ML20211G135

Forwards Summary of NRC Oversight Panel Meeting W/Licensee on 970828 in Lisle,Il.Meeting Handout Also Encl

ML20211G135
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	09/10/1997
From:	Leach M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Subalusky W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 9710020067
Download: ML20211G135 (68)

Text

_ _

['ubUC E.,

t 7gN[

.I geg g in, 1997 Mr. W. T. Subalusky, Jr.

Site Vice President LaSalle County Station Commonwealth Edison Company 2601 North 21st Road Marseilles,IL 61341

SUBJECT:

NRC OVERSIGHT PANEL MEETING

SUMMARY

D6ar Mr. Subalusky:

The NRC Oversight Panel met with Commonwealth Edison and LaSalle County Station management on August 28,1997. This management meeting was open to public-observation. Enclosure 1 contains the associated meeting summary.- Enclosure 2 contains tho' handout provided to the NRC Oversight Panel by Commonwealth Edison during 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 unclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Rcom.

- Sincerely,

/s/ Melvyn N. leach Melvyn N. Leach, Chief 1

Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.: 50-373; 50 374 License Nos.: NPF-11: NPF 18

Enclosures:

1.

- Meeting Summary 2.

Meeting Handout See Attached Distnbution

_ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LASA\\LASMTG. SUM T. m.

.e m.

-- nie m m. n.. c - c.n =nn.m.n ww : - c.n won.a n i n - m.

n OFFICE Rlli (f

Rill Rlli 6

NAME DHills:nh Pe4 AStone M MLeach # C DATE 09/4/97 09/ /97 09//o/97 f

OFi:lCIAL RECORD COPY

$10074 9710020067 97091o T

lglBlulIIRIBIElli

. P DR - ADOCK 05000373

' tulltullsutugalBilla l

P PDR

W. Subalusky 2-cc w/encls:

R. J. Manning, Executive Vice President, Generation M. Wallace, Senior Vice President, Corporate Services E. Kraft, Vice President BWR Operations Liaison Officer, NOC-BOD D. A. Sager, Vice President, Generation Support D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager

1. Johnson, Licensing Operations Manager Document Control Desk-Licensing l

F. Dacimo, Plant General Manager P. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Distribution:

Docket File w/enci DRP w/enci OC/LFDCB w/enci

- TSS w/enci PUBLIC IE 01 w/enci DRS (2) w/enci

- A. Beach w/enci Rlli PRR w/enci i

Deputy RA w/ encl RAC1 (E-Mail)

Rlli Enf.' Coord. w/enci -

CAA1 (E Mail) l SRI LaSalle w/cncl DOCDESK (E Mail)

Project Mgr., NRR w/ encl S. Collins, NRR l

F. Miraglia, NRR R, Zimmerman, NRR L. Gerke, OCA E. Adensam, NRR G. Tracy, OEDO L

l l

Public Meeting Summary

~

J

Public Meeting Summary NRC Oversight Panel for LaSalle County Station Auoust 28 Manaaement Meetino Summary:

The licensee presented information contained in the applicable handout in Enclosure 2.

During the licensee's presentation, the licensee provided clarification in redponse to NRC questions and comments. The licensee provided a restart schedule, discussed recent changes to the Restart Plan, provided a brief status of several restart strategies, discussed the results of the first line supervisor evaluations, and discussed the status of the High intensity Training Program for operators.

During the discussion, the licensee indicated the following with regards to the effectiveness of improvement actions and current plant performance:

Operator involvement had improved with operators demanding resolution of plant problems when not satisfied with the original response.

The level of work activity in the plant had significantly increased, which provides targets of opportunity for pmonnel error and observation.

Personnel performance as indicated by the event free clock had been on an improving trend, but had leveled in the last few weeks. This was attributed to workers not paying as much attention when the management focus is reduced, Out-of-service errors are currently the most significant problem in operations due to c

the effect on personnel safety and plant configuration control. While previously the largest contributor to this problem had been component mispositioning, the largest contributor was now scheduling deficiencies with component mispositioning almost to zero.

Some improvements have been noted in maintenance rework and engineering product quality compared to a year ago, but performance in these areas is still not where it needs to be.

With regard to the new corrective action program, results are being achieved, but some shortf alls still exist. For example, the Corrective Action Review Board reject rato remains high.

With regard to material condition improvement efforts, the difference between current ef forts and efforts during any other plant outage is that current efforts are being driven by aspects of other Restart Plan strategies, such as operator work around2.

