ML20214A218

Forwards Annual SALP Rating for Facility for Nov 1985 - Oct 1986.Category 2 Rating Recommended Re Performance of Functional Areas of Plant Operations,Radiological Controls & Licensing Activities

ML20214A218
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/12/1986
From:	Benaroya V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Olshan L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20214A133	List: ML20214A131 ML20214A218
References
NUDOCS 8611190309
Download: ML20214A218 (6)

Text

.

• ENCLOSURE 2 p a na uq

,k UNITED ',TATEs

, [dk'3'(// ,g 5-

,/ ' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NOV 121986

%;, g,'..... f MEMORANDUM FOR: L. Olshan, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #3, DPL-A FROM: Victor Benaroya, Chief Facilities Operations Branch, DPL-A

SUBJECT:

SALP INPUT - BYRON UNIT 1 Enclosed is our input for the annual SALP rating for Byron Unit 1. It evaluates the licensee's operation of Byron Unit i during the 12-month period from November 1,1985 to October 31, 1986, in terms of performance in the functional areas of plant operations, radiological controls and licensing activities. An integrated rating of Category 2 is recomended for these functional areas.

t -

Victor Bena oya, Chief Facilities Operations Branch, DPL-A

Enclosure:

As stated cc: T. Novak E. Rossi S. Varga D. Vassallo W. Regan t -

Contact:

J. Schiffgens x27458 8611190309 DR 861113 ADOCK 05000454 PDR

~

(

SALP Evaluation for Byron Unit 1 INTRODUCTION:

This report evaluates the Licensee's operation of the Byron Facility during the 12 month SALP period, November 1, 1985 to October 31, 1986, in terms of performance in the Functional Areas, " Plant Operations", " Radiological Controls",

and " Licensing Activities", using the Evaluation Criterion " Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events". The Unit had no refueling outage during this interval.

FUNCTIONAL AREAS:

A. Licensing Activities Evaluation Criterion - Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events The following are some reporting statistics for Unit 1:

Reports Unit 1 Licensee Event Reports 34 Immediate Notifications 37 Phys.Sec./ Safeguards 3 Unusual Events 2 10 CFR 50.72 32 Due to:

Mechanical Failure 4 Electrical Failure 9 Procedural Inadequacy 1

(. Personnel Error 4 i Surveillance Error 0 Unknown 9 Other 10 l

l

s

1. Promptness and Completeness of Reporting - With regard to Immediate Notifications, 3? were telephoned into the NRC within the time limits of 10 CFR 50.72 and 5 were not. Of the five notifications that were not on time, two were associated with reactor trips, two with the inoperability of the process computer and subsequent loss of emergency assessment, and one was a 4-hour report.

With regard to the 34 Licensee Event Reports (LERs), all were dated within the time requirements of 10 CFR 50.73. LERs were submitted for all of the trips and I of the 2 forced rampdowns to 0% power, and for other events as required by 10 CFR 50.73.

2. Proper Identification and Analysis of Events - Immediate Notifications agreed with the descriptions in the Monthly Reports and provided acceptable descriptions of the events. In general, the LER analyses seemed carefully done and thorcugh. During the SALP period only 2 events were significant enough to be presented at an OR briefing: one had to do with pressurizer safety valve maintenance and installation errors and the other with the PRA sequence " loss of service water - both trains - reactor coolant pump seal LOCA" consequences.

3. Effective Corrective Action - For the most part, both the Imediate Notifi-cations and the Licensee Event Reports suggest that the Licensee took appropriate action with regard to the reported events. It was noted, however, that there were 3 Imediate Notifications of inoperability of the process computer, with subsequent loss of emergency assessment, over i a 4 day period with no follow up report on causes or measures taken to correct deficiencies. This and the number of late reports, 5 out of 37, lead us to conclude that the Licensee's licensing activities need more management attention.

l l Rating Category: 2 l

l

s B. Plant Operations Evaluation Criterion - Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events The following are operations statistics for Unit I for the 12 month SALP period:

Parameters Unit 1 Initial Commercial Operation 9/16/85 Unit Availability Factor (%) 75.9 Unit Capacity Factor - DER (%) 62.8 Forced Outage Rate (%) 9.5 Net Ele. Gen. Factor (%)* 75.5 Refueling Outage Factor (%)* 0.0 Scheduled Main./ Repair Factor (%)* 16.7 Forced Main./ Repair Factor (%)* 7.8

• These are percents of the SALP period during which the .

units were in the stated condition.

During the SALP period, Unit 1 experienced 1 manual trip, 5 reactor trips, and 2 rampdowns to 0% power, for a trip rate of 0.90 per 1000 critical hours or 6 per calendar year. The 1985 industry- wide average is 6.0 per year. The average for Westinghouse plants is 1.04 per 1000 critical hours or 6.8 per year.

Also, note that with regard to the Unit Availability Factor, the Unit Capacity Factor - DER, and the Forced Outage Rate, industry averages for 1985 are 68.5%,

61.7%, and 11.3%, respectively. All four indicators suggest that Byron performed as well as or slightly better than the industry average.

g .

2 The Unit Availability and Unit Capacity Factors may not be the best neasures of plant operations performance. It is interesting to compare the time spent on forced maintenance / repair versus that spent on scheduled maintenance / repair; the ratio is about 0.5. This suggests that the Licensee spends more time with preventative maintenance than with forced repair. It should be noted that only I of the 6 trips experienced at Byron was definitely due to equipment failure, 2 were due to personnel error, 2 were due to procedure inadequacies, and I was due to environmental conditions.

Rating Category: 1 C. Radiological Controls:

Preliminary data for 1985 show that 1,531 workers (out of 5,592) received measurable exposure to radiation at the Byron Station. The total exposure was 135 man-rem. No worker received a whole body dose in excess of 3 man-rem.

Unit 1 did not receive a full power license until the middle of February, so the data cover power operations for only a portion of the year. Consequently, a rating for this area is not assigned.

Rating Category: N/A CONCLUSION:

Based on the reasons stated above, and the accompanying individual ratings, we recommend a Category 2 integrated rating for the Licensee's performance in the three Functional Areas reviewed using the Evaluation Criterion, " Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events".

ENCLOSURE 2 SALP INPUTS (N0VEMBER 1, 1985 - OCTOBER 31,1986)

RRANCH PANAGEMENT APPROACH REVIEWER INPUT DATE INVOLVEMENT TO RESOLUTION RESPONSIVENESS STAFFING TRAINING OVERALL EQB, Romney 04/21/86 N/A 1 1 --

N/A --

EICSB, Kramer 04/28/86 2 N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 ETCSB, Burrows 05/06/86 N/A 1 3 N/A N/A --

EICSR, Lasher 06/27/86 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A _

FOR, Samworth 08/20/86 1 1 1 N/A N/A 1 FOR, Hickman 09/25/86 2 2 2 N/A N/A 2 PSB, Katze 08/21/86 3 3 1 N/A N/A 3 PSB, Li 09/25/86 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A --

NMSS, Skelton 10/10/86 2 1 1 2 1 --

RSB, Chatterton 10/23/86 2 2 1 N/A N/A 2 ER, Johnson 10/28/86 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A --

EB, Elliot 10/29/86 1 1 1 2 N/A 1 F0B, Hickman 10/29/86 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 1