ML17331A898
| ML17331A898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331A897 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-93-01, 50-315-93-1, 50-316-93-01, 50-316-93-1, NUDOCS 9307130104 | |
| Download: ML17331A898 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000315/1993001
Text
INITIAL SALP REPORT
11
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
OF LICENSEE
PERFORMANCE
II
~
Inspection
Report
No.
50-315/93001;
50-316/93001-
Company
Donald
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant
January
1,
1992,
through April 30,
1993
9307130104
930702.
ADOCK 05000315
Q
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~, ~
o
1
II.
SUMMARY OF
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
2
0verview
2
III.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
A.
Plant Operations
B.
Radiological Controls
C.
D.
E.
G.
Maintenance/Surveillance
Emergency
Preparedness
Security
Engineering/Technical
Support
Safety Assessment
and guality Verification
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
IV.
SUPPORTING
DATA AND SUMMARIES...................
1'1
A.
B.
Major Licensee Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
Major Inspecti on Activities.................
12
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Systematic
Assessment
of Licensee
Performance
(SALP) program is
an
integrated
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
(NRC) staff effort to collect
available observations
and data
on
a periodic basis
and to evaluate
licensee
performance
on the basis of this information.
The program is supplemental
to
normal regulatory processes
used to ensure
compliance with NRC rules
and
regulations.
It is intended to be sufficiently diagnostic to provide
a
rational
basis for allocating
NRC resources
and to provide meaningful
feedback
to the licensee's
management
regarding the NRC's assessment
of the facility's
performance
in each functional area.
This report is the NRC's assessment
of the licensee's
safety performance
at
D.
C.
Cook Nuclear Plant for the period January
1,
1992,
through April 30,
1993.
An
NRC SALP Board,
comprised of the'taff members listed below,
met on June
9,
1993, to review the observations
and data
on performance
and to assess
licensee
performance
in accordance
with the guidance
in
NRC Manual
Chapter
0516,
"Systematic
Assessment
of Licensee
Performance."
Board Chairman
C.
E. Norelius, Director, Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards
(DRSS)
Board
Members
T. 0. Hartin, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Safety
(DRS)
W.
H. Dean, Acting Project Director, Project Directorate
(PD) III-I, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR)
W.
D. Shafer,
Chief,
Branch 2, Division of Reactor Projects
(DRP)
B. A. Wetzel, Project
Manager,
J.
A. Isom, Senior Resident
Inspector,
D.
C.
Cook
Other Attendees
at the
SALP Board Meetin
C.
E. Brown, Reactor
Engineer,
B. L. Burgess,
Chief, Operations
Section,
J.
R. Creed,
Chief, Safeguards
Section,
DRSS
J.
L. Hansen,
Licensing Examiner,
B. L. Jorgensen,
Acting Chief, Reactor Support
Programs
Branch,
DRSS
J.
R. Kniceley, Physical
Security Inspector,
DRSS
J.
W. HcCormick-Barger,
Chief,
Emergency
Preparedness
and Non-Power Reactor
Section,
DRSS
R. A. Paul,
Senior Radiation Specialist,
DRSS
W.
D.
Pegg,
Reactor Inspector,
H.
C. Shumacher,
Chief, Radiological Controls Section
1,
DRSS
E.
R. Schweibinz,
Acting Chief, Section
2A,
H. J.
Simons,
Radiation Specialist,
DRSS
II.
SUMMARY OF
RESULTS
Overview
Overall performance
at the
D.
C.
Cook plant during the appraisal
period
was
characterized
by improvement
across
a broad spectrum of appraisal
areas.
The
Maintenance/Surveillance
area
improved from a Category
2 rating to
a Category
1 rating, while the Security
and
Emergency
Preparedness
areas
retained
Category
1 ratings.
This is indicative of a superior level of performance.
Each of the remaining four areas
was assigned
a Category
2 rating with an
improving trend.
This rating is indicative of a clearly discernable
trend in
performance
which, if continued,
could result in an improved rating in the
next
SALP assessment
period.
In some areas,
such
as Maintenance/Surveillance
and Engineering/Technical
Support,
the improvements resulted
from long-term programmatic efforts
and
were
a continuation of progress
observed
during the previous appraisal
period.
Both these
areas
had
been
assigned
Category
3 ratings for SALP Cycle 9, which
ended
on August 31,
1990.
In other areas,
such
as Safety Assessment/guality
Verification, improvements
were more recently observed.
Both plant
and corporate efforts appeared
to be involved in the positive
results
achieved
across
the several
appraisal
areas,
which is notable.
The performance
ratings during the previous
assessment
period
and this
assessment
period according to functional
areas
are given below:
Functional
Area
Plant Operations
Radiological Controls
Maintenance/Surveillance
Emergency
Preparedness
Security
Engineering/Technical
Support
Safety Assessment/guality
Verification
Rating Last
Period
Rating This
Pet iod
Trend
Improving
Improving
Improving
Improving
III.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
A.
Plant
0 erations
I.
~Anal sis
Plant operations
were characterized
by safe,
conservative
operations
and
by
improved operator
performance
in most areas.
Management's
effectiveness
in ensuring quality was excellent, with few
exceptions.
Plant management
closely monitored issues that could impose
either operational
or safety challenges for the operators.
Initiatives were
taken to minimize the number of lit control
room annunciators
and equipment
2
controllers not in automatic.
Also, evolutions that could cause
balance-of-
plant transients
were reviewed'losely to minimize these
challenges.
Management
continued to display
a strong,
conservative
and safety-conscious
approach to both operational
and shutdown plant decisions.
Operator responses
to the reactor trips and other operational transients
were
excellent.
For example,
when
an auxiliary equipment operator
(AEO) caused
automatic pressurizer
level control to be lost, control
room operators
promptly and correctly diagnosed
the problem through noting the change
in the
volume control tank level.
Also, operator
response
to the Unit I main
caused
by
a pressure
controller failure,
and their
response
to
a loss of condensate
event were very good.
Likewise, there
was
an
improvement in operator
performance
during reactor startups
and shutdowns.
Performance
during startups
showed
some weakness
in the previous
assessment
period.
There were
no operational
events during the numerous
Unit =2 reactor
and turbine startups
and generator tests,
and operator errors adversely
affecting the plant were very rare.
Shift performance
during routine operations
was good.
Shift turnover, log-
keeping practices,
and control
room professionalism
remained
strong throughout
the assessment
period.
Operator attentiveness
to parameters
in the control
room remained
good;
however,
operators
were not always attentive to details of
plant conditions outside the control
room. Operators
were typically excellent
in reacting to events,
but did not always analyze routine plant conditions to
prevent
problems
from developing.
For example,
the lack-of a questioning
attitude
and inadequate
review of the emergency diesel
generator
(EDG) lube
oil tank level readings
caused
a condition in which
a steady loss of oil from
the tank was, left uncorrected for a period of about
5 months.
This eventually
led to one
EDG being inoperable for a period greater
than allowed by the
technical
specifications
(TS).
A Severity Level III violation was issued for
this.
The identification and resolution of technical
issues
from a safety standpoint
remained strong.
The licensee
continued to perform full-core off loading
during outages
to minimize shutdown risk.
Critiques
and lessons
learned
from
both industry events
and events that occurred at the plant were routinely made
available to the operations shift through
memoranda
and newsletters.
Additionally, general
plant appearance
and cleanliness
continued to improve
during this assessment
period.
Compensatory fire protection measures,
which
had experienced
problems during the previous
assessment,
appeared
to be better
controlled during the current period.
Plant staffing was
ample with experienced
operating staff.
Most operations
department
management staff were either currently or formerly licensed.
Overtime of licensed
operators
was adequately
controlled.
The training and
qualification programs for personnel
were effective
and contributed to the
good operating
performance of both units.
Unlike the last assessment
period,
problems experienced
in conducting transient evolutions
and in implementing
EOPs were not evident.
Also, there
was
an improvement in the performance of
the operators
during initial and requalification examinations.
They had
a
pass rate of 85 percent (II out of 13 individuals)
on the initial
'xaminations,
and
a pass rate of 97 percent
(31 out of 32 individuals)
on the
requalification examinations.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
2 with an improving trend in this functional
area.
