ML15261A248
| ML15261A248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1999 |
| From: | Casto C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904130297 | |
| Download: ML15261A248 (71) | |
Text
April 2, 1999 Duke -Energy Corporation ATTN:
Mr. W. R. McCollum Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION (ONS)
Dear Mr. McCollum:
This refers to the meeting conducted by mutual request at the Oconee Nuclear Station on March 24, 1999, to discuss the activities of the NRC management oversight group (MOG), and for you to provide an update to the Oconee Recovery Plan and related plant performance.
Enclosures 1 through 3 are a list of meeting attendees, your presentation handout, and an updated Oconee Recovery Plan Issues Checklist, respectively.
During the Oconee plant performance review (PPR) conducted on February 9, 1999, an assessment of Oconee performance by template area was performed. The MOG concluded that Operating Performance was acceptable; however, performance had declined from last period. This decline was reflective of several operator related events resulting from human performance shortcomings and mixed performance in operating programs and processes.
Performance related to Operations During Transients remained good. Plant Material Condition generally improved. Human Performance remained consistent with the previous assessments.
Despite improved performance in the Engineering Support sub-area, Engineering Design was again evaluated overall as poor. This was directly attributed to a number of major variances from requirements. Performance in the previously unrated area of Engineering Program and Processes was evaluated as adequate. Overall, Problem Identification/Resolution at Oconee improved from poor to adequate. Noteworthy was the improved good performance in Analysis and Resolution of problems. A decline in identification of problems was noted during this assessment. This was due to several missed opportunities in the Engineering area. The results of this assessment as well as the previous Oconee performance assessment by template areas are provided in Enclosure 4.
-As a result of this assessment, the Regional Administrator directed termination of MOG activities. Focused inspections will be performed for items remaining from the MOG, which require further NRC review. Items from the Recovery Plan Issues Checklist that will be inspected in the near term were provided to you in the PPR letter dated April 1, 1999. Other items remaining from the Recovery Plan Issues Checklist will be reviewed by future PPRs for inclusion in upcoming inspections.
Remaining open items associated with MOG-sponsored inspection of the emergency feedwater system are presented as Enclosure 5. When your efforts to resolve the problem investigation process (PIP) reports associated with these issues are complete or sufficient progress has been made in your actions to allow inspection of these issues, please inform us. provides a list of existing ONS violations for which specific inspection activities will be conducted. As discussed at the meeting, other existing violations will be closed without an 9904130297 990402 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
DEC 2
item-by-item verification of your corrective actions. As you are aware, these items could be inspected during future corrective action program reviews. As discussed in the previous paragraph, when you feel that sufficient progress has been made to allow inspection of the violations listed in Enclosure 6, please inform us.
In accordance with Section 2.790(a) 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 meeting summary, please contact Mr. C. Ogle at (404) 562-4510.
Sincerely, (Original signed by)
Charles A. Casto Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Licensee Presentation Handout
- 3. Oconee Recovery Plan Issues Checklist
- 4. Oconee Rollup 2/9/99
- 5. EFW System Open Items
- 6. Violations Requiring Inspection for Closeout cc w/encls:
J. E. Burchfield Compliance Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679 Lisa F.Vaughn Legal Department (PB05E)
Duke Energy Corporation 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Rick N. Edwards Framatome Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 cc w/encls cont'd: (See page 3)
DEC 3
cc w/encls cont'd:
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Winston and Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20005 Mel Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environmental Health & Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, NC 27609-7721 Virgil R. Autry, Director Div. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, SC 29621 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, FL 34619-1035 L. A. Keller, Manager Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Duke Energy Corporation 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28201-0006 Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General N. C. Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Steven P. Shaver Senior Sales Engineer Westinghouse Electric Company 5929 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500 Charlotte, NC 28209 Distribution w/encls: (See page 4)
DEC 4
Distribution w/encls:
L. Plisco, Ru D. LaBarge, NRR R. Carroll, RII H. Berkow, NRR C. Casto, RII K. Landis, RIl C. Ogle, RII NRC Resident Inspector PUBLIC OFFICE RII:DRP RII:DRP SIGNATU ',YES NAME RCarroll: COg COPY?
YES S
YES___
YES YES YES YES OFFICIAL RECORD COPY........... DOCUIE I
NA
- \\ULrIMI34.WPU
LIST OF ATTENDEES Nuclear Regulatory Commission L. Reyes, Regional Administrator, Region II (RIl)
B. Mallett, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RIl C. Casto, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RIl C. Ogle, Chief, Branch 1, DRP, RI!
K. Landis, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS, RI!
M. Scoff, Senior Resident Inspector - Oconee Nuclear Station, DRP, RI!
D. Billings, Resident Inspector - Oconee Nuclear Station, DRP, RI!
S. Freeman, Resident Inspector - Oconee Nuclear Station, DRP, RI!
R. Hannah, Public Affairs Officer, RI!
Duke Enerqy Corporation (DEC)
M. Tuckman, Executive Vice President, Nuclear Generation, DEC W. McCollum, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS)
J. Forbes, Station Manager, ONS W. Foster, Safety Assurance Manager, ONS J. Fisicaro, Nuclear Assessments/Issues Department Manager, DEC M. Nazar, Engineering Manager, ONS E. Burchfield, Regulatory Compliance Manager, ONS T. Hartis, Business Manager, ONS L. Azzarello, Mechanical Systems Engineering Supervisor, ONS T. Pettit, Customer Relations Manager, DEC R. Gambrell, Licensing Engineer, ONS L. Nicholson, Licensing Engineer, ONS J. Smith, Technical Specialist, ONS J. Weast, Licensing Engineer, ONS Others T. Crego, Reporter, Greenville News
Oconee Nuclear Station Bi-Monthly Performance Meeting
. ee Nuce March 24, 1999 Oconee Nuclear Station
~EPOj, f-eh"
&Ed e
Purpose of Meeting
- Plant Status
- Results of Recovery Plan
- Independent Assessment
- Overview of Performance Improvement Plan
- Closing Remarks Oconee Nuclear Station 2
2
d_
Plant Status
'ke jNucje~
Current Power Days on 1999 Capacity Next Level Line Factor YTD Refueling Unit 1 100%
210 100.2%
5/1999 Unit 2 100%
21 95.9%
11/1999 Unit 3 100%
80 99.1%
3/2000 Station 98.4%
Oconee Nuclear Station 3
EPO~ve
_fa-&-/
Plant Status
- Unit 2 forced outage
- Repaired steam generator risers
- Safe outage
- All outage goals exceeded
- Unit 2 reactor trip
- Caused by fuse
- Good operator response
- Thorough investigation by FIP team Oconee Nuclear Station
Oconee Recovery Plan 4e I~ucjMUC
- Initial concept discussed at July 23, 1997 meeting with Region II
- Oconee in mid-1997
- Too many events
- Process weaknesses
- Standards did not keep pace with industry
- Significant regulatory issues emerging Oconee Nuclear Station
,ZY'IE PO4 E
Results of Recovery Plan 0ee mucte~
- Strengthened management team
- Structure and processes in place
- Safety culture has improved
- Operational performance has improved
- Design issues being addressed Discovery Resolution
- Performance Improvement Plan will carry momentum forward Oconee Nuclear Station
December 1997 Recovery Plan Annunciator Panel Operational Quality and Safety Financial ofOp raio Production M a n ag em en t IP ActiviyOutage BacklogPerformance
(> 8onthsa old)
RR M Weathrord 50%
PrPre-Job I.
PIP Post-Job BrIS! ef a Qualit TK Mcuai 30% 3 RT Bond 26%
NOD measure 10%
LJ11110 P olems 7
80IT Id TEnhance SRO T
Problems
~self Assesasment o
P rtn Processeserce ue RT Bond 30%T SOutage KEYPerf o
2m an RM Wethrfrd 80 index Otto LJ Arrarelfo, 20%
OR I US7
.3.
POINT Technical Quait C R E TME S
R To d2
%T D C ri)0 STATUS Oconee Nuclear Station vetto 0 2*-s~epou7
December 1998 Recovery Plan Annunciator Panel Operational Quality and Safety Financial of Operations Production Management HUMAN SELF SYSTEMOPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DESIS IEQUIPMENT:
FOCUS McCOLLUM FOTER NAZA RELIABILITY RL ORESS ONREWO BASIS INITIATIVES INDEX AZZARELLO 900%
RELLO CULTURE PROBLEM XPREVENTION
!HOUSEKEEPIN LECRO 0
AZ2ARELLO 20 %
HUNNICUTT 12.6%
EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCY INDEX AZZA tELLO
,!ROOT CAUSE; BOND 20%
KEY LOST OENERATION DAYS RED 1-POINTS.UETO RED
.0-109PONTSEQUIPMENT FAILURES YELLOW 2.0 -2.89 POINTS AZ2ARIHLO 25%
GREEN 2.7-3.OPOINTS WHTE 0 POINTS 20 40 QUARTERLY STATUS YTD CURRENT
-)
STATUS Oconee Nuclear Station 8
Results of Recovery Plan 0 e Nutt
- Significant reduction in operating events
- Then:
Three AITs and one special inspection between 10/96 and 6/97
- Now:
Number and nature of operating events reduced Substantial efforts reviewing design basis Step change in performance of operators Oconee Nuclear Station 9
Results of Recovery Plan 0ee NructC~
Substantial progress in reviewing key safety systems High Pressure Injection Low Pressure Injection
- Emergency Feedwater
- Emergency PoWer Oconee Nuclear Station 10
~03rE PO 4~
Results of Recovery Plan e-Operations Improvements Substantial improvements in quality of Operations Procedures All Ops procedures with 5 or more outstanding changes reviewed, revised and re-issued
- All Ops procedure changes resulting from ITS review completed (3200 items)
- Enhancement request backlog reduced from 1675 to 264 by year end '98 with 1999 target of 250 Oconee Nuclear Station
EPOW,,
Results of Recovery Plan ee Nrmuci Operations Improvements Control Room Standards Significantly Upgraded
- Clear expectations through Core Values Physical upgrading of the Control Room
- Improving Control Room housekeeping standards Stricter Control Room Access controls
- Hour by hour schedule Peer Checking, Six Tools, Animated STAR, Pre and Post Job Briefs are now habits OAC and ICS replacement Structured benchmarking and follow-up process Oconee Nuclear Station 12
~4POve Results of Recovery Plan Operations Improvement Control Room Standards Significantly Upgraded CRIP backlog reduced from 44 to 15 Cleared 39 workarounds in 1998
- Corrective Work Orders reduced from 625 to 337
- Established Control Room Improvement Team Site wide Housekeeping Upgrade project
- Increased standards for Operator rounds
- Supervisor Observation and on the spot coaching Oconee Nuclear Station 13
4t,1 E POL Results of Recovery Plan Operations improvement Results:
e Active leadership by operators Improved operator response during trips and transients Reduction in outage delays One procedure induced Control Room LER in 1998 Reduction in the number of mispositionings 0
Oconee Nuclear Station 14
VE FOuy Results of Recovery Plan eI mproved Operator Performance Number of Mispositionings
- 10.
9
- 8.
- 7.
6
- 5.
4 3
t-N - N -
- N -
t- -
t-00 00 Coocoo0000 0
00 00 00 011 a,
asO~O O N 0% o 0%
C7%
ON 1 OY, C)-
C7a 0 00 0 a0a.0 Oconee Nuclear Station 15
Results of Recovery Plan
- More rigorous processes to address equipment issues TEPR MEPR FIP Plant Concerns list
- Proactive Initiatives Steam Generator Reliability Piping Reliability
-Equipment Aging Secondary System/Equipment Reliability System Teams Oconee Nuclear Station 16
EOL0
..Results of Recovery Plan 0ee Nuc~
- Major Mods Completed
-QOAC
- Number and nature of equipment issues improving EFPDs lost due to equipment problems declined from 106 per unit 12/97 to 35 per unit 12/98
- System Reliability Performance Index increased from 6 year end '97 to 11 year end '98 Unplanned capability loss factor decreased from a rolling 12 month average of 32.0% in December 1997 to 6.1% in February 1999.
Power history curves improving Oconee Nuclear Station 17
tEU 1997-1999 Unit 1 Power History 120 100.
Operaton at 73% due to 80 1A1 RCP Vibration 80 40 20 RefuelingI LLI 0
Oconee Nuclear Station 18
WPOLy ri'I
-tpE 1997-1999 Unit 2 Power History 120 100 80 60C CC 40 20
- 0.
20 t
t t
6 -.
r
- t
,~
- r.
r 00 cc 00 Go 00 cc00 00 0
00 00 00 00 00 10 z f
C Oconee Nuclear Station 19
0E PO4 y
___4 1997-1999 Unit 3 Power History 120 100 80 60 40 8C
- 0)
- 0) 0S
)
(D
- 0.
20
.2 0
0 0o Co t-t0-r t-t t
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0 aQ~ 0 0%
0%
o, h 0%
C, O 0%
a, 01 0% 0%
Ch 0% 0%
0% 0%
()N (7 0% 0%
a, C7 % 0%
0%
a, 0%
m ON ~
CD0 z
Z Arn 0
0D
%n C
002 IN)
I' N
IN I.
' N -q IN -rq
-- ~ 0 N
00 CD0 C) r N 00 0%
0C1
')
C Oconee Nuclear Station 2
yPO4 PO Results of Recovery Plan Steady progress in corrective action program
- More self-critical (2846 PIPs in 1996, 4676 PIPs in 1997, 610.1 PIPs in 1998)
- Backlog reduced
- PIP corrective' actions > 6 months old reduced from 512 in August 1997 to 175 in December 1998
- Management exception corrective actions reduced from 593 in August 1997 to 498 in December 1998
- Quality improving Oconee Nuclear Station 21
ro~'
Results of Recovery Plan 0~e 14ucte'
- Corrective Action Program Focus Areas Backlog Reduction Backlog Prioritization Quality Monitor PIP Generation Threshold and Categorization Oconee Nuclear Station 22
Summary
- Recovery Plan laid foundation for further improvement
- Progress in each focus area
- More work remains
- Independent review requested to validate Oconee trends
- Improvement Plan continues to address key areas vital to achieve and sustain high level performance Oconee Nuclear Station
.23
Purspose
- Requested by ONS Site - Vice Presi dent
- Assess progress of recovery plan efforts Determine if sufficient progress has been made to transition to continuous improvement plan (Compare 1997 to 1999)
- Not a complete review of all recovery plan items Oconee Nuclear Station 24
ro E
Team Composition
- Led by Manager-NAID
- Senior Managers and Specialists
- Independent of ONS
- Multi-Site and General Office Involvement Oconee Nuclear Station 25
VE POiv Areas for Review
- Operations Focus Area
- Design Bases, UFSAR, and Equipment Reliability
- Self Assessment, Corrective Action, Work Management, and Human Performance Oconee Nuclear Station 26
Method of Evaluation 4ee jN4C)j Four areas to address Evaluate extent of progress Evaluate adequate programs and processes in place to support process improvements Change institutionalized Adequate