1 I

l During the discussion, the NRC staff communicated the following considerations:

Progress made with regard te operators demanding resolution of probioms could eventually be lost if the operators continus to see problems not addressed correctly the first time:

In addition to the licensee's Restart Plan, which the licensee previously provided, the NRC staff needed to see the associated detailed action plans to ast!st in inspection planning and integration of inspection findings. The licensee agreed to provide these within 30 days, During NRC review of the licensee's Restart Plan, the staff found it difficult to associate the restart issues to the root causes of performance problems. The licensee indicated that an open corrective action record existed for this same problem, which the licensee was trying to addrest..

Further dialogue is necessary between the licensee and the NRC inspection staff regarding licensee plans and schedules for resolving technicalissues such as those identified in the licensee's system performa.nce functional reviews.

With regard to NRC observations of examinations during the licensee's High Intensity Training Program for operators, the simulator examinations were good, but the written examinations were not challenging. The licensee responded that they had already identified that many 4 estions in their examination bank did not reflect higher order objectives and discussed current activities to address the concern, a

2 d

r Attendees:

MEC

- G. Grant, Director, Division of Reactor. Projects (DRP)

R. Capra, Director, Pro}ect Directorate lil 2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

M. Leach, Chief, Operator Licensing Branch -

M. Galloway, Acting Chief, DRP Branch 2 -

D. Hills, Project Engineer J. Hansen, Resident inspector

- Commonwealth Edison

--J. Brons, Vice President, Nuclear Support, Comed B. Subalusky, Site Vice President, LaSalle G. Poletto, Site Engineering Manager, LaSalle

- D. Farr, Operations Manager, LaSalle L. Guthrie, Restart Manager, LaSalle R. Heisterman, Maintenance Manger, LaSalle B. Riffer, Corrective Action Manager, LaSalle i

G. Kaegi, Operations Training Superintendern, LaSalle G. Schwartz, Safety Assessment Manager, Comed

- J. Glaseker, Executive Assistant, Lasalle

i. Mnson, Licensing Director, Comed P. Bar.ws, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor, LaSalle

- G. Benea. Licensing Administrator, Comed

- J. Marshall, Offsite Review, Comed

-J. Reynolds, Member, NOC-BOC, Comed B. Rybak, Licensing Operations, Comed '

D. Sanchez, Manager Training, Comed -

G. Wald, Nuclear Communications Administrator, CcmEd P. Resler, Communications Coordinator, LaSalle J. Kinsey, Engineering, LaSalle G. Byson, BB Steno - Bargaining Unit, LaSalle -

J. Schrage, WMD, LaSalle.

T. Galyen, MMD,- LaSalle A. Bebar Radiation Protection Technician, LaSalle

- B. Burent, IMD, LaSalle

' M, Ruder, EMD, LaSalle M. Reynolds', IMD, LaSalle J. Fiesel, PGM Staff Assistant, Comed 1R. Godley, Regulatory Assurance Manager, Zion Other K. Suiton, Attorney, Winston & Strawn T._Poindexter, Attorney, Winston & Strawn LC. Mathews, Resident Engineer, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 3

l A

9 Commonwealth Edison Management Meeting Handout t

.2

ENNEI LASALLE COUNTYSTATION Safe Uneventful Startup

+

Safe Uneventful Long Run Y

World Class Performance August 28,1997 NRC Region ill - Lisle, Illinois LaSaHe

Q NRC Public Meeting L!

August 28,1997 13:00- 16:00 NRC Introduction e

Leach / Beach LaSalle introduction e

Subalushy

> Integrated Restart Schedule c

Key Activities Since Last Meeting

~n

> Restart Plan Revision Guthrie Restart Plan Status Report e

> Out of Service Farr

> Material Condition Guthrie

- Unit i L1F35 Outage

> System Functional Performance Review Poletto

- NRC Generic issues

> Corrective Action and Self Assessment Mcdonald

> High Intensity Training Farr Closing Remarks e

subalusky NRC Closing Remarks Leach / Beach LaSaIIe l

--.-,-----------.----------,.--,-.-----r-1-

g a

i

\\

m s.

M a

M Mh M

oW m%

m~

Unit t Integrated Summary Restart Schedule Otr 1 Otr2 Otr 3 Otr 4 Otr 1 ID Task Name Lead J lFlM A lM lJ J lA (S OjNj D J lF 1

Unit 1 Integrated Restart Schedule Guthrlo 2

Unit 1 L1F35 Outage Schedule Higgins 3

Dtvisional Work Windows Hygins i m m.,xe,.;.;e3.....g3 7 m l

4 Non-C4 visional Work Wodows Hi99W puo c.x.

ef. c.-

c-x,x.:,xc. a -

l x

/

5 Urut 1 Restart Testing MagnaM l

y 6

Design Changes (DCP's)

Connes p,yx,xem x,xcccc,xcyf_y-gs.z.3

.. }

7 Erpneering Requests (ER's)

Connen psyxec,.,x,x,xy.x.xe:,..ys 35;;3

.l 8

Operator Startup Training Sanchez

}

9 Regulatory issues Ban'es

~

l 10 Nuclear Tracking System (NTS)

Barnes / Mcdonald l

11 System Readiness Review Palmieri 12 Perform Site Department Self Assessment Smth / Poletto g

13 RIRC Restart Recommendation Guthrle 14 SOV Readiness Assessment Mcdonald 15 CNO Evaluation Brons 16 NOC / DOD Approval For Restart Keiser 17 Mode Switch to Start Up Smith (4

j 18 On Line Smith I

1. ' 'lJ M4M Summary Roned Up Progress -

Task t

Project Ittz Wed 8/27/97 Progress '

N Rotted Up Task l

Milestone Rolled Up MJestone Q LaSalle l

Unit 1 Integrated Summary Restart Schedule Otr 1 Otr2 Otr 3 Otr4 f

Otr 1 ID Task Name Lead J lFlM A lMlJ J lA lS OlN l - l J jF 19 Unit 1 Restart Action P!an 20 Strategy 1-Safa Ptant Operation Smith

.l 21 Strategy 2 - Human Performance Boone 22 Strategy 3 - Plant Materiel Condition Higgins

]

23 Strategy 4 - Effective Engineering Support Poletto l

24 Strategy 5-Corrective Action and Self Assessment Mcdonald l

25 Strategy 6 - Training Sanchez 26 Strategy 7 - Process improvement Smm 27 Complete Strategy p.

.l 28 Strategy Closed l.

.l 29 Restart issues Committee Review g,

l 30 SOV Review l-...,_,

,l 31 Offsste Corporate Assessment g,

g i

l Task ljgn;;4 W e g fl Summary Rond Up Progress m g g7g7 Progress Rolted Up Task Milestone Roued Up Milestone Q LaSalle b

EERIl Restart Plan Revision e Resiart issues Review Committee e Closeout Process e CAL Matrix

• e Readiness Measures l

• Strategy Action Plans under Review / Revision i

LaSalle

Egg ll CAL Matrix O

Acton Plan Number hem CALISSUE

.h

~h E

c of Ef J [

P

=

ab hk

?

Ui 1

Safe Plant Oi ie;c.c.

1.1 liiv.we Oi Perb.. c.

1.1A Morwtormg Cra.cel Cp eds. Functons X

1.18 Ci,.etor Work Erwironmort X

X 1.1C Restart and Pc, Ascensen Plan X

X X

1.2 R* e Ci-dor Chanengee 1.2A Ci-i.e Wortarounde X

X 1.28 T&T.i=.ryAr X

1.2C Mam Control Roorn C= G-w X

1.3 Ccis.c.i Pri.c ses that Chanenge Safe Plant Ci-e-.

1.3A Plant i 22v Pic...

X X

v 1.38 Out-of4ervice ^rc

,.,fi v

X 1.3C Ci-e & Pr --i se Reedmess X

X 2

Human 7 1es.. rice 2.1 Human interacean and I L..i.r.

X 3

Plant hesteriel Cond+ tion

~

31 Urut 1 Oute Management Plan X

X 32 Lnit 2 On*e M r g i-4 Plan X

X 33 Maintenance Bscklog Review Plan X

X 4

Effective Er.s c r..,g S = --1 41 Erg. eiis Cacatuidy X

X X

42 Plant Operatonal Readiness X

X X

5 Corrective Action and Self Assessment 51 Ccirwiwe Acton Program X

52 Quattry verrhcaten Effectrveness X

53 Departirw4 Self Assessment X

X 6

Training 61 Operator Trainmg X

X 7

Process improvement 71 Pr w ares X

LaSaIIe

e---

i Readitiess Measitres LoMgl O

Atee Restart Target (1) Safe Plant Opersoon

i. v.v4 Cv.i.iui P b..we e

...v.veg Trend in OPS Event Free Clock Ci..ior Wort Around e

$10 And No Sgr#ss Ones 0%wiu Temp Alts 510 Greater Then 1 Retuut Oise Co.v u; Room Distrachons e