Performance
was rated Category
2 in the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
B.
Radiolo ical Controls
1.
~Anal sis
Performance
in this functional-area
was characterized
by effective management
with good support from an experienced staff which resulted
in good overall
radiological controls.
Hanagement
effectiveness
was 'good.
Good support for source
term reduction -was
indicated
by chemical
decontamination
of the resistance
temperature
detector
l.ines, early boration,
and hydrogen peroxide addition.
Hanagement
backing for
as-low-as-reasonably-achievable
(ALARA) efforts was evident in the use of a
reactor
head shield,
remote monitoring, robotic tools,
and electronic
dosimeters.
Hanagement
also supported
the commitment to good water qual,ity,
National Registry of Radiation Protection Technicians certification of
radiation protection technicians,
upgrading the liquid effluent monitoring
system,
and station
programs for self identification and correction of
problems.
Hanagement
was less
aggressive
in resolving problems with startup
flash tank system
use that resulted
in low-level ground contamination
outside
the plant.
The identification and resolution of technical
issues
was good.
Cumulative
dose in 1992 (about
490 person-rem)
was low,
and was consistent
with the
original station
goal despite
a longer than expected
outage
(400 days)'.
Significant radiological work included plugging
and resleeving of more than
1800 steam generator
tubes
as well as considerable first time and emergent
work.
During the appraisal
period, there
was
a reduction in contaminated
areas
and
a corresponding
reduction in protective clothing use.
Other
improvements
noted were the oversight of exits from radiologically controlled
areas
and assessing
the cause of personnel
contamination
events.
Cold
chemistry measurement
comparisons
with the
NRC remained
good
(28 agreements
in
31 comparisons),
and the station maintained
a satisfactory
crosscheck
program
with vendors.
Radioactivity in liquid and gaseous
effluents remained well
below regulatory limits, efforts to reduce solid radwaste
continued,
and the
radiological environmental
monitoring program was effectively implemented.
Performance
weaknesses
were noted in a violation of a transportation
regulation,
and in a violation for unauthorized transfer of a small
amount of
radioactive material.
Prompt corrective actions
were implemented
and were
effective.
Overall, staffing, training,
and experience
level in the radiological controls
area
were good.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated category
2 with an improving trend in this area.
Performance
was rated Category
2 during the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
C.
Maintenance
Surveillance
l.
A~nal sis
Performance
in this functional
area
was characterized
by an improvement in the
quality of maintenance
work and evidence of strong root-cause
investigations.
Management's
effectiveness
in the maintenance
area
continued to improve -and
was excellent.
Emphasis
on improving the material condition of both the
auxiliary and the turbine buildings continued
as evidenced
by the reduction in
the number 'of steam,
water,
and oil leaks in the plant.
The material
condition of the plant was good.
Plant management
closely followed
maintenance
on equipment
problems that could possibly affect safety or
operation of the plant until they were satisfactorily addressed.
Corrective
actions
were typically well founded
on aggressive
and thorough failure
analyses
and root cause
investigations.
The surveillance
program
and procedures
were good; although,
there were
a few
missed nonroutine surveillances.
There
was only one reactor trip caused
or
associated
with equipment failures,
an improvement from the previous
assessment
period.
Improvements
in the maintenance
program continued.
For example,
an integrated
scheduling
group was formed late in the assessment
period to schedule all
maintenance activities.
As
a consequence,
after
some
problems in this area,
improvements
in planning
and scheduling
were noted.
Also, the maintenance
procedure
upgrade
work was completed
and procedure
use
was excellent.
Some
positive effects of program changes
became
increasingly evident in the latter
portion of the assessment
period.
The backlog of non-outage
corrective job
orders
was
somewhat
high but showed
slow but steady
improvement over the
assessement
period.
Identification and resolution of technical
issues,
with a view to safety,
was
excellent.
The quality of root-cause
analyses
improved from the last period
and is considered
excellent.
Timely, effective,
and thorough actions
were
taken in response
to the findings.
Examples
included resolution of water
entrainment
in the vital electrical
switchgear
room ventilation system,
which
caused
several trips of the spent fuel pit pump,
and adjustment to the reactor
trip breaker
undervoltage trip attachment.
