ML20248C101

Forwards Diagnostic Evaluation Team Rept for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 & 2, for Onsite Evaluation Conducted on 890410-21 & 0501-05.Areas Needing Addl Mgt Attention Include Corporate Oversight Program

ML20248C101
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	08/02/1989
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Shawn Smith CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20248C108	List: ML20248C101 ML20248C131
References
NUDOCS 8908090436
Download: ML20248C101 (4)

Text

- _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _

9"- <

[/patscs\

i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, wAsmotow,0. c.20sss

)j AUG 0 21989 Docket 50-324/325 The Carolina Power & Light Company ATTH: Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.

Chairman / President Pest Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

SUBJECT:

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION TEAM REPORT FOR BRUNSUICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT This letter forwards the Diagnostic Evaluation Team F.eport for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (Brunswick). The onsite evaluation was ccriducted over the period April 10-21 and May 1-5, 1989, by a team of Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Headquarters and regional evaluators with team leadership and support providea by the Office for Analysis and Evalue:nn cf Operational Data.

This is an NRC evaluation program that is intended to provide an independent assessment of licensee safety performance. Following the conclusion of the onsite evaluation, the preliminary finriings were discussed at an exit meeting on June 16, 1989, with Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) corporate and plant managers.

The NRC effort involved a broad-based evaluation of overall plant operations.

It addressed the capability of Brunswick management and programs and the policies, leadership, ano support provided by CP&L to support ane: improve the operating performance at Brunswick. Particular attention was directed in the areas of management and organization, operations, maintenance, surveillance and testing, quality prograes, and engineering design and technical support.

I note that uany of the current pr9blems iccntified by the team were previously addressed in the 1S82 Brunswick 1mprovement Program. Although short-term improvements in safety performance occurred Et Brunswick following implementation of this program, there was a gtneral failure on the part of CP&L corporate ard site mar.agement to ensure those improvements were sustained and broadened. {

Based upon an extensive evalystion both onsite end through subseca nt antlysis, l

) the team concluced that the root causes for poor perfenance at Brunswick i during the p st few years were: (1) inadequete cor k with a period of past site management weaknesses, 2) (Torate ohnagement the failure coincident to clearly define and corrnunicate site goals, priorities, and expectations, (3) cultural issues incluoing (a) the failure of CP&L management to adequately review and understand Brunswick's level of performance, and (b) the lack of incividual accountability and teemwork, (4) en ineffective corrective action and root * -

cause determination program, and (5) an ineffective engineering design and technical sucport progrer. j s.

)

g*%?s!R8388llg4 P

- _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - __ --_____a

l

%' l l  !

I i Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr. l Overall, the team concluded that recent management changes and initiatives were i having a positive effect. Of particular note was the involvement aad presence r

of senior site managers in the plant. The new management team is competent and ,

capable of making the changes necessary to develop a safety culture and improve j Brunswick's overall performance. The team determined that several areas needed additional management attention. These included (1) implementation of an effective corporate oversite program to provide leadership and direction and to accurately monitor and assess Brunswick performance, (2) definition of site ,

safety goals, priorities, and expectations which are effectively communicated toandunderstoodatalllevels,(3)implementationandmonitoringthe effectiveness of actions to establish tne desired culture at Brunswick, (4)implementationofaneffectivecorrectiveactionprogramhavingalower threshold for problem identification and effective measures for root cause determination, and (5)' implementation of an integrated program to correct engineering and technical support weaknesses involving both equipment failures and support activity weaknesses such as configuration control and safety evaluations.

The team evaluation results which include findfngs and conclusions and root cause analysis are provided in Section 2 of the enclosed report. Section 3 of the repcet provides the detailed evaluation results. Some of these items may be potential enforcement finoings. Any enforcement actions will be identified by our Region II office.

It is important that you and the corporate and Brunswtek management team carefully review the enclosed report, with special emphasis on the areas identified above as requiring additional management attention. Recent CP&L and Brunswick initiatives, although positive, have in some cases been limited to '

studies and evaluations of the problems,and in other cases, renewal of previous initiatives since earlier improvements had not been sustained and/or broadcned.

keaknesses in engineering design and technical support in combination with accumulated equipment deficiencies are of particular concern to me and represent an unnecessary burden to plant operations personnel especially in the event of off-normal conditions.

Following your review, I request that the corporate and Brunswick management team determine the actions needed to address each of these areas giving due consideration to the team's evaluation results identified in Section 2 of the report. As part of this process, it is essential that CP&L define priorities and balance rescurces in an integrated manner which will provide the most rapid and sustained improvement in Brunswick's safety performance. It is also requested that you provide my office with your integrated plans for improvement within 60 days of the date of this letter.

_ m_________ . _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

.1'

.s a- .

4 Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr. i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this evaluation, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely, n- _

J .es M. Ta or cting Exec tive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Diagnostic Evaluation Team Report for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 cc w/ encl:

Russell B. Starkey, Jr.

Brunswick Nuclear Project R. E. Jones, CP&L Grace Bcasley, Board of Commissioners William Ruland, NRC/ SRI Stuart D. Ebneter, NRC/RII Dayne H. Brown, N.C. Department of Human Resources J. L. Harnen , irunswick Steam Electric i lint H. A. Cole, State of North Carolina Robert P. Gruber, Public Staff-NCUC

~

r _ _ _ . _ . _

r Mr. Sherwood H. Smith, Jr. i lliribution(w/ encl)

PDR ABDavis, RIII LPDR RDMartin, RIV ED0 R/F JBMartin, RV VStello MCalahan, CA JMTaylor JFouchard, PA HThompson TEMurley JBlaha JGPartlow WBorchardt SAVarga MTaylor (w/o encl) GClainas AE0D R/F (w/o encl) EGAdensam ELJordan ETourigny CJHeltemes TLe 00A R/F LKintner RLSpessard JLieberman JWCraig DEIIB R/F SDRubin HABailey EJteeds RLPerch DJSullivan DPAl'lison RFreeman RLloyd KPWolley FRAllenspach JLCrews DHills BHLittle RJStrans ky BSThurmond CAVanDenburgh RGura, NRC Contractor RMatlock, NRC Contractor G0verbeck, NRC Contractor JWert, NRC Contractor SDEbneter, RII LAReyes, RII WRuland, SRI l

- - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _