ML20149M592

SALP Rept 50-395/96-99 for Period of 950129 Through 961026

ML20149M592
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	12/06/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M591	List: ML20149M592
References
50-395-96-99, NUDOCS 9612170443
Download: ML20149M592 (6)

See also: IR 05000395/1996099

Text

._

_

.-.

.

'

.

SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE REPORT

SUMER NUCLEAR PUWT

50-395/96-99

I.

BACKGROUE

The SALP board convened on November 13, 1996, to assess the nuclear

4

safety performance of the Summer Nuclear facility for the period

January 29, 1995, through October 26, 1996. The board was conducted in

accordance with Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of

Licensee Performance." Board Members were J. R. Johnson (Board

Chairperson), Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects.

A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, and F. M. Reinhart,

i

Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation. This assessment was reviewed and approved by the Regional

Administrator.

II.

PLANT OPERATIONS

This functional area addresses the control and execution of activities

directly related to operating the facility.

It includes activities such

as plant startup power operation, plant shutdown, and response to

transients.

It also includes initial and requalification training

programs for licensed operators.

Overall

aerformance in the Plant Operations area remained superior

during t1e assessment period. Unit performance was characterized as a

very stable period of power operations with relatively few transients,

no plant trips, generally conservative decision making, and a good focus

on safety.

Operator performance was very good during the relatively few shutdowns

and startups conducted. A special steam generator moisture carry over

test was well controlled.

Senior Reactor Operators demonstrated

excellent supervisory skills, and strong operator knowledge and ability

I

was demonstrated during plant evolutions as well as during

requalification training.

Rotation of licensed control room operators

to auxiliary building tours was effective. Auxiliary building operators

were thorough in monitoring and recording system parameters during their

rounds and were generally knowledgeable of their duties.

Performance during in plant fuel handling and tagging activities and in

response to support system aanel alarms remained a challenge.

Locked in

alarms on the control room iVAC panel and untimely resolution of a fuel

handling building differential pressure condition demonstrated a need to

improve questioning attitudes. Self-verification programs were

ENCLOSURE

l

9612170443 961206

l

PDR

ADOCK 05000395

G

PDR

.

_

_ _ _ ~ , _ -

_ . . .

_

._ _ _._

!

-

,

.

.

l

2

i

generally adequate: however, two significant events during the most

recent refueling outage indicated a need for improved self checking to

'

assure operation of designated equipment and to assure completenm of

'

procedures prior to use.

,

,

Plant operations management demonstrated a commitment to assessing plant

!

risk during planning and scheduling activities as well as during special

'

i

system configuration in a refueling outage. Station management provided

i

excellent risk information in the control room in the form.of operator

i

!

. aids listing special refueling conditions, abnormal operating

j

procedures, applicable boration flow paths, and time to boil in the

'

spent fuel pool. Management provided the operations staff a " safety

1

function matrix" to assist shift supervisors and the operations

i

scheduling staff to evaluate the impact on plant risk of approving

4

j

preventive maintenance activities on line.

i

Operations management demonstrated a conservative approach to unit

!

operational decisions. - Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for

i

0peration were properly entered when equipment was degraded and during a

j

critical temporary system realignment.

Power reductions were conducted

!

prior to several planned maintenance activities as a contingency to

assure that reactor conditions would remain stable if secondary plant

4

p

transients occurred. A station wide standdown was conducted to review

safety procedures as a preventative measure and not in response to any

a

'

.

special event.

3

i

Operational procedures and programs were fundamentally sound and

resulted in good adherence. Opc ator workarounds were well-managed with

.

causes and corrective actions identified, responsibilities assigned, and

j

completion dates scheduled.

4

ll

Management self assessment activities were generally effective. Monthly

operations monitoring included a trend of personnel errors by shift and

j

a performance annunciator panel assessment of personnel, program, and

!

equipment performance indicators. Support for benchmarking observations

'

!

by other utilities was strong and the licensee was active in initiatives

J

with other utilities to learn and share good practices. This was

j

demonstrated by several rotations in management positions,

implementation of good practices from other utilities, and a human

j'

performance critique of a wrong component operation by an outside

!

utility.

The Plant Operations area is rated Category 1.

I

III. MAINTENANCE

This functional area includes activities associated with diagnostic,

predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance of plant structures,

i

systems and components; maintenance of the physical condition of the

plant; and training of the maintenance staff.

It also includes

surveillance testing, in-service inspection and testing, instrument

.

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

__

_ _ __

_

_.

._

.

l

!

3

calibration, operability testing, post maintenance testing, post outage

testing, containment leak rate testing, and special testing.

Management demonstrated strong commitment to and support of maintenance

activities. Coordination with Engineering to resolve related technical

issues was excellent. Overall, the licensee demonstrated superior

performance in implementing the station maintenance program and in

resolving related technical issues.

Diagnostic, preventive, and corrective maintenance was well performed in

that resolution of technical issues and actions to repair heat exchanger

head flange leaks on the residual heat removal and spent fuel pool

cooling systems were effective.

The licensee continued their excellent performance in inspection and

,

testing programs. Surveillance activities were planned, conducted in a

i

professional manner, and resulted in a high degree of confidence that

the tested components would perform as designed.

In addition,

surveillance activities satisfactorily demonstrated equipment

)

operability.

In service inspection and testing programs were

i

effectively implemented.

Instrument calibrations were performed within

,

required calibration due dates. Outage and post-maintenance testing was

i

performed well, especially with regard to station modifications to

accommodate an approved power uprate accomplished during the last

refueling outage in the Spring of 1996. Containment leak rate testing

was well performed on containment penetrations. The containment purge

supply and exhaust isolation valves, with resilient seals which require

l

frequent testing, were well within the leakage acceptance criteria.