Engineering
resources
were
effectively utilized.
The quality of the maintenance
performed
by the crafts
was excellent.
There
were
a few examples of,rework early in the assessment
period typically
involving either difficult or infrequently performed outage
maintenance
activities,
Haintenance activities
such
as work on
an emergency
boration
valve, repairs to
a reactor trip breaker,
and another safety-related
breaker
were excell'ent.
Problems relating to procedural
adherence,
-identified during
,the previous
assessment
period,
were not observed
during this assessment
period.
Ha'intenance
department staffing was
ample
and overtime usage
was controlled.
Except for the rework activities mentioned
above, training effectively
supported
a well qualified and experienced staff.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
1 in this functional area.
Performance
was
rated Category
2 in the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
D.
Emer enc
Pre
aredness
l.
~Anal sis
Performance
was characterized
by strong
management
support for the well
maintained
emergency
preparedness
(EP)
program
and acceptable
exercise
performance.
Hanagement
effectiveness
in ensuring quality was good.
The emergency
plan
and
emergency
response facilities (ERFs)
were maintained
in an excellent state of
readiness.
In addition,
improvements,
such
as the addition of an automated
telephone call system to activate the emergency
response
organization
(ERO),
were
made to the
and the
EP program.
However, during the
1992 exercise,
five weakness
were identified.
The approach to identifying and resolving technical
issues,
with a view to
safety,
remained
excellent..
The exercise
weaknesses
involved accident
classification,
proper activation of the
Emergency Operations Facility,
command
and control of the onsite
emergency
response
efforts, timely dispatch
of repair
teams,
and the ability to perform post-accident
sampling
and
analysis.
These
were not programmatic in nature,
and aggressive
corrective
actions
were taken to address
the root causes
of the weaknesses.
For example,.
weekly post-accident
sampling drills and walkthroughs
were initiated and this
capability was promptly redemonstrated.
In addition, identified weaknesses
in
EP implementing procedures
were promptly corrected.
Periodic emergency
plan revisions
continued to be well done
and enhanced
the plan.
The
response
to operational
events
was excellent
as demonstrated
by the proper
classification of four unusual
events.
Notifications of these
events
were
detailed
and timely.
The
EP staffing and qualifications were excellent.
A full-time Assistant
Coordinator
was assigned
to the program
and all the non-managerial
EP training
was placed
under
one trainer for better uniformity.
The
ERO staffing levels
remained excellent with at least three persons
qualified for each
key
position.
The
ERO training program
was reviewed in depth in view of the exercise
weaknesses;
the program
was judged excellent
and further upgrades
were
made to
the program.
The program was comprehensive
and included
a detailed
qualification program that required demonstration
of knowledge to be -fully
qualified as
a member of the
ERO.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
1 in this area.
Performance
was rated Category
1 during the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
E.
~Securi t
l.
~Anal sis
Performance
was characterized
by excellent
management
attention
and support.
Management
effectiveness
in ensuring quality was excellent
as evidenced
by the
continued reduction in the personnel
error and equipment
events identified in
the safeguards
event log.
The security self-assessment
and quality assurance
(gA) audits
and surveillances
were excellent in monitoring and evaluating
program effectiveness.
The Plant Hanager's
support of the security program
fostered
a high level of awareness
towards security
by the plant staff and
security force personnel.
An example of management
support
was the upgraded
computerized
badge fabrication system.
Site management
liaison with local-
law-enforcement
agencies
(LLEAs) was excellent.
The licensee
shared their
training facilities and provided their training video
on non-lethal
force to
The
LLEAs were also allowed to use the licensee's
trained
dog in area
drug enforcement activities.
The approach
to identifying and resolving technical
issues
from a safety
standpoint
was excellent
as
shown
by the development of effective compensatory
measures
to ensure that security concerns
were adequately
addressed
during the
construction of a new fire protection
pumping station inside the protected
area.
Additionally, the development
and implementation of a monthly
preventive maintenance
program
and the support of plant management
resulted
in
a low number of door-related security events,
Evaluation of loggable events
was excellent.