<10 And Nn S+-twnt Ones (2) Human Performance See Human N".u...ws e

.v.v4s Trend inm% Event Free Clock Out of Service Errv.

e

<2 Per Month Safety System W'--e e

<2 Per Month Open Sgr#c d Human NL..

w PtF e

<4 Open S.w.4 d Fi - t ee Ah.c. PIF e

54 (3) Plant Meterial Condloon Outage Backlog e

100% As Requred for Startup (4) Engineering Effectivenees Engineenno Quality e

Inning Trend in Ers.r 9 Score Card SFPR Revwas e

100% As Required for Startup Omes Er.g.r sis Requests e

System Readiness Rn=

100% As Requwod for Startup e

Desgn Crw.v 100% As Required for Startup e

100% As Requemd for Startup (6) Corrective Ac6on.Self A--

T.e.-a CARB Retectons Rate e

<40%

Sq bnt Repeat Events

<2 per Month SgrJent Correcove Actons Overdue e

< 15 per Quarter (4) Training HIT Tre.r s Cmy;oie (T) Process improvement (Procedures) 100% Required for Startup NOTE:

(1)

The Restart Targets are a per Unit basis.

(2)

Significant is defined as a generic breakdown in the process.

LaSalle

~

I j

9 5

p m

m S

a 5

um

=

O c*

M m

M t

Me O&

N

%4$

4

EEEIl out o Service Errors Ikfinetiim:

}Q The total number of MIS crner Pifs that are designated as Q

signs 6 cant (levt* a, 2. 3 P!fi or SCAQ m she new CAP y

8 (vocess )(* for the numrhi v

N l

C 6

Ihreshold:

D Greater shan 5 gvr scar U1 Cn O

4 O

w0

')

D f

.o E

1 1

9 b

3 5

3 5

4 0

6 e

A f

m JAN FI25 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC swD o

0 3

o o

o o

BYR 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

ZN I

O 0

0 0

0 o

DM 0

I O

I O

O o

IAS 2

0 1

I O

I i

QDC 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

l NOTE: This is a NOD Indicator

-~~,-

LaSalle 4

p y

EEMil Data Analysis e 1996 and 1997 (January through April?

> Events driven by poor human performance by NLOs in the field

- Component mispositioning

- Wrong component o 1997 (May - July)

> Events driven by poor human performance in the areas of scaeduling and planning

- OOS hang checklist development

- OOS boundary interactions

- OOS restoration LaSaHe o

+

v

+

EEEIl Corrective Actions e in Field Human Performance k independent Verification - Apartin Time l

> Strict Disciplinary Action

> HIT Training - Use of Self Check Simulator

> Prejob Wal.< downs Corrective Actions Appear to Have Been Effective LaSalle

EEEIl Additional Corrective Actions e To Address Planning / Scheduling issues

> Corporate SQV Investigation l

> Formal Root Cause Investigation

> Mechanical / Electrical Lineup Verification

> Operations Outage Interface Group Established

> Outage Schedule " Frozen" for 7-day Periods

> Experienced Self-Assessment Coordinator Assigned to Operations

> SCORECARD Revised to Address Human Behavior Codes

> SCORECARD Observations Limited in Scope LaSaHe

EEEIl

~

Materiel Condition Improvement (L1F35 Outage Performance) i LaSaHe

EBRif L1F35 CriticalPath Overview

{

l.tay a

Jun Jul Aug Sep i

Oct i

Nov Dec

!D IIask Name 11.1825.1.8.152229.6.132027.3.10.172431.7.142128.5.12.1926.2 89.162330i7.1421, 1

Unit 1-L1F35 Outage S chedule 6/8 y y 12 2

CD-10 Window 6/8 - 8/12 3

Divisioni Window 8/12e/13 4

Division 2 Window 9/13-10/14 5

CD-10 Window 10/14-11/26 11/26 C 12/7 Sys Perf Testing, Pri Cnt & RPV Press Test, CRD SCitAM time 7

Fsnal Prep For ModeSwitch 12/7 a 12/10 To Startup 8

Unit Startup & Testing 12/10 a 12/:

9 Turbine Sync ToGrid 12/15 g LaSaHe

4 EMEM CD-10 Results

. Summary of All Work Completed during CD - 10 Window (includes L1F35, L2R07, and Daily Work)

> Total NWR Tasks Completed 1490

> Total PMs and Surveillances Completed 676

> DCPs Completed 32

> Tema Alts Completed 27 (i.e. Installed and Removed)

> Corrective Maintenance 755 (and other Misc. Outage Work)

LaSalle

~

~

EMNI CD-10 Results I

e Summary of Major Equipment Improvements l

Completed:

> MDRFP New Seal Design

> MSIV Solenoid Valve Upgrade

> FW MOV Torque Switch Replacement

> Re-Sized 1B & 1D Condensate Pump Impeller Replacement

> Outboard MSIV Room Airlock

>"O" D/G VAR Meter Changeout LaSalle W

ENN5 L1F35 Work (Divisional /Non-Divisional) Completed vs Total Work 15000 14000 13000 12000 i t s n u n e s,y.

