ML20148B889

Informs of 970417 Meeting W/Util in Region II Ofc to Discuss Results of Independent Review of Plant Recent Performance. List of Attendees & Presentation Handout Encl

ML20148B889
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	05/05/1997
From:	Lesser M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 9705130400
Download: ML20148B889 (28)

Text

_._

=

May 5, 1997 l

Tennessee Valley Authority ATIN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

1 President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, DOCKET NOS. 50 327 AND 50 328

Dear Mr. Kingsley:

On April 17, 1997, the NRC staff met at the NRC Region II Office, with Tennessee Valley Authority Management. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the results of an independent review of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's recent performance.

Er, closure 1 is a list of the individuals who attended the meeting, and Enclosure 2 contains a copy of the material supplied by the licensee at the meeting.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2.

Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

Sincerely, (Original signed by M.

S. Lesser)

Mark S. Lesser, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50 327, 50 328 License Nos. DPR 77, DPR-79

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Handout Material I

cc w/encls:

(See page 2) ll ll Ill lll ll llll 130077

~

9705130400 970505 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P

PDR g r/g

6 TVA 2

cc w/encls:

Mr. O. J. Zeringue Mr. J. T. Herron Senior Vice President Plant Manager Nuclear Operations Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place P. O. Box 2000 1101 Market Street Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Mr. Michael H. Hobley, Director Mr. J. A. Bailey Division of Radiclogical Health Vice President 3rd Floor, L and C Annex Engineering and Technical Services 401 Church Street 6A Lookout Place Nashville, TN 37243-1532 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 County Executive i

Hamilton County Courthouse Mr. R. J. Adney Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Site Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Distribution w/encls:

(See page 3)

Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority ET 10H 400 West Summit Hill Drive 2

Knoxville, TN 37902 Mr. R. R. Baron i

General Manager Nuclear Assurance & Licensing 4J Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street i

Chattanooga, TN 37402 2801 Mr. P. Salas, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority i

4J Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. R. H. Shell, Manager Licensing and Industry Affairs 1

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Soddy Daisy. TN 37379 4

i i

d

TVA 3

i l

Distribution w/encls:

i J. R. Johnson, RII i

M. S. Lesser. RII S. E. Sparks, RII F. J. Hebdon, NRR R. W. Hernan, NRR i

W. C. Bearden, RII l

C. F. Smith, RII D. H. Thompson, RII j

J. H. Moorman. RII E. D. Testa, RII PUBLIC i

NRC Resident Inspector i

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2600 Igou Ferry Soddy Daisy, TN 37379 NRC Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1260 Nuclear Plant Road Spring City, TN 37381 OrFICE ODD /DIY.

SIGNATURE b

NAME

$5pa rks:vyg DATE 05 / I / 97 05 /

/ 97 05 /

/ 97 05 /

/ 97 06 /

/ 97 05 /

/ 97 COPY?

YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES N0 YES NO OFFICIAL Kttuius LOPt uOCUMtNi NAMt: G: \\Bii6.50MlU417.5uM

LIST OF ATTENDEES NRC L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)

J. R. Johnson, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII J. P. Jaudon, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RII M. S. Lesser, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 6 DRP, RII D. A. Seymour Resident Inspector, DRP, RII R. W. Hernan, Senior Licensing Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

Licensee Attendees:

0. D. Kingsley, President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer

0. J. Zeringue, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations

Sequoya1 Xuclear Plant SpecialIndepenc ent Review Initiated Sequoyah Review

- Rate ofimprovement

- Performance compared to BFN and WBN

- Utilized senior managers.from BFN and WBN

- Duration one week with 31/2 days in field Team Findings Grouped into Two Areas

- Management methods

- Excessively broad improvement focus

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SpecialIndependent Review Actions

- Plan of the Day Meeting Define priorities Coordinate activities and organizational interfaces Cognizance of daily activities Reinforce expectations Highlight specific Management Focus Areas I

I

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SpecialIndependent Review Management Review Committee

- Classification

- Cognizance of problems

- Review of corrective actions

- Communicate expectation Specific Improvement initiatives

- Procedure adherence

- Prejob briefings

- Sensitive activities

- SI prograin Postmaintenance/postmodification testing

1 Sequoyah Nuc ear Plant SpecialIndependent Review I

Material Condition

- Switchyard process

- Designated senior manager,

Actions identified will increase rate of performance improvement t

-:u

.m

- - = =

. - - ~

...... _ =

II. POD /MANAGMENT TEAM MEETINGS

)

A. Aaenda i

1.

Daily Agenda l

a.

Plant Status Plant Condition / Status LCOs/ Equipment in Reduced Status Major Activities Completed in Last 24-Hours immediate Attention / Priority Work e

Operations Concerns / Risk Assessment (Ops & Work Week Managers)

Disabled Alarms / Instruments Out-of-Service Major Upcoming Events / Site Attention Areas Regulatory Notifications /Near Misses b.

Integrated Schedule / System Outages / Unit Outage (If Applicable)

SI Schedule and Open Si Test Deficiencies Level 2 Schedule Review System Outages Major Evolutions Unit Outages (If Applicable) l

~

c.

Radeon/ Chemistry d.

Industrial Safety j

e.

Training Schedule f.

Security g.

Housekeeping h.

Administrative / Plant impact issues / Industry Experience 2.

POD Day-Of-The-Week Agenda Days shown below for agenda items may be adjusted by the site.

Monday

+

Upcoming Licensing / QA Assessments (LIC/QA)

REP Duty / Incident Fo.rced Outage Response (REP)

Fire Protection Status Summary (FP) i Industrial Safety Summary (Ind. Safety)

Containment Entry WO (Rad / Chem) - PWRs Only 1

Tuesday

^

System Health Attention items (1)

Radwaste Inteakage t

Computer Outage Schedule (Info. Systems)

Forced Outage Schedule (Sched)

Training Attendance (Training)

Wednesday

. Operations Workarounds (Ops)

Maintenance Performance Indicators (Maint)

Oil / Water Leakage (Maint) l Leak Repair Report - Furmanite (Maint) l 3

~

Thursday TACFs (Tech Suppod)

Control Room Panel Deficiency Analysis (Maint)

Out-of-Spec Routine Readings (Ops)

ASME Section XI increased Frequency (Tech Support)

Installed Catch Containment Devices (Sched)

Friday Summary of Week QA Review Summary of Week Licensing (Open NRC issues, NRC Exits, LER Due Dates) (LIC)

Outage Look Ahead - Major Milestones (Outage)

PER Status (QA)

Monthly Self-Assessment Schedule (2) l (1) Examples: Rad Monitoring, Maintenance Rule "A1" System Review (2) WBN now. Other sites when this is implemented.

B.

Chairman Operations Manager (or His Designee)

T C. Attendance 1.

Site VP 2.

Plant Manager 2

3.

Site VP Directs 4.

Plant Manager Directs 5.

Major Department Managers or Their Designee (maintenance, radcon, chemistry, engineering, systems, modifications, materials &

procurement, licensing, site quality) i 6.

Transmission Power Supply (TPS) 7.

. Operations Unit Managers, Shift Manager 8.

Industrial Safety Manager j

9.

Scheduling Manager

10. Work Week Manager

11. Managers / Supervisors to Address the Day-Of-The-Week Agenda As Appropriate

~

3

4 Ill. MRC MEETINGS A. Aaenda i

1. MRC reviews all new PERs (levels A, B, C, & D) for concurrence with the classification level and for other corrective action program requirements. New PERs are presented to MRC by the initiating l

organization (Maintenance, Technical Support, Operations, etc.)

2. MRC reviews all Level A & B PERs for root cause determination and corrective action. MRC will perform a random review of the corrective action for some Level C PERs.

B.

Chairman Plant Manager C. Attendance 1.

Site VP (Periodically) 2.

Plant Manager 3.

Operations Manager 4.

Maintenance & Mods Manager 5.

RadCon/Chemisty Manager 6.

Training Manager i

7.

NA&L Manager 8.

Site Quality Manager 9.

Engineering Manager

10. Training Manager

11. Nuciear Experience Review (NER) Manager

12. In addition to the attendance identified above, each organization j

may' elect to include additional personnel as appropriate.

l I

i 4

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1

~

OPERATIONAL READINESS PROGRAM

{

POST MAINTENANCE TESTING

(

SELF-ASSESSMENT Revision O Prepared by:

/ 6[2[94 Approved by:

D ))4~

/ 3 9V

Post Maintenance Testing Self-Assessment Revision 0 Pege 2 of 4 i

1.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE The Post Maintenance Test Program provides the methods, requirements, and responsibilities for preparation, selection, and performance of an effective post maintenance test. A post maintenance test ensures (1) the I

ability,of a particular component or system to perform its intended function; (2) the original deficiency is corrected; and (3) no new problems are created.

The scope of post maintenance testing includes:

Maintenance tests: Visual inspections, go/no-go tests, or other non-quantitative acceptance criteria type tests. These tests do not fall within the scope of the Conduct of Test Program. They are often written in the work document without reference to other existing procedures. They are occasionally included within the post performance section of a site procedure.

Operability and functional tests: These tests prove system or component

(-

operation. These are typically more detailed than a maintenance test and depending upon complexity, these tests may or may not fall into the Conduct of Test Program. They range from simrde functional tests to Surveillance instructions which satisfy Technical Specification operability determinations. Simple functional tests are usually covered by a pre-approved site procedure but may be detailed within the work document.

11.

CRITERIA Post Maintenance requirements are identified.

=

Acceptance criteria and proper review process for the requirements for I

returning specific equipment to service are established.

The Work Order (WO) provides specific instructions or cross references a test procedure which provides traceability to post maintenance test data.

When WOs are received for planning, a review should be conducted to determine post maintenance test requirements and whether or not the proposed repair is to equipment covered by applicable codes or technical specifications or the Post Maintenance Test Matrix. Tests of any equipment affected by code or technical specification requirements should be reviewed by cognizant personnel.

Post Maintenance Testing Self Assessment Revision 0 Page 3 of 4 i

t t

The Work Orders are reviewed to verify that post maintenance testing requirements listed will provide adequate verification that the equipment j

will be capable of performing its design function.

i A program is established to control post maintenance testing. When 1

more than one group is involved in the post maintenance test, or there is l

a situation where the test must be delayed until station conditions permit, performance, then one organization, such as the Operations Department, should be responsible for coordinating testing performance.

'The department performing or having the lead for performing the post maintenance test assigns an individual with overall responsibility for conducting the test and an individual for reviewing test data and determining the acceptability of the equipment.

1 i

If station conditions dictate that post maintenance testing cannot be j

completed immediately after maintenance is performed or the MR is being i

held open, some tracking method should be used by the department having lead responsibility for testing until the equipment can be tested.

f

(

Operators should know the status of equipment on hold for post i

i maintenance testing and minimize the amount of equipment in this i

condition. This status should be reviewed prior to any scheduled mode change.

Operational acceptance of the equipment, based on satisfactory post

]

maintenance test completion, is being verified by the Operations Department by signature on the Work Order or other referenced document. Where possible, acceptance criteria should be generated and available prior to the test and should be included or referenced as part of l

the test instructions.

If Work Order scope changes are made during equipment maintenance, or means is in place to ensure that post maintenance testing is reviewed for adequacy.

1

Post Maintenance Testing Self Assessment Revision 0 Page 4 of 4 111.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The program objectives and criteria will be verified by:

Ensure a program owner has been designated.

Ver'ify that perforrnance indicators are identified and/or in place.

Verify authority and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood by departmental personnel.

Ensure personnel understand the necessity for following procedural requirements.

Verify site interfaces are clearly defined and understood.

Verify site and corporate interfaces are clearly defined end understood.

Observe the performance of selected activities to ensure program

(.

requirements are adequately implemented.

Interviews with managers and departmental personnel concerning program requirements, procedures, interfaces, implementation, etc.

Review of in process and completed documentation for the program being observed.

IV.

OBSERVATIONS V.

DEFICIENCIES / WEAKNESSES VI.

STRONG POINTS / GOOD PRACTICES Vil.

RECOMMENDATIONS

..mi.;n...

SQN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BASED ON ARTHUR A'NDERSEN's PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i

l

• TVA has evaluated SQN performance using the same indicators Arthur Andersen employed in its study Data obtained from NUS Corporation

• NRC AEOD quarterly information annualized for i

seven of the nine indicators for period ending on September 30,1996 l

l w For the remaining two indicators-allegations and civil penalties-data obtained from documents publicly available e NRC AEOD data for the five operations measures that l

Arthur Andersen used in its " Integrated Performance Model" i

• TVA analyzed data beginining 161988 to be consistent with Arthur Andersen's Performance Trend Model l

The Arthur' Andersen Model is based of" Hits." That is, deviations from a sliding scale based on industry average. On that basis alone,-

i SQN would exceed their recommended thresholds for discussion in the NRC's Senior Management Meeting TVA used linear regression techniques to determine the direction of the trend for each indicator w Eight of the nine performance indicators showed an improving trend w One indicator showed a stable trend w Each of the five operations measures showed improving trends

4 The " primary goal of the Senior Management Meeting is to identify j

declining trends in the operational safety performance ofindividual plants so that early corrective actions can be taken." (Arthur Andersen/SECY-96-93) In light of the improving trends of SQN's f

performance indicators, TVA believes that SQN does not warrants increased NRC Senior Management Attention 1

)

l TVA' took early corrective steps during the 1992-93 period, and has continued to take actions Improvements observed. However, SQN has not achieved a level of l

performance that meets TVA's goals and expectations Also, TVA has validated its technique of evaluating performance indicators. TVA applied its method to the plants currently in the

" Watch List" SQN is different.

- SQN does not show any of the Arthur Andersen's performance indicators or operations measures with a declining trend e The plants in the " Watch List" have severalindicators showing declining trends w On that basis, SQN does not meet NRC's stated objective for discussion in its Senior Management Meeting: "if a plants safety performance appean to be declining significantly"

SON PERFORMANCE TREND MODEL INDICATORS AUTOMATIC SCRAMS 4

3.5 a i

3-2.5 -

- - - -lND. AVE PEER AVE 2- *.. ' ' * -

A SON

""~~'

Linear (SQN) 0.5 -

i j

0 1

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 j

SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS i

2.5 1

2-i

-lND. AVE 1.5 a 4

PEER AVE A

SON 1

Linear (SON)

.,' -...,,-[

l 0.5 -

O J

s,

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4

SIGNI ICANT EVENTS 2.5 2-i 1.5 -

- - - - IND. AVE i

PEER AVE 1

A SON Linear (SON) j N' ' ' ' ' ' *,, '

0.5 r#- -

0

...'K

~ ^

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199l 1995 1996 J

Page1 l

... =... - -

4 SON PERFORMANCE TREND MODEL INDICATORS a

i SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES 7

6-t 5-1 4

- IND. AVE PEER AVE 3,

4 SON Unear (SON) l 2-x 0

^

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1990 FORCED OUTAGE RATE 70,

60 -

50 -

lND. AVE 40 PEER AVE A

SON

)

30 Linear (SON) 20 -

• • • ' ~ ' ' ' '

10 -

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGE RATE 2.5 -

2-i 1

1.5

...... IND. AVE PEER AVE I

A SQN Unear (SON) 0.5 -

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Page 2

SON PERFORMANCE TREND MODEL INDICATORS I

COLLECTIVE RADIA110N EXPOSURE 1800 --

]

1600-1400 -

1200-1000

-lND. AVE

~

PEER AVE d

A SQN 600 +-

400.Q.% -- -

1 Linear (SQN) 200-0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ALLEGADONS 2

4 30 25 i I

20 -

IND. AVE 15 -

l PEER AVE A

SON l

10 -

Linear (SON) 5-O 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4

CIVIL PENATLTY (Thousands) 500 450 -

400 350-300-

- - - -lND. AVE PEER AVE 250 -

A SQN 200 Linear (SON) l 150-m 100-50 4__

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1M Page 3

SQM OPERATIONS MEASURES OTHER PERSONNEL ERRORS 20 18 '

16 -

14 -

12

~,_

10

...... IND. AVE PEER AVE 8-6-

Unear (SON) 4 2-

~ -

0 i

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 I#

MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS 45.

