ML20150D286
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807130405 | |
| Download: ML20150D286 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000440/1988200
Text
_ ____________
t
b
a
O
[s@CICo
a
?
UNITED STATES
'g
y
,g'
p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
j
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\ 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
ADOCK 05000440
Q
.
_ . . _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_ _ _ _ _
.
.
-_.
._
,
r
s
'
v
.
Mr. Alvin'Xaplan
2-
June 30, 1988
-
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact me or
Mr. J. Cummins (301-492-0957) of this office.
p
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
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
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
ield:
5........:............:.._.........:........
..:.T...........:p.b........::0/
88 ..
04/1088
.....:..........
DATE:05/29/88
- 05/2//88
- 057 /88
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 exper er.ce among personnel in the security and fire-
i
i
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
i
thereby promote safety. These programs were considered by the team to be
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
l
tem to be a strength; however, the team review of completed surveillance tests
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
.
. .
.
.
. _ _ - . _ _ . . . _ _ , . _ _
. _ _ , _ . - , _ _ _
.-__.-,,,-.-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
ij
.
iii
,
,._. _. _._ . _ .
. . _ . . - , , -
.--
.
.
. _ _
-
.
. . . _ .
-. . , . . >