The licensee provided strong supervision, and technicians demonstrated

aggressive questioning attitudes. Work packages were thorough and

complete, and the backlog of work items was well managed.

Self-assessments, root cause analyses, and trending remained strong and

effective.

In this regard, an excellent licensee initiative replaced

i

the Off Normal Occurrence reporting system with an in depth Condition

Evaluation Report system that focused on system trending. These trends

will be evaluated by quality assurance personnel.

i

Maintenance personnel performing work were experienced, well trained,

and very knowledgeable of plant procedures and equipment. Work areas

were orderly and well maintained. Material stored in maintenance

storage areas was properly identified and protected. Working

relationships within the maintenance department and among other

departments were supportive and constructive.

Plant management at all levels was well versed on the details of the

i

maintenance rule.

Personnel were able to demonstrate comprehensive

knowledge of the rule in their appropriate area of respansibility.

In

'

support of the maintenance program, as an excellent initiative, the

licensee developed a " safety function matrix" to assist in evaluating

and managing the impact of on line maintenance with regard to plant

,

!

4

_ . _ _ ._. _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

,

'

.

'

i

^

4

safety. The matrix helped to maximize plant safety by managing the

1

l

combinations of _ equipment simultaneously taken out of service on each

train and by preventing planned simultaneous work on opposite trains.

l

i

'

While maintenance procedures were generally of high quality, attention

to detail in using and revising the procedures was a challenge.

i

,

While the material condition of the plant was good, additional

challenges included reducing some water and oil leaks.

.

The Maintenance area is rated Category 1.

IV.

ENGIEERING

This functional area addresses activities associated with the design of

plant modifications and engineering support for operations,' maintenance,

surveillance and licensing activities.

The licensee's performance in the areas of design control and

maintenance of the licensing basis was strong. The engineering workload

was well managed, the turnover of design activities previously performed

i

by their primary architect / engineer was well planned, and procedures for

reviewing changes to the facility were sufficiently detailed to ensure

compliance with 10 CFR 50.59. An Engineering Design Control Board was

established and was effective in prioritizing design changes and

disseminating design information to the appropriate staff. Several.

i

errors in the design control process were identified by the licensee.

.

Root causes were identified and appropriate corrective actions were

im)1emented. This performance was a noted improvement over the last

SA_P period.

'

Engineering provided effective support to Plant Operations. Challenging

!

design issues, including high moisture carryover from the new steam

generators and an unexpected neutron flux tilt, were resolved to improve

'

plant performance. The backlog of engineering work was wil managed

,

enabling timely response to problems identified by operators.

Operator

!

workarounds were aggressively pursued.

i

Maintenance problems were resolved in a timely manner.

Engineering

worked closely with Maintenance on several design changes that improved

plant reliability.

Problem identification and root cause analysis of

equipment issues supported timely, effective resolution.

The licensee's performance in the area of self assessment directed

toward engineering was good. The Engineering organization initiated

i

frequent contacts with other licensees to identify opportunities for

e

improvee performance. The Quality Assurance organization contributed by

performing an in depth audit of the design control program.

!

!

- _ . ,

.

,

- ,

- . . , -

.

1

.

5

Technical engineering submittals made to the NRC were of high quality

with well prepared safety evaluations.

'

The Engineering area is rated Category 1.

V.

PLANT SUPPORT

This functional area addresses all activities related to the plant

support function, including radiological controls, radioactive

effluents, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security, fire protection,

and housekee;..ng.

The radiological control program was effective in protecting the health

and safety of plant workers and members of the public. The onsite

radiation )rotection program controlled internal and external radiation

exposures )elow regulatory limits. Site ALARA and personnel

contamination control measures were generally successful throughout the

period although some decline was noted. Specifically, contamination and

contaminated material were found outside control boundaries. Control of

4

contaminated material is a challenge.

Offsite radiation exposure to members of the public was substantially

below regulatory limits. The environmental monitoring program confirmed

effective effluent controls in that only trace amounts of radioactivity

were detected in the environs of the plant.

Effective chemistry programs were implemented to inhibit degradation due

to corrosion of components in both primary and secondary systems. The

program for handling, packaging and transport of radioactive materials

functioned very well.

'

The emergenry preparedness program was generally effective in

maintaining site readiness to respond to emergencies. However, actual

response indicated some decline in performance. Challenges were noted

in developing challenging emergency exercise scenarios and in

maintaining awareness of siren system status in order to make timely

reports.

Several improvements were made to the Alert and Notification

System sirens to make them more reliable. Preparations for a hurricane

minimized the risks and potential damage to plant facilities from rain

and high winds.

The licensee continued to implement and support the Physical Security

Plan, procedures and associated programs in an outstanding manner. The

security program was strong and well managed. The protected area access

control equipment was reliable and effective. Station management was

active in identifying and correcting potential problems.

The Fire Protection program performance declined but was generally

implemented in an adequate manner during this period. Human performance

errors persisted throughout the aeriod and caused deficiencies in the

implementation of the program.

iaintenance and testing of fire

.

.

.

.

- - - _ . _ _ _ _ .

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _

- - -

_ _ - . . __ .

_ . _

,-

i

o

i

'

,

6

'

protection systems were satisfactory. Organization and staffing changes

.

-

were made late in the period in a effort to improve performance and some

improvement was evident. Quality assurance audits were thorough and

>

3

corrective actions were timely. Housekeeping was satisfactory but

additional improvements could be made in some areas.

,

<

,

>

'

i

The Plant Support area is rated Category 2.

'

'

4

i

\\

-

1

I

!

l

.1

.

.

.

'

$

..

I

i

1

9

1

,

v

-

r