40 -

35 -

30 -

25 -

...... IN D. AVE 20 -

PEER AVE 15 -

• - SQN U"I 10 -

5-i l

0 39g3 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 iW DESIGN PROBLEMS 16 14 i 12 -

10 -

..... tND. AVE B-PEER AVE

.-.-*-- SQ N 6-Unear (SON) 4-2-

O 9939 3999 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1W Page 1

i i

SON OPERATIONS MEASURES I

i i

2 ADMINSTRATIVE CONTROL PROBLEMS I

30 -

25 -

20 -

- tND. AVE 15 -

PEER AVE A

SON 10 -

Linear (SQN) l 5-0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 LICENSED OPERATOR ERRORS 8

e 7-6-

5-lND. AVE 4-PEER AVE 3

ag A

SON Linear (SON) 2 i

s e p * **"**--

, pes 1

N 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Page 2

_ ~ -_ _. _.

l SON PERFORMANCE TREND j

i AUTOMATIC SCRAMS 3-l j

2.5 a 2-

- -. -lND. AVE PEER AVE 1.5 -

A SON 9

Unear (SON)

---

.......,_a.

_ a 9

j 0.5

)

0 I

i 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 I

i SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS 2"

1.8 -

i 1.6 -

L i

1.4 -

1.2 -

...... IND AVr, 1

PEER AVE 0.6 -...- -* *

~..

A SON

. ~. ' *...,, '

06-Linear (SON) 4 0.4 I

0.2 -

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 2.5.

4 2-1.5 -

s

,..... lND. AVE j

PEER AVE 1

\\

A SON f

Linear (SQN) 0.5 -

4..........

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Page 1 4

SON PERFORMANCE TREND SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES 7

l a

6-

...... IND. AVE 5-PEER AVE A

SQN 4-Linear (SON) 2-x_ _

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE 70 lND. AVE PEER AVE 50 -

A SON ao.

Linear (SON) 30 -

20 -

10 ;

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 EQUfPMENT FORCED OUTAGE RATE 1.5

1. 4 -

12 '

...... lND. AVE 1

PEER AVE 0.8,

A SON 06 a

04-0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Page 2

m..___

SON PERFORMANCE TREND 2

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE 500 4504 400-.........,

350 -

...... IND. AVE 300-PEER AVE 250 -

A SON 200 Unear (SQN) 150 -

100-0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4

ALLEGATIONS 30 IND. AVE I

25 '-

..... - PEER AVE y_

A SON Linear (SON) 15 -

L 10 -

5-4 0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

+

CIVIL PENATLTY (Thousands) 500 450-

...... IND. AVE PEER AVE

~

A SON 250 -

Unear(SON) 200d 150-100 -

a

$o.

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1

Page 3

SON OPERATIONS MEASURES OTHER PERSONNEL ERRORS 8.

7 l

f 6-l l

5-

- - - lND AVE 4

PEER AVE l

)

Linear (SON) 2 N

1 0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS 25 -

20 i

15 '

IND. AVE PEER AVE j

10 -

A SON Linear (SON) 5-N i

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 DESIGN PROBLEMS 9

4 8-7-

l 6-5a

-tND. AVE PEER AVE a

a 4-son 3-Linear (SON) i 2-f 1

l' 0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Page1

4 SON OPERATIONS MEASURES ADMINSTRATIVE CONTROL PROBLEMS 14 12 i I

10 -

B-

- - IND. AVE i

PEER A'.'E

~

4 Linear (SQN) 2 I'

O 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 LICENSED OPERATOR ERRORS 4.5 4-1 3.5 -

3d

!. - - - - lND. AVE 2.5 -

PEER AVE 2

t

.L SON l

Linear (SON) j 1.5 -

0.5 -

0 1.J2 1993 1994 1995 1996 l

Page 2 l