107 DCPs sarm E R Rc eseos 11000 10G00

/

9000

/

c S000 J.

y

,000

/

6000

/

5000 4000

-/

f 0000

/

1000

! :h d

d S

d 5

g 3

3 3

a o

a a

a n

y a!g ii2.i;in

!.!. i i

i 2 2 a

.i i.

i

i. ! t i i 9 i u

u

=

a a

~

~

l W O'ii23O U P L E TE D

]

eTOTAL W ORK LaSalle is i

EEEIl l

SYSTEMFUNCTIONAL

\\

PERFORMANCE REVIEWS LaSaHe

~

r l

l L

WERil SFPR Program Elements i

i

. DISCOVERY - Complete j

i L

e RESOLUTION -In Progress i

L j

e TESTING -In Progress i

4 l

i i

I I

l j

LaSalle j

< i; ;

\\ l

,: I

I i,

!1 lll !il!1 g'

L C

M g~

a O A S

N T g

a l

D E le TR g

I y

I I

OA NL y

P e

S rfy s

ot P

ne R

nm O

Da C

En F

E h Sc u

D Ge n

I U

R NR c t

E e

io S

v i

n e

a wl s

~.

T E

TS I

N G

I i

'.;'Ilii

I EMNI Restart Scope Criteria l

Restore System Operability e

e Restore items That Are Outside the System Design Basis e Address Plant Challenges or Reliability issues That Affect Maintenance Rule Functions That Can Only Be Done Off-Line e Resolve immediate Personnel Safety issues Restart issues will be closed out before 2 ant restart LaSalle

EMil Short Term Issue Considerations e issues Do Not Compromise Safe, Reliable Operation e Minor UFSAR Inconsistencies e Material Condition issues Not Affecting System Function e Procedure and Documentation Enhancements LaSaHe

1 i

.i EMEli Long Term Issue Considerations i

i i

i e Upgrade of Obsolete Hardware I

i I

j e Minor UFSAR improvement Suggestions i

i i

i e Minor Procedure Corrections, improvements l

l l

i LaSaHe i

t --...

e e

UM5 Examples ofIssues e 125 VDC e Reactor Water Cleanup e Control Room Ventilation

. Electrohydraulic Control (EHC) e Reactor Core Isolation Cooling LaSaHe

j I

EEEIl l

125 VDC System l

e Restart issue Examples

> Battery Load Capacity Testing

> Cross-tie Operation LaSaHe

EEEII 125 VDC System 1

. Short Term Issue Examples I

> Battery Charger Reliability

> Testing Procedure improvements

> Design Calculation Upgrades LaSalle F

Reactor Water Cleanup (RT) System o Restart issue Examples

> Replace Pumps and Pipe, Restore to Original Hot Suction Configuration

> Realace 40 of 73 Filter /Demin Ball Valves

> Install Pump Room Leak Detection f

LaSaHe

~

1

~

e e

WEEIl Reactor Wate,' Cleanup (RT) System e Short Term Issue Examples

> Replace Filter /Demin Hold Pumas

> Complete Replacement of Remaining 33 of 73 Ball Valves LaSaHe

i.,

,i

l EEEIl ControlRoom Ventilation (VC/VE) System e Restart Issue Examples

> Control Room Radiation Monitoring

> Control Room Pressure Control and Ventilation

> Testing to Demonstrate Technical Specification Compliance f

LaSalle

-~~.e._

_u j

e

EERIl ControlRoom Ventilatw.n (VC/VE) System e Short Term issue Examples

> Air Supply and Makeup Charcoal Filter High Temperature Alarm

> UFSAR Requirements For Smoke

> System Annunciator Testing LaSalle 1

c

~

EEEIl Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System o Restart issue Examples

> Turbine Governor Valve Stem

> Turbine Exhaust Line Rupture Disk

> Steam Supply Line Drain Trap

>~ Turbine Oil System Thread Sealant LaSaHe

EEEIl Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System e Short Term issue Examples