These
events
were properly
identified, analyzed,
and documented.
There were
no events that were required
to be reported within
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of discovery.
Staffing continued to be excellent.
Several
key management
position vacancies
were filled in
a timely manner with experienced
individuals.
Fitness-for-duty
functions were centralized
in the Security Department resulting in improved
communications
and consistency
in implementation of 10, CFR 26 requirements.
The effectiveness
of the training and qualification program was excellent.
Security personnel
were knowledgeable
and proficient in performing their
assigned
duties.
Tactical
response
capability improved through the conduct of
limited force-on-force drills in the plant
and range instruction in the
tactical
combat course.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
1 in this area.
Performance
was rated Category
1 during the 'previous
assessment
period.
3.
'Recommendations-
None.
F.
-En ineerin
Technical
Su
ort
l.
~Anal sis
Engineering
and technical
support effectiveness
in performing routine
and
reactive engineering activities
was good.
Improvements
in this area
were
noted
and weaknesses
identified in the last assessment
period were effectively
addressed.
Hanagement
effectiveness
in ensuring quality continued to improve
and
was
good.
There
was evidence of management
emphasis
and oversight in the design
change
program,
motor operated
valve program,
and inservice inspection
program.
Attention to previous
issues
involving communication
and
coordination
between
corporate
and onsite engineering
resulted
in better data
evaluation,
thorough root-cause
analysis,
and more effective corrective
actions.
This improved management
attention to detail contributed to,fewer
operational
events
and
no violations in this area.
Examples
in which
management
ensured
proper problem resolution included
improvements
in acoustic
valve monitor reliability and modification to the air supply for the post-
accident
hydrogen monitoring system valves.
- Nanagement effectively
communicated
performance
expectations
to the technical staff as indicated
by
continuing system engineering
performance
improvements.
On the other hand,
management
did not effectively address
problems with battery
room temperature
control.
Technical
issue identification and resolution
were generally good.
Technical
evaluations
and corrective actions
were technically sound, timely,
and
displayed
an understanding
of safety implications.
Engineering
resources
were
effectively utilized in safely recovering
an incorrectly grappled
spent fuel
bundle.
Engineering
reviews of equipment
maintenance
and performance history
resulted
in timely modifications,
appropriate repairs,
or replacement.
Corrective actions for problems
were often broadened
to encompass
generic
as
well as specific issues.
This was evidenced
by the addition of many valves to
the inservice testing
( IST) program following investigation of a single
failure,. and
by
a system-wide
upgrade of supports
and restraints
on branch
lines off the residual
heat
removal
system.
A rigorous safety review program
was instituted during this appraisal
period to ensure
engineering
safety
evaluations
were appropriately detailed
and were technically based.
This also
was
an improvement from the last assessment
period.
On the other hand,
the identification and resolution of some problems
was not
timely or conservative.
Examples
included recurring diesel
performance
problems after design-related
modifications intended to achieve corrective
action were completed
and problems with accelerated
wear
on auxiliary
pump bearings.
In addition,
ac short-circuit calculations
were less
conservative
than accepted
industry standards.
Engineering
and technical
support staffing was excellent.
Onsite
and
corporate
engineering
positions
were filled with experienced
individuals with
specific expertise.
Engineering
issues
were effectively resolved with minimal
outside support.
Where consultants
were used,
as in the nondestructive
examination
program,
personnel
were qualified and knowledgeable,
and proper
oversight
was given.
The training organization maintained
a good staffing
level.
Staff training and qualification were excellent.
The training program for the
systems
and project engineers
was considered
to be
a strength.
System
engineers
had completed required
comprehensive
instruction involving classroom
lectures,
self-study,
on-the-job training,
and examinations.
The site
engineering staff had
a thorough
knowledge of plant systems
and system
interfaces.
The operator training and requalification program also
was
good
and
had improved from the last
assessment
period.
This was reflected in the
proposal
to more realistically staff the simulator control
room during the
last requalification cycle
and the higher pass rate
on NRC-administered
examinations.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
2 with an improving trend in this area.
Performance
was rated Category
2 in the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
G.
Safet
Assessment
and
ualit
Verification
l.
