kaplan A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
Shared Package
ML20150D288	List: IR 05000440/1988200 ML20150D286
References
NUDOCS 8807130405
Download: ML20150D286 (7)

See also: IR 05000440/1988200

Text

_ ____________

t b

a O

a

y

[s@CICo  ?

'g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES

,g'

-

p,

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

j

'

\ M.* /

• .. June 30, 1988

Docket No. 50-440

Mr. Alvin Kaplan, Vice President

Nuclear Group

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

10 Center Road

Perry, Ohio 44081

1

Dear Mr. Kaplan: ,

.

This letter forwards the report and the executive summary of the Operational

Safety Team Inspection (OSTI) conducted by Mr. J. E. Cummins and other NRC

personnel during the period March 14-25, 1988. The activities involved are

authorized by NRC Operating License No NPF-58 for the Perry Nuclear Power

Plant. The team discussed the findings with you and other members of your

staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Selected activities in the areas of operations, maintenance, surveillance,

engineering, management oversight, safety review, and quality programs were

examined during the inspection. As a part of the operations performance

evaluation, the team observed 162 hours0.00188 days <br />0.045 hours <br />2.678571e-4 weeks <br />6.1641e-5 months <br /> of on-shift operation related activi-

ties. This included 95 hours0.0011 days <br />0.0264 hours <br />1.570767e-4 weeks <br />3.61475e-5 months <br /> of backshift (including weekends). coverage.

The team determined that sound procedures and programs had been developed and

implemented and that the staff had a good, positive attitude. Strengths and

,

weaknesses identified by the team are discussed in the inspection report.

The team did not identify any major items which indicated that the plant had

any significant problems in making the transition from the construction and

startup phases to the operating phase. Observations by team members indicated, ,

however, that plant personnel were on a learning curve as they gained  !

experience in operating and working in an operating nuclear power plant.

Examples of these observations were instances in which plant personnel did not

use procedures to perform plant evolutions, and instances in which personnel

did not follow good radiological control practices. There was also an instance

, in which licensee personnel, who reviewed a surveillance procedure report that

'

had questionable recorded data, failed to take any action. Team observations

l indicated that a more aggressive attitude toward root cause analysis and

corrective action was needed.

No respente ta this letter is required, but some of the findings identified by

the team may be potential enforcement items. The Region III Office will review this

report and follow up on any enforcement items identified.

'

0F0f

8807130405 880630

PDR ADOCK 05000440

Q PDC

.

_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

,

. . -_. ._

r s

'

v

.

Mr. Alvin'Xaplan - 2- June 30, 1988

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact me or

p Mr. J. Cummins (301-492-0957) of this office.

Sincerely,

.

3

.

Dennis M. Crutch ield, irec or

Division of Reactor Pr jects III/IV/V

and Special Projects

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Executive Summary

2. Inspection Report 50-440/88-200

.

cc w/ enclosures: See next page

- _

t

e

.

-

, , . - , . - , . , . , , . . ., - - - - . , - . ,, ,,-,-,,n. , , . . - , . - - ~ - - ,, , - , , _ _ , . - , = ,,w. . _ . . .n . -- ---

, .

f

.

Mr. Alvin Kaplan -3- June 30, 1988

cc w/ enclosures:

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. James W. Harris, Director

2300 N Street, N.W; Division of Power Generation

Washington, D.C. 20037 Ohio Department of Industrial

Relations

David E. Burke P.O. Box 825

The Cleveland Electric Columbus, Ohio 43216

Illuminating Company

P.O. Box 5000 The Honorable Lawrence Logan

Clevaland, Ohio 44101 Mayor, Village of Perry

4203 Harper Street

Resident Inspector's Office Perry, Ohio 44081

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Pannly at Center Road The Honorable Robert V. Orosz