> Turbine Governor Static Inverter

> RCIC Suppression Chamber Suction Valve

> Oil Piping Configuration and Drawings LaSalle

~

EEEIl Electrohydrauh. Control c

(EHC) System i

e Restart issue Examples

> EHC Fluid High Temperature

> EHC System Calibration and Tuning

)

> EHC System Leaks

> Testing of Turbine (CIV)

)

l LaSalle i

e EEEIl l

Electrohydrauh. Control c

l (EHC) System e Short Term issue Examples 3

i

> EHC Pump Reliability

> Plant Drawings and Vendor Manual Update

(

> EHC Piping Replacement i

l l

l 1

l LaSalle i

lll l

lllll l

g L

g aS g

a

(

H N

M I

U E

g W

o W

D i

F n

e te o

C S

d r

Pa y

A I'

A m

k R

h L

R k

e" e

S A

R e

x e

a e

a R

ii b

v c

i f

o is P

e s

c v

i v

a m

e i

t s

i i

v m

m a

l s

u esa rea pprov i

n n

R re

)

esoS luFP tioR R

n e

g 4

3 2

3 I

4 I

1 s

1 4

7 8

2 3

t 2

0 7

6 2

a Cs r

t s

a u

Sh te e

o g

r 4

2 3

t I

g s

g 9

0 7

5 0

4 I

i 5

9 2

6 T

3 e

m o

r r

y Lon 6

2 2

g 1

1 9

0 0

0 3

0 2

2 2

6 T

1 I

e r

m ilii j

EMEli SFPR Resolution and System Testing e Process Continues with the Testing Program e More Discovery Possible e Focus is on Safe, Reliable System Operation for Restart LaSalle U

EEEli l

l l

NRC GENERICISSUES LaSaHe er

O EEEli NRC Generic Issues OPRM (Oscillating Power Range Monitoring)

> NRC Generic Letter 94-02, "Long Term Solutions and Upgrade of Interim Operating Recommendations For Thermal-Hydraulic Instabilities in Boiling Water l

Reactors" l

> ECCS Suction Strainers

> NRC Bulletin 96.03, " Potential Plugging Of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers By Debris in Boiling Water Reactors" Drywell Equipment e

> NRC Generic Letter 96-06, " Assurance of Equi 3 ment

. Operability and Containment Integrity During Design Basis Accicent Conditions" LaSalle

EERIl CORRECTIVEACTIONAND SELFASSESSMENTSTRATEGY 4

LaSalle

EEEIl Corrective Action Program o ISSUO:

> Implementation of the Corrective Action Program is Not Effective

~

Resolutimn Methodology:

e

> Overdue Corrective Actions <15 per Quarter

> Repeat SCAQ Events < 3 per Month

> Based ori PIF Data, Demonstrate that Station l

Personnel Are Effectively identifying oroblems Before Events Occur

> > 60% CARB Acceptance Rate of Original Root Cause(In Proces.s Indicator)

LaSaHe

l l

EEEIl Actions I

e Performed Training of CARB, Management, Root Cause investigators, Management Personnel on New l

CAP Process l

e Established Process and Line Ownership e Implemented Formal Action Tracking Procedure e Performing Weekly / Monthly Performance Indicator Review e implemented Formal CARB Procedure Established Dedicated Root Cause Team e

{

e Assigned Effectiveness Reviews for Past Significant Events l

1 LaSalle s

Eggy Number o Problem IdentVication Forms (PIFs) Written oor netion: rne number of Pir s ni:en t,y ir. sae 7000-N q - - ~- ~

4000-3000-2000-

~

~~

1000-3 l

0 l

BRW BYR ZIN DRS LAS ODC N1994 TOT Dt995 TOT O f 996 TOT Of 997 TOT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC BRW 354 33I 487 550 449 382 542 BYR 283 475*

453 359 315 336 370 ZIN 546 568 480 552 50I 487 495 DRS 746 858 892 1183 730 597 518 LAS 653 904 929 514 435 696 573 QDC 283 289 672 842 434 249 275 Graph depiays totalnumber of PsFs written for the year. Table displays econtrJy PIF generation rate.

LaSalle

.w.

EEMI Overdue Corrective Actions

,....,.... ~ o v.. u. m.,.. c u, i......

'**"'"d"'""'""

160 '

"..".'.d**d*'",,','""*. =m. u. in u i,"a. n a..a m

o.,1 E

1 4 0 --

( T = '.8 8 J

<'a s it< ai a a ih i

.2

. _. _. a C

Thre shold: Greater than or equal to 15 per 120-t quarter.