Analysis
Management
was effective in ensuring
issues
which affected quality were
identified and resolved in a timely manner.
Improvements
were noted in
conduct of root-cause
analyses
and communications
between
corporate
and the
site.
Management's
effectiveness
in ensuring quality was good.
A low threshold for
reporting quality assurance
(gA) issues
continued,
while adequate
planning
and
prioritization aided in resolving quality-related
issues
in a timely manner.
A more aggressive
and thorough
approach
toward conducting root-cause
analyses
was noted.
Hanagement
supported
self-improvement initiatives that resulted
in
improved material condition of the auxiliary and 'turbine buildings,
installation of a system to minimize the effect of zebra
mussel
infestation,
useful monthly performance
indicators,
and
an internal audit program focusing
on areas
to be evaluated
during upcoming major team inspections.
An example
of an effective self-assessment
activity was the safety
system functional
inspection
(SSFI)
conducted
on the containment
spray system.
are
conducted
annually, contributing to
a good self-assessment
of engineering
activities.
In the latter part of this reporting period,
a graded corrective
action program that assigns
resources
for investigating
and analyzing problems
on the basis of the safety impact was implemented.
The onsite
gA audit program was adequately
managed with an appropriate
mix of
performance-
and programmatic-based
audits
and surveillances.
The audits
were
of good quality and were positive contributors to Security,
Emergency
Preparedness,
and Radiation Protection activities.
Audit findings were
adequately
dispositioned with few exceptions.
One exception
involved failure
to ensure
the
IST coordinator
was informed whenever
pump maintenance
was
expanded
beyond its original work scope,
so
pump
IST reference
values
could
be
reverified.
'he
approach to identifying and resolving technical
issues
reflected
a
conservative
philosophy with regard to considering
equipment operable.
An
example of this was the conservative operability assessment
for a main steam
isolation valve that was found to be outside its surveillance
period during
a
plant startup.
There
was noted
improvement in the p'rocess
to determine-if
an
unreviewed safety question existed.
10 CFR 50.59 reviews were typically well-
documented
with good technical rationale.
On the other hand,
there were
some instances
when corrective actions did not
prevent
subsequent
equipment
problems.
Examples of these
were mentioned in
earlier sect'ions of this report.
Further,
a few operational
events
were not
effectively resolved.
These
included the problems with the
EDG slow start
modification and boron chemical
control of the refueling water storage
tank.
However,
subsequent
evaluation of these
issues
demonstrated
an aggressive
and
thorough
approach
to achieve
a complete resolution.
Technical
information and justification for proposed
TS changes
were good.
The extensive effort to provide logically oriented
and thorough documentation
to support the
NRC's review of the proposed analog-to-digital
conversion of
the reactor protection
system
was particularly noteworthy.
Although some
effort was
needed
to clarify original submittals,
such
as the response
to
on seismic qualifications,
and
a request
to remove the
alarm feature of the subcooling
margin meters,
the information provided for
both design reviews
and
amendments
was sufficient to perform
a technical
review and safety 'evaluation.
The Nuclear Safety Design
Review Committee (offsite review committee)
and the
Plant Nuclear Safety
Review Committee (onsite review committee)
were well
staffed
and met frequently.
Both groups contributed to a stronger self-
assessment
capability and demonstrated
a conservative
approach
in resolving
issues.
Audits conducted
under the cognizance of the offsite review committee
were thorough
and were successful
in raising substantive
issues.
10
Hanageme'nt
focused attention
on improving communications
between
the corporate
office and the site.
Efforts in this area
were successful,
as corporate
management
participated
in daily status
discussions
with the plant staff and
conducted
monthly interface meetings
in the corporate office that included
site managers.
Communications with the
NRC staff were also
emphasized
and
were improved, resulting in enhanced
interactions with the
NRC technical staff
and improved license
amendment
applications.
The staffing and experience
level of the onsite
gA organization
and the
training and qualifications of the
gA auditors
were good.
The level of
expertise
among the corporate
gA staff was excellent.
2.
Performance
Ratin
Performance
is rated Category
2 with an improving trend in this area.
Performance
was rated Category
2 during the previous
assessment
period.
3.
Recommendations
None.