Perry, Ohio 44081 Mayor, Village of North Perry

-

North Perry Village Hall

Regional Administrator, Region III 4778 Lockwood Road

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Perry Village, Ohio 44081

799 Roosevelt Road

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Attorney General

Department of Attorney General

Frank P. Weiss, Esq. 30 East Broad Street

Assistant-Prosecuting Attorney Columbus, Ohio 43216

105 Main Street

Lake County Administration Center Radiological Health Program

Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ohio Department of Health

1224 Kinnear Road

Ms. Sue Hiatt Columbus, Ohio 43212

OCRE Interim Representative

8275 Munson Ohio Environmental Protection

Mentor, Ohio 44060 Agency

361 East Broad Street

Terry J. Lodge, Esq. Columbus, Ohio 43266-0558

618 N. Michigan Street -

Suite 105 Mr. Phillip S. Haskell, Chairman

Toledo, Ohio 43624 Perry Township Board of Trustees

Box 65

John G. Cardinal, Esq. 4171 Main Street

Prosecuting Attorney Perry, Ohio 44081

Ashtabula County Courthouse

Jefferson, Onio 44047 State of Ohio

Public Utilities Commission

Eileen M. Buzzelli 180 East Broad Street

The Cleveland Electric Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573

Illuminating Company

P. O. Box 97 E-210 Mr. Murray R. Edelman

Perry, Ohio 44081 Ce-terior Energy

6200 Oaktree Blvd.

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Independence, Ohio 44131

1100 Circle 75 Parkway

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

.

s. l

,

-

'

Mr. AlVin Kaplan 4- June 30, 1986

Distribution

PDR

LPDR

DRIS R/F

RSIB R/F

BGrimes, NRR

TMurley, NRR

JSniezek, NRR

CHaughney, NRR

Elmbro, NRR

JKonklin, NRR

LNorrholm, NRR

RArchitzel, NRR

JCummins, NRR

JSharkey, NRR

PCastleman, NRR

DCrutchfield, NRR

JMcCormick-Barger, RIII

RMiller, TTC

SGuthrie, NRR

DBeckman, Consultant

KPerkins, NRR

RCooper, RIII

GColburnt NRR -

JStefano, NRR

MVirgilio, NRR

RIngram, NRR

Regional Administrators

Regional Division Directors

SRI, Perry

NSIC

NTIS

ACRS (3)

OGC (3)

^

0FC :RSIB:DRIS:NRR : SIB:DRIS:NRR : SIB:DRIS:N J.B: D NR :DRP. RR  :  :

.....:........... g:...__ .

f.:........ .._4 .. , ...........:....____

NAME :JCummins/ L:Rsrchi :CHaughne BGrites DC ield:  :

.....:.......... 5........:............:.._.........:........

..:.T...........:p.b........::0/ l

DATE:05/29/88 :05/2//88 :057 /88 88 .. 04/1088

'

:

I

f

.

,_ ,

f

.

ENCLOSURE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INSPECTION REPORT 50-440/88-200

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

During the period-March 14-25, 1988, an eight inspector team performed an

Operational Safety Team Inspection (OSTI) at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

The inspection was performed to determine if the Perry Plant had made the

transition from the cnnstruction phase and an approximately 20 month long

startup program to a safe operating plant. Since the primary focus of this

inspection was on the operation of the plant, the inspection effort

concentrated on control room operations and activities that interfaced with

and supported the safe operation of the plant. The team observed 162 hours0.00188 days <br />0.045 hours <br />2.678571e-4 weeks <br />6.1641e-5 months <br /> of

on-shift operations related activities. In addition to observations of

-

operations, inspection in the areas of maintenance, surveillance, management

oversight, safety review, and quality programs were performed with emphasis on

how these areas interfaced with plant operations.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

The team considers that the licensee has implemented sound programs and

procedures, and-that the plant is staffed with an adequate number of competent

personnel to effectively maintain the plant and operate it in a safe manner.

The staff exhibited a good, positive attitude and, in general there appears to

'

be a sense of team work in resolving problems and maintaining the plant;

however, some disagreements between some departments were noted. Strengths and

weaknesses identified by the team are summarized below and are discussed in

detail in the succeeding paragraphs of this report.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The control room operations staff maintained control of the facility and an

awareness of plant status in a professional manner, while displaying appro-

priate concern for safe facility operation. The operations staff also appears

to have a sound understanding of integrated plant operations, component and

equipment conditions, and system configurations. Control room shift turnovers,

while generally thorough, sometimes lacked a historical update of events and

ongoing activities. The team observed that the control room log entries

sometimes lacked detail and did not provide adequate information for

reconstructing events. The team believes that the log entries could be

improved so that they will contribute to the evaluation and analysis of events.

