ML20247Q346
| ML20247Q346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N817 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-98-99, NUDOCS 9805280250 | |
| Download: ML20247Q346 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1998099
Text
I
4
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION
50-482/98-99
l. BACKGROUND
The SALP Board convened on April 22,1998, to assess the nuclear safety performance of the f
Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period April 6,1997, through April 18,1998. The Board
was conducted in accorda,ce with Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of
Licensee Performance." The Board members included: K. E. Brockman, Deputy Director,
Division of Reactor Projects (Chairperson); A. T. Howell, Director, Division of Reactor Safety; )
1
and W. H. Bateman, Director, Project Directorate IV-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional Administrator.
Functional Areas and Ratinas
Current Previous J
Operations 2 2
Maintenance 2 2
Engineering 2 3
Plant Support 2 2 I
11. OPERATIONS J
Overall, performance in the Operations funcUonal area exhibited an appropriate focus on
operating the plant in a safety-conscious manaer. Management guidance and expectations
were, for the most part, effectively communicated; resources were dedicated to correct both ,
!
individual performance deficiencies and programmatic problems. Operations during both routine
and transient conditions were properly conducted, and individual operator performance reflected
an effective training program. There were, however, examples of knowledge deficiencies and
inattention to detail which contributed to several errors. Self-assessments and quality assurance
activities were used to help focus improvement efforts, especially in the area of human
performance. Corrective action improvement was a focus area throughout the assessment I
!
period, but overall effectiveness was mixed.
Management attention during this assessment period focused on improving both ind vidual and 1
programmatic performance. Emphasis was placed on increasing the safety consciousness of )
'
the Operations organization, and having operators define and enforce higher performance
standards on the entire site staff. These efforts were generally successful; however, the
establishment and maintenance of high performance standards were not consistently
demonstrated throughout the entire operations organization. On several occasions, it was noted
that shift supervision would not let work proceed because of uncertain safety implications;
contrarily, there were also instances identified where operators' failures to exact high standards
contributed to operational shortcomings.
[ While the plant did not experience significant operational transients during this assessment
period, individual operator performance during those transient conditions which did occur was
(
good. Plant operations during nonemergency and routine operations were also, on the whole,
property conducted; however, there were several instances where procedural inadequacies I
were identified, and in which failures to adhere to procedural guidance contributed to the I
9805280250 980522
'
PDR ADOCK 05000482
G PDR ;
]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
,
.
,
-2-
performance errors. This included instances such as the failure to recognize that inserting
control rods below the rod insertion limit required entry into the Technical Specification Limiting
Condition for Operation and the use of uncontrolled handwritten information in conjunction with
plant drawings.
Improvements in the implementation of corrective actions was an area of concentration during
this assessment period: training on human error prevention was provided to all site personnel; a
Corrective Action Review Board was established to improve staff performance in the
development and implementation of corrective actions to identified problems; and, a site-wide
program for tracking and evaluating human performance errors was initiated. Altogether, these
and other initiatives helped the licensee improve its overall performance. Howevet, there
continued to be repetitive problems, such as the lack of adequate documentation of operability
evaluations, inadequate control of overtime, and a failure to conduct surveillance tWng on a
staggered basis, as required by the Technical Specifications. The effectiveness of self-
assessment activities was mixed, with instaners of good findings being contrasted with
examples of weak Conclusions or recommendations. Efforts appeared to be focused on
correcting already known problems. j
Overall, performance in the Operations functional area was determined to be Category 2.
Ill. MAINTENANCE
t
Safety performance in the maintenance functional area was good, with some overall
improvements noted. Management oversight of and involvement in maintenance and testing
activities was evident, and identified problems were responded to in a conservative manner.
Maintenance programs were of good quality and were effectively implemented. While the
overallimplementation of maintenance and surveillance activities by craft personnel was very
good, there were some isolated, deficient work practices. Additionally, instances of surveillance l
procedure inadequacy continued to be noted. The overall material condition of the plant was I
very good. Self-assessments were generally effective in identifying areas for improvement.
Improvements were noted in the oversight of maintenance and testing activities. For example, a
licensee-initiated incident investigation Team identified a number of problems, which involved
events that occurred during the previous assessment period, in the areas of welding and work
control. These problems were indicative, in part, of management and supervisory oversight
weaknesses; however, the respense to and corrective actions for the identified problems were
strong. As a result, in-process welding and control of welding materials improved. Additionally, l
conservative actions were taken in response to a number of licensee-identified Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement implementation problems.
Maintenance program quality and implementation were good. A well developed inservice
inspection program was implemented; however, a program interface deficiency resulted in the
! required visual examination of the pressurizer safety valve internals during the first 10-year
inservice inspection interval to not be conducted. Despite this shortcoming, work planning and
scheduling appeared to have improved over the last 6 months.
Overall, the conduct of maintenance activities was very good. While there were isolated
examples of deficient work practices, there were few adverse plant impacts caused by worker
i
.
4
,
-3-
performance problems. Craft personnel training was effective, and required certification
activities were properly conducted. Surveillance program implementation was generally good,
but there were some instances of failure to follow procedures. For example, maintenance i
personnel failed to comply with the main steam safety valve testing procedure, which resulted in
an inadvertent opening of an atmospheric relief valve with the plant at power. Additionally, the
licensee identified a number of surveillance procedure deficiencies, a problem noted in the
- previous assessment period. This resulted in inadequately performed surveillance and
indicated a need for increased management attention.
,
The overall material condition of the plant was very good. Few plant transients occurred as a
result of equipment malfunctions. The problems involving the auxiliary feedwater system i
pumps, which were noted in the previous assessment period, were effectively resolved. In
contrast, however, an automatic function of the post accident sampling system, which has been
nonfunctional for several years, has not yet been resolved. l
Self-assessments and audits were effective in identifying problems. For example, assessments
. of the Maintenance Rule program were self-critical as evidenced by the identification of multiple
problems.
Overall, performance in the Maintenance functional area was determined to be Category 2.
J '
IV. ENGINEERING
Performance in the Engineering functional area improved during the assessment period and was q
determined to be good. Initiatives were implemented to improve the overall effectiveness of the 4
engineering organization. Engineering programs and procedures were good, with improvement
noted in the 10 CFR 50.59 program and its implementation. The overall quality of work
performed by the engineering staff on routine engineering functions, as well as engineering
support to operations and maintenance, was mixed. Engineering self-assessments and
implementation of corrective actions were good.
The implementation of engineering functions at Wolf Creek was effective. Generally, a strong
involvement by system and design engineers resulted in solid system performance and
effective control of plant modifications. In addition, management initiated several key
improvement projects to improve the overall effectiveness of the engineering organization, such
as: (1) the reinstatement of the " System Health Report" program; (2) the development of a ,
state-of-the-art Engineering Information System: (3) the establishment of a component 1
engineering group; and (4) the institution of a framework for forming an engineering calculation
review group.
Engineering programs and procedures were good. The availability of design bases
documentation was good, and improvements were noted in the 10 CFR 50.59 program and its ;
implementation. Overall, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Fidelity Review Project Plan was j
effective; however, the Plan did not provide adequate guidance conceming the utilization of l
Performance Improvement Requests as the means to properly implement the corrective action l
'
program.
I
l
I
1
l
'
\
__ - . - - - J
.
-4-
.
The quality of work performed by the engineering staff on routine engineering functions was
mixed. For example, the architect engineering inspection team determined that the design
bases of the residual heat removal and component cooling water systems, and their support-
interface systems, were sufficient to assure design safety functions. The associated design and
licensing bases were adequately adhered to, and the as-built configurations of the systems
were, for the most part, consistent with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report . However,
inconsistencies were identified between the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, the Technical
Specifications, and Emergency Operating Procedures. One inconsistency concemed the time
required for operators to shift the suction of the emergency core cooling system from the
refueling water storage tank to the containment sump following a loss-of-coolant accident. In
addition, the electrical engineering organization exhibited lapses in the execution of basic
engineering processes, such as control of direct current loads, because of inattention to detail
and the use of an informal, oversimplified approach to certain tasks.
Engineering support to operations and maintenance improved, but still was of mixed quality.
The engineering staff exhibited some improvement in performing short-term assessments to j
support the operational needs of the plant. In severalinstances, engineers responded rapidly to
evaluate degraded equipment or marginal conditions; in the process, they developed high
quality products to support safe operation of the plant. However, engineering support in
troubleshooting repeated failures of medium voltage circuit breakers exhibited weaknesses.