IV.
SUPPORTING
DATA AND SUMMARIES
A.
Ma'or Licensee Activities
UNIT 1:
On June
22,
1992, the unit was shut
down for a refueling outage.
While
shutting
down,
an engineered
safety feature actuation
occurred
when both
source
range detectors failed as they were being energized.
On July 5,
1992, refueling operations
were halted
when the refueling machine
grapple
assembly did not properly engage
the top of a fuel assembly
and.could
not be freed.
On July 18,
1992,
an Unusual
Event was declared
when essential
was shut off for about half an hour to both emergency
diesel
generators
because
of a rupture in a nonessential
service water expansion jo'int.
On September
9,
1992, the licensee
completed extensive
plugging
and resleeving
operations
on the steam generators.
On October 28,
1992, the unit was paralleled to the grid. -'About 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />
later,
the reactor tripped from a turbine trip caused
by
a main turbine thrust
bearing trip.
On October
28,
1992,
the unit was returned to service
and reached
100-percent
power on November
15,
1992,
where it remained
through April 30,
1993, with no
significant operational
problems.
11
Unit 2
On January
22,
1992, unit shutdown
commenced
because
of high boron
concentration
in the refueling water storage
tank
(RWST).
A temporary waiver
of compliance
was granted for 6 days
and the unit did. not shut
down.
On
January '24,
1992,
the boron concentration
in the
RWST was returned within
specifications.
On January
24,
1992,
power was reduced to 34 percent to repair
a through-wall
leak in the high-pressure
turbine exhaust piping.
On January
27,
1992, the
unit was returned to 100-percent
power.
On February
1,
1992,
power was reduced to 70 percent
because
of a different
through-wall leak in the high-pressure
turbine exhaust
piping that could not
be repaired
at power.
On February
22,
1992,
the unit shut
down for a refueling outage.
On June
19,
1992,
excessive
turbine vibration was observed
during turbine roll
up.
.The licensee
commenced efforts to balance
the turbine-generator.
On July 2,
1992, during investigation of the turbine vibration problems,
the
reactor tripped from a turbine trip because
of a loss of condenser
vacuum.
On September
2,
1992, the unit was paralleled to the grid.
On September
8,
1992, the unit was shut
down from 87 percent
power because
of
high generator vibration.
The generator rotor was shipped to the vendor for
repairs.
On November 30,
1992,
the unit commenced
power operation for turbine-generator
balancing efforts.
After modifications to the bearing
and the hydrogen seals,
the unit was paralleled to the grid on December
12,
1992.
Unit 2 reached
100 percent
power operation
on December
26,
1992,
where it
remained
through April 30,
1993, with no significant operational
problems.
B.
Ha'or Ins ection Activities
1.
Ins ection Data:
The inspection reports discussed
in the
SALP are listed below:
Docket Nos:
50-315 (Unit 1)
and 50-316 (Unit 2) Inspection
Reports
(same
number applies to both units):
92002 through 92006;
92008 through 92012;
92013 (Unit
1 only); 92014 through 92023;
93002 through 93011.
2.
S ecial
Ins ection
Summar
a.
From February
3 through March 6,
1992, the
NRC conducted
an electrical
distribution system functional inspection
(IR No. 92003/003).
12
From April 6 through
10,
1992, the
NRC conducted
a review of the
licensee's
peer inspection
process
(IR No. 92008/008).
From August
31 through October 9,
1992, the
NRC conducted
an engineering
and technical
support
program inspection
( IR No. 92015/015).
From December
3 through
18,
1992, the
NRC inspected
the failure of the
Unit 2 "AB" emergency diesel
generator
from a trip on low lube oil
pressure
and Unit 2 operation in Mode
2 with expired
stop valve surveillances
( IR No. 92022/022).
From February
23 through
March 8,
1993, the
NRC conducted
a review of
inservice testing of pumps
and valves
and of the effectiveness
of the
program regarding the performance of check valves
(IR No. 93008/008).
From March 22 through April 1,
1993,
the
NRC conducted
a review of the
implementation of the motor-operated
valve program established
in
response
to Generic Letter 89-10 (IR No. 93006/006).
13