IR 05000331/1997001
| ML20198T232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198T219 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-331-97-01, 50-331-97-1, NUDOCS 9711140236 | |
| Download: ML20198T232 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -. - - -
-
.
DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER SALP 13 Report No. 50-331/97001 1.
INTRODUCTION The Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process is used to develop the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) conclusions regarding a licensee's safety performance.
Four functional areas are assessed: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support. The SALP report documents the NRC's observations and insights on a licensee's performance and communicates the results to the licensee and the public. It provides a vehicle for clear communication with licensee management that focuses on plant performance relative to safety risk perspectives. The NRC ut.azes SALP results when allocating NRC inspection resources at licensee facilities.
This report is the NRC's assessment of the safety performance at the Duane Amold Energy Center for the SALP 13 period from October 29,1995, through September 27,1997.
An NRC SALP Board, composed of the individuals listed below, met on October 8,1997, to review the observat5ns and data on performance and to assess performance in accordance with the guidance in NRC Management Directive 8.6," Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
Board Chairman R. J. Caniano, Deputy Director, Division et Nuclear Materials Safety, Rlli Board Members G. E. Grant, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Rill J. M. Jacobson, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety, Rlli G. H. Marcus, Director, Project Directorate 1113, NRR ll.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS A.
Plant Operations Management attention and involvement in the plant operations functional area were properly focused on safety and resulted in an excelir/ ievel of safety performance. The conduct of operations was professional with excellent operator responses to reactor recirculation pump trips and other transients. Risk was routinely evaluated and periods of special exposura, such as power nianipulations, infrequently performed evolutions, safety significant tagging activities and complex surveillances, were given heightened emphasis. Plant power changes, startups,
,
and shutdownc were well controlled and performed in a conservative manner.
l l
Management's involvement ensured a strong safety culture which encouraged conservative
'
safety decisions. Specifically, a conservative operation philosophy was demonstrated in their approach to the resolution of several equipment issues which occurred in 1997. One example was a leaking well water pipe to a drywell cooler. Although the source of the leak was known to be well water and below Technical Specification leak rate requirements, the plant was shut
"
9711140236 971105 PDR ADOCK 05000331 e
_ _ - - _
-____ - _ - _ -. _ _ _ _ -
- _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - _. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- _ ___ - __-_______ - _ - _- _ __
-
l l
'
down promptly for repairs. Shutdown risk was well managed, resulting in minimal risk during forced outages and the 1996 refueling outage. Management and staff conservative approach was evidenced by advanced planning and scheduling and daily briefings during the refueling outage to emphasize protected system considerations.
The operations organization was self-critical and held itself to high standards. These standards were formalized and well understood. Self assessments were censidered stro7g and effective overall, especially toward the end of the assessment period. The operators and management were generally effective in identifying problems and ensuring that appropriate resolutiott was achieved. Some minor deviations from this performance were identified by the inspectors, such as the mispositioned well water selector switch and an inadequate review for testing of the turbine stop valve. Problems with the licensee's tagout program identified during the previous SALP period improved due to a more formalized program established early in the assessment period.
Conduct of operations was considered excellent overall. Shift tumovers were formal, comprehensive and emphasized activities with potential safety impact. Teamwork and cooperation among operations and others were clearly evident and widely supported at all
'
levels. Operations personnel were afforded the opportunity to work in other disciplines as a means of team-building across organizationallines. At any given time, a number of departments contained personnel trained and experienced at the SRO level. However, there were some examples of inattention to detail during the performance of routine activities. Most notable was the crew's performance during turbine stop valve testing in an abnormal plant configuration. In that instance, the crew and operations management failed to adequately evaluate the effect on plant operations before performing turbine stop valve testing in the abnormal steam line configuration.
Procedure adherence and procedure deficiencies became a concem during the middle of the period. Most were minor in nature; however, in the case of several procedure deficiencies, the deficiencies had existed for long periods, which indicated less inan strict compliance with the procedures in the past. Appropriate corrective actions were implemented, which were reinforced by plant managemern. Performance improved in this area toward the end of the assessment period.
The performance rating in Operations is Category 1.
B.
Maintenance Maintenance performance continued to be good, with generally high quality of work. Emergent issues were addressed in a rapid and effective manner, and no serious issues (e.g., transients or accidents) weie caused by maintenance activities or practices. Work preplanning normally was well executed and personnel errors were significantly reduced by the end of the SALP.
Maintenance provided good support for day-to-day operations of the plant. Outage management (both scheduled and forced outage) was excellent daring the SALP period. The DAEC equipment surveillance program was effective in finding equipment problems prior to them becoming safety significant. Deficiencios were noted with the adequacy and accuracy of procedures (primarily surveillance) and with maintenance personnel not following procedures and identifying inadequacies. Management initiated actions to address these issues, but corrective actions were not yet effective during this period.
____
_
- _ -
_ _ _ _
-
- _ _ _ - _
_______
-
- -..
e
I l
in the previous SALP, management was observed to be very involved in day-to-day maintenance activities and made several conservative decisions to shut down the plant. This trend continued during this SALP period. It was also noted in the previous SALP that there were breakdowns (of low safety significance) in self-checking and verification. The number of those
,
errors decreased somewhat at the beginning of this SALP cycle, then increased toward the
/
middle of the cycle. Management held plant stand downs to refocos maintenance and other departments on reduction of personnel performance errors. These efforts were successful and resulted in few errors during the 1996 refueling outage.
Identification and resolution of issues as well as equipment material condition was good. The recurring problem of recirculation pump motor-generator set trips seems to have been successfully resolved. However, compared to the previous operating cycle where there were two forced outages due to emergent equipment problems, during this cycle there were five. In four of the five cases, leaks in various systems were involved, in addition, since the ouage, there has been a very slow increase in the backlog without the usual tumaround as the next refueling outage approaches. Communications were generally effective among maintenance, operations, and engineering personnel, and in particular seemed to improve toward the latter half of the period.
As noted above, the licensee continued to have problems with keeping various procedures up-to-date and procedures being inad6quate. The problems to date have not been safety significant. Past engineering analyses and their recommendalbns were not always completely incorporated into plant procedures. On a number of occasions, the licensee did not identify when procedures were inadequate to perform the requested job. The licensee has made a number of revisions to its procedure processes, and there has been some improvement in procedure adherence.
The performance rat'ng in Maintenance is Category 2.
C, Enaineerina Licensee's attention and involvement were properly focused on safety and resulted in a continued excellent level of safety performance. A competent and knowledgeable engineering staff provided excellent day-to-day support to operations, maintenance, and other onsite organizations. Evaluations were normally thorough and technically sound. Engineers frequently observed activities in the plant and were effective in identifying degraded condMions and resolving emergent issues. Exceptions to otherwise good performance involved minor design control discrepancies and procedure adherence issues that occurred late in the SALP period.
Although several minor design controlissues were raised during an NRC led System Operational Performance inspection (SOPI) of the residual heat removal system, overall results were positive.
Engineering support for the day-to-day operation of the plant was excellent. Proper safety focus and teamwork were demonstrated and Engineering was consistently involved in testing, maintenance, and assessing sysWm operability Engineering personnel were also involved in the timely resolution of technicalissues. Of particular note was the identification of a degraded condition on the residual heat removal service water pump before the pump's operability was
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _
_ - _ - _ - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
_
_ _ _
o
,
l affected. Engineering personnel were also effective in reviewing the design basis and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) which was reflected in the small number of UFSAR discrepancies identified late in the assessment period.
Quality of engineering work remained excellent during this assessment period. Design changes, modifications, operability assessments, and safety reviews were comprehensive and emphasized safety, Of note was engineering personnel's oversight of the scram solenoid testing activities and system engineering involvement in response to an increasing trend in drywell temperature. One exception was several examples of weak procedure adherence relative to 10 CFR Part 50.59 safety evaluations and operability assessments identified during the SOPI late in the assessment period. Response to industry events was thorough with engineering personnel routinely demonstrating a questioning attitude.
'
Management oversight and engineering performance of self-assessments were good as evidenced by strong performance based audits. A good example was the self-assessments in the rootor operated valve (MOV) area which led the SOPl to conclude that the MOV technical program was well established with a good trending program.
Management support for the Improved Technical Specification project was effective. The submittal was under review by NRR and was considered to be a good effort. The implementation schedule was well planned and surveillance tests were being written to support implementation by earty 1998.
The performance rating in Engineering is Category 1.
D.
Plant Support The licensee's overall attention and involvement in the area of plant support continued to be properly focused on safety and resulted in an excellent level of safety performance. The radiation protection and chemistry programs demonstrated excellent performance with strengths observed in ALARA and source term reduction. The chemistry program continued to be excellent as observed through excellent plant water quality. The security program continued to be excellent with strengths observed in the performance and reliability of security equipment, and in well trained security personnel performance. Emergency preparedness performance also remained excellent, with very good performance observed in the 1996 emergency preparedness exercise. The performance in the area of fire protection was good with effective controls over hot work, combustibles, and fire protection equipment maintenance.
The radiation protection program demonstrated excellent performance, with the ALARA program continuing to be a strength. Radiological work planning and oversight were effective in reducing radiological exposure. Additionally, source term reduction efforts contributed to the station's lowest refueling outage personnel exposure. Decreases in the amount of plant contaminated areas improved the access to the plant equipment. The solid radioactive waste and transporta*. ion programs were effectively implemented, with a continued emphasis on the reduction of radioactive waste production. Additionally, the radiological environmental monitoring program was well implemented with no discemable radioactive impact on the environment from the operation of the facility. Some weaknesses were identified in the beginning and middle of the SALP cycle involving minor radiological consequences due to poor communications and conflicting expectations between radiation protection and other departments. Corrective actions were implemented by the end of the SALP cycle and were
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_
_-_
_
.
. _. _
,. _.
__
..
. _ _ -
. __
.-
.
.
.
effective in improving coordination and integration of work activities. Overall, site quality
. verification in the radiation protection department was excellent.
The chemistry program continued to demonstn.te excellent performance with excellent plant water quality. The licensee's commitment to advanced technologies for preventing intergranular stress corrosion cracking through the use of hydrogen water chemistry and the implementation of a noble metal chemical addition was considered a strength. The laboratory quality assurance program was effectively implemented with excellent laboratory comparison programs. The material condition of the post accident sampling system was good, and post accident sampling system samples showed good agreement with the routine reactor coolant samples. Chemistry technician performance was generally good; however, some problems were identified with sampling techniques, and the use of trncontrolled reference sheets for the completion of a
,
surveillance test.
Security performance was considered to be excellent overali. Security program requirements in the areas of training and access authorization were effectivelyimplemented. Support of security activities by plant staff was also evident. Effective management planning, staff coordination,
. and communication resulted in a reduction of security related personnel performance errors.
Security equipment was effectively maintained. Early during the SALP, a few inadequacies were identified in the areas of vehicle search and personnel access authorization. Corrective actions to address these inadequacies were effective.
The licensee's attention and involvement in the emergency preparedness program was effective in maintaining the operational readiness of emergency response facilities, equipmant, and personnel. Interviews with emergency response personnel demonstrated excellent knowledge of emergencyimplementing procedures and responsibilities. Overall performance during the 1996 emergency preparedness exercise was very good.
-
Overall perfom1ance in fire protection was good. There was a low number of fires in the plant, and none of the fires involved hot work, which indicated effective hot work controls and a good control of combustibles in the plant. The fire protection equipment was effectively maintained.
However, some weaknesses were observed in the area of emergency lighting, including incorrectly aimed emergency lighting lamps, and a high discharDe surveillance test failure rate
,
for the emergency lighting batteries.
The performance rating in Plant Support is Category 1.
I i -
.
l
,
-
. -
.