Additionally, guidance provided by engineering to operations for flushing essential service water
lines to the auxiliary feedwater system following valve stroke tests was deficient in that it did not
identify the need to flush the pump discharge piping.
Engineering self-assessments, in general, were thorough and contained solid recommendations
for corrective actions; furthermore, implementation of corrective actions was good, with few
weaknesses identified.
Overall, performance in the Engineering functional area was determined to be Category 2.
V. Pl. ANT SUPPORT
Overall performance in the plant support functional area continued to be good. Performance in
the radiological controls area was generally effective; however, implementation problems
continted to be identified and person-rem exposure increased significantly. Emergency
preparedness performance was good, and security performance continued at a high level. The
implementation of the fire protection program was good and improved during the latter part of
the assessment period. Overall housekeeping was good. Self-assessments were, on the
whole, effective at identifying areas for improvement; however, corrective action effectiveness
was mixed.
Performance in the radiological controls area was, on the whole, good. The radiation protection
program was properly managed and implemented; however, a number of implementation
I problems, some of which were similar to those noted in the previous assessment period, were
identified. These problems involved the posting of contamination and high radiation areas,
controlling radioactive material, and entering the radiologically controlled area without proper
dosimetry. The licensee implemented significant corrective actions to address these
,
implementation problems, and improvement was noted in some areas during the latter part of
i
N_________________
) e
,
-5-
the assessment period. While the as tow-as-is-reasonably achievable program was effectively
!
implemented, the conditions associated with Wolf Creek's axial offset anomaly caused general
plant radiation levels, and the resultant person-rem exposure, to increase. Performance was
excellent in implementing the radiological environmental monitoring, solid radioactive waste
management, and transportation of radioactive materials programs. The water chemistry, radio-
chemistry, and radioactive waste effluent management programs were effectively implemented.
Performance in the emergency preparedness area remained generally good. Emergency plan
implementation was satisfactory; however, operstors continued to experience problems relative
to assessing plant conditions and relating them to copropriate emergency classifications. For
example, during the simulator walkthroughs, one crew failed to properly assess plant conditions
that required upgrading an event to a general emergency classification. Emergency response
facilities were properly maintained. Overall, emergency preparedness training was satisfactorily
implemented and incorporated drills that tested areas not normally challenged during routine
exercises.
The security program continued to perform at a high level. Implementation of the access
authorization and assessment aids programs continued to be excellent. A highly effective
testing and maintenance program, in conjunction with timely repair of security equipment,
minimized the number of compensatory postings. The material condition of the protected area
barrier and detection systems, and the security emergency power supply were very good.
Records and reports were appropriately maintained. Further, a very good program for searching
personnel, packages, and vehicles was implemented. An Operational Safeguards Response
Evaluation determined that the security force demonstrated a very effective contingency
response capability, and the protective strategy, as well as the security force performance in
executing this strategy, were strong.
The licensee's performance in the fire protection area was good and improved over the latter
portion of the assessment period. There were fewimpairments which required compensation
by fire watches, and licensee personnel performed well during an observed fire drill; however,
there were some fire protection hardware problems which were identified. For example,
following a maintenance preventable functional failure, the licensee identified a weakness in its
preventive maintenance program for diesel-driven fire pump electrical components. Additionally,
as a result of a modification installed during this assessment period to correct reactor coolant
pump lubrication oil leakage, an oil leakage related fire hazard was identified; however, in this
latter instance, the licensee did not evaluate its past compliance with license conditions.
Overall, plant and radiological housekeeping were good, although some inconsistencies were
noted, particularly during the refueling outage. For example, the licensee did not identify some
debris inside containment during the closeout inspection of the containment building at the end
of the refueling outage.
Self-assessments were generally effective in identifying areas for improvement. Self-
assessments in the radiological controls program areas provided management with a good
overview of program performance. Audits of the security program were adequate; however, two
security program areas were not included in the audit program. A similar problem was noted in
the previous SALP report. Audits of the fire protection program were effective in identifying
problems, including deficiencies in fire brigade training and the fire protection engineer's review
_
.
.
'.
o
-6-
l of modifications; in both cases, the line organization responded appropriately to audit findings.
I
Overall, several problems in the plant support area were either recurrent or were similar to
problems noted in the previous assessment period, indicating weaknesses in corrective action
effectiveness.
Overall, performance in the Plant Support functional area was determined to be Category 2.
)
1
>
I
4
L >