E 100-5

- ~ ~

~-

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

l 80 '

g O

2 20-

~~

~~~

~ ~ ~ ~

M g

M t

0" j

B FlW BYR ZIN DRS LAS ODC c1st Ott 97 m2nd Otr 97 Cl3rd Otr 97 34th Ott 97

- ~ - -.

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG_.._ _S EP _, _O CT _

NOV DEC BRW D u ring _

I I

5 3

1 0

4 End 2

2 0

0 I

BYR DurinL 5

1 2

1 0

9 3

End 0

0 0

0 0

0

')

53 48 41 37 24 2

4 ZIN Du ring _

12 9

12 4

0 1

I End DRS Du rin g 2

0 0

1 0

0 0

._._ g LAS Du rin g 5

7 8

i QDC Du rint 14 9

14 21 6

0 0

End 0

0 I

3 3

0 0

• = No Data A vasable. Graph is totalnurnbar of overdue correctare actions. Table displays overdue during the anonth and[uAe] st5 over'due at end of month LaSaHe

EEEIl CARB Acceptance Rate 25 --

T 100 %

9096 l

M Accepted (Accum)

O Rejected (Accum)

+ Percent Acceptable f80%

20 --

j 70 %

l 609'a

^ G3^6

CS^b

G3^b

^~3%

15 --

^ GC^b N_

594b 0 50 ~,5 75096 5096 5096 10 10 --

40% -

77 7

L-f-3096 5

5 5

5 5

20%

5--

4 4

4 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 22 2

2 10%

M.I E+

i

+

+

1

+

+

+

-i' 0%

O B

s s

g a

5 s

a 5

m B

B B

a e

R s

E G

8 8

e 8

s

~

e e

s a

~

~

LaSalle 0

4

EEEIl Repeat Events Definition:The numcer at events thai occurres m tne rast monm wrm compieres root cause mvesngat on reperts, wh. cst a o reasocatty simaar m nature to events tnat occurred m the past 24 monms mat have one or more of the 140 '

.ame root causes e et aneat e. eat. r- -em

' ~~

120-rnresnoid: crease, maa r ge, a onth 100-

,w 1E i

M l

C U

60-Ej

-~

9 0

~

BRW BYR ZIN DRS LAS ODC l

l D1996 TOT 01997 TOT JAN FEI)

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC BRW I

I 3

3 0

I I

BYR I

O 2

I O

O I

ZIN 3

4 4

3 10 1

0 DRS 2

6 7

I O

O O

LAS I

I I

3 0

1 I

QDC 6

3 I

I I

I O

Graph desplays total number of sepeat events. Table displays number of repeat events por month.

LaSalle

i

~

EEEIl SelfAssessment e issue:

> Departments Not Identifying Potential Problems Prior to Event e Resolution Methodology:

> Consistent Self Identification of Substantive issues by Line Organization LaSaHe 1

EEEIl Actions issued Self Assessment Procedure j

e i

l e Performing Self Assessments l

e Review of Assessment Results by Senior Management l

e Formally Tracking Self Assessment Findings i

l-l e Development and Use of Departmental Performance l

Indicators l

l LaSalle

[

EEEllRecent Examples of SelfIdentified Issues I

e OOS Errors l

e HIT Trainin'g e Supervisor Performance e Overdue Corrective Actions e System Engineering Accountability e CD 10 Work Performance issues e Work Package Quality e Maintenance Work Practice Issues e Worker / Management Interface issues LaSalle

w-EEHil SQVEffeetiveness l

e issue:

i

> Improve SQV's Ability to Diagnose Nuclear Safety and Quality Concerns and Effectively Communicate Those issues to Line Management for Resolution Prior to External Identification or Self-Revealing Events 4

e Resolution Methodology:

> Consistent identification of Substantive issues

> CAR Average Days Open - Improving Trend LaSaHe

J EERIl Actions e Hired Experienced Personnel l

e Re-Allocated Resources for Emerging issues e Established Written Standards

. Assigned Functional Area Responsibility e Established Written Self Assessment Process e On-Going Communication with Senior Management LaSalle

1

EEEli Recent Quality IdentViedIssues i

j e RHR Pump Testing I

e Corrective Action Program issues t

l e Generic Letter 82-12 Compliance l

i e Corrective Action Closeout e Station Procedural Adherence j

e Non-SFPR System Surveillance Testing i

e Restart Plan Issues i

i LaSalle I

EEEli Corrective Actions /SelfAssessment Summary

> Qualitative Evidence of Results

> Performance incicators Generaly Meeting Targets

> Continuous improvement Process In Use

> Problems Are Being Identified By Station

> Programmatic Elements in Place

> Effectiveness Review of Past Significant Events

> Remaining Problems Screened for Restart and Formally Tracked LaSalle

~

\\

%s to

@M._

a

.5 "um W

e=*4.M W re T *~"

e+

O*%O G. m*n NN

%n 7 t' o.

h.

M N

j.-

4 m@#,.

,..L a

A m

.m e"..

._M_>

ee'._ _ _#,.4 4

C pM_.

2 i

A m.

ir4.4 s,JR..

a4.

am

....-i, c

d e

N uct m

m m

qa3 O:

4 IBIV l

EI Er.

E_

N n:

.id y A

-a E

5

%q a

w 5

b q

Anly i

9 G

D l

unt Q

}

R e

A

^

R int

e Ie Q

4 N.

2ny.

E l

k H

N

%*w p:

m

. __p_

13 N.

daS o

i, N

3 N

I D

~

g.

~

O ll 13 0

o

'a Ao,y aag

EMEll Evaluation Results (L.O.)

HIT Screening Phase

1. Oper. Evals Sim. Failures

1. Written Exam Exam Failures l

(Crew)

(Individual)

(Individual)

(Individual) 60 9

33 N/A N/A HIT Week 1

1. Oper. Evals Sim. Failures

1. Written Exam Exam Failures (Crew)

(Individual)

(Individual)

(Individual) 60 1

10 60 7

HIT Week 2

1. Oper. Evals Sim. Failures

1. Written Exam Exam Failures (Crew)

(Individual)

(Individual)

(Individual) 54 2

13 54 2

LaSalle O

.I g

7.. -

4

+

l EEEIl Evaluation Results (N.L.O.)

l 1

I i

HIT Week 1 3

1. JPM Evals JPM Failures

1. Written Exams Exam Failures (Individual)

(Individual)

(Individual)

N/A N/A 52 4

i i

HIT Week 2 i

i

1. JPM Evals JPM Failures

1. Written Exams Exam Failures (Individual)

(Individual)

(Individual) 51 I

51 1

i i

I I

i.

LaSalle

_e<<.,, _

-*____~___..-_______,,.__.____,____.____._____m._

..-___m_._. _ _..,_..,. _ _,,,... _

..m.

__,m..,,._.....,,-.__.m.,s.,,,

.__c,..m.__my,,

-e,..mm.--,, - - -. _,..,.

,,m,,,,

EMEli LicensedRemediation Status Short Intermediate Long License Terminated i

37 9

4 6

t

.LaSalle

~

l i

lEEEIl HIT Observations j

e NLO Weaknesses i

l

> Rad practices

> Use of self check

> Communication i

j

> Ownership of issues and resolution

• NSO Weaknesses

{

> Procedure knowledge

> Diagnostics

> Control Panel Awareness

> Logkeeping i

> Self Check / Peer Check e SRO Weaknesses a

> GSEP (Emergency Plan) Classification s

> Command and Control

> Diagnostics

> Procedure knowledge 2

LaSalle

• 5 1

w Eggli HITLearnings - Why?

l e Standards and Expectations have not been internalized and f

were not routinely practiced on shift i

> Line Management has not reinforced adherence to these standards e Self Assessments have been ineffective.

> Have not taken a systematic approach to identifying / addressing weaknesses (in both the training and in-plant environments) e Simulator Training topics and focus not proper

> Risk = (probability of occurrence) X (Consequence of event)

> Increase focus on high probability, low consequence events

• Evaluation Techniques changed

> Normal / abnormal scenarios vs. EOP Drills

> In tile past, evaluations have been done at the CREWIevel vs INDIVIDUAL level.

" People didn't feel the need to change their behavior and performance. (No individual accountability)

LaSaHe

~

L-

l 0

i 4'

i N

URV

%g das L661 ul.

s j

g e

13 0 1

l lc Ei j$

5 2

i E

li i

E'

r.

ADN f

!?

i l

c.

3-E

a a

0 33 0 E

E 5

g uur 8661 N

D

~

e a

M x

qad K

M b

b

%y N

.iory 1

ady t

.(ugy i

4 unc Inr

EMEIl HITImprovements e improved Adherence to Standards and Expectations e Greater Proficiency with Abnormal Procedures e Greater Understanding of the "GSEP" l

Weaknesses e Baseline Operator Knowledge in Theory e improved Line Management Ownership of Training e Shift Managers Taking Charge of Crew Performance e improvements in Instructors Fulfilling Their Role LaSalle j^

.