The team discussed with the licensee the concern that the large volume of

administrative work being performed by the unit supervisor was so time-

consuming and distracting that it had the potential to inipact on his ability to

supervise other control room activities. The appropriate use of procedures

was, in general, considered to be a strength by the team; however, team

members observed two activities, which could have affected facility safety,

being accomplished without benefit of procedural control or supervision. The

team identified an apparent need for great Supervising Operator involvement in

directing the activities of nonlicensed plant operators performing tuties in

the plant.

1

.

. = . - -

. .

g. - I'

<

,

,

'

.

.The depth of fire-fight ng i exper er.ce i among personnel in the security and fire-

protectico section and the emphasis on fire protection training were considered

by the team to be strong-assets.

In the maintenance area, the licensee's~ program of integrated planning and

scheduling of corrective and preventive maintenance, surveillances, and design

changes was effecthe. Also the scheduling and performance of maintenance in

preselected areas on a quarterly basis appeared to enhance efficiency and  ;

thereby promote safety. These programs were considered by the team to be i

strengths,

l

While the staff of the measuring and test equipment (M&TE) group was well  !

qualified and knowledgeable and the calibration laboratory was well-equipped .

and of high quality, it did not appear to the team that the program for the  !

return to the laboratory and the recalibration of.M&TE was effective and -

adequate to ensure that out-of-calibration test equipment was not used in the ,

-

field. '

~he timeliness of reviews of completed surveillance tests was considered by the i

tem to be a strength; however, the team review of completed surveillance tests l

identified instances in which the post-test technical data reviews and analyses

of trends failed to result in any followup corrective action or evaluation-when

inconsistent or anomalous data were obtained. The team was also concerned that

the licensee could not provide documentation that would confirm the motor-

operated valve (MOV) position indication limit switch settings for those MOVs

that had not undergone testing by the motor-operated valve analysis testing

system (M0 VATS). The licensee had initiated action to confirm these limit

switch settings prior to the time the team left the site.

The systems engineering function appeared to be generally well founded in an

experienced staff that was generally well administered. During the inspection, .

however, tha team observed licensee activities related to a problem with a

water hammer in the residual heat removal (RHR) piping in the shutdown cooling

leg, and found that the engineering group's approach was not well-dise.iplined.

After more than a week from the time th( roblem was identified, the engineer-

ing group did not appear to have developu either a detailed plaa for continued

operation or for corrective action. This example evokes a mo c. ger.arai concern i

that more agressive root cause analysis and 7rompt corrective .% tion is war-

raated.

The team observed that N dings by the Independent Safety Engineering Group  !

(ISEG) were frequently too general. Their reports were of a narrative type and

addressed only broad, programatic issues. The result was that the issues did

not get timely response!. from the designated action parties and did not appear

to be treated as binding recomendations. To be meaningful, the team felt that

the ISEG method of auditing and reporting needed to be more disciplined and to

address managable projects that were directed toward safety improvements.

In general, the team found the areas of quality assurance, quality control and

safety review committees to be strengths.

A

ii

. l

l

. _ _ - . _ _ . . . _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ , _ . - , _ _ _ .-__.-,,,-.-m . . .-

___

.

- , ,

f

,

Team members observed instances that indicated an apparent lax attitude toward

radiological control practices in the plant. Examples of this were: a worker

standing in potentially contaminated steam that had not been checked by health

physics personnel, a worker carelessly discarding protective gloves after

working on a potentially contaminated valve, a worker leaning over a radio-

logical control barrier to use a barrel inside the barrier boundary as a

writing desk, and workers.in the radiologically controlled area ignoring water

leaking on the floor from a potentially contaminated source. In the latter

instance, a team member had health physics personnel check the area; and the

water was found to be slightly contaminated.

Conclusions

The team concluded that the licensee has implemented sound programs and was

developing a competent and knowledgeable staff. Some of the weaknesses identi-

,

fied indicate, however, that the licensee's staff was undergoing a learning

process through experience in operating and working in an operating nuclear

power plant.

. ..

t

i

j

l

.

iii

,

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

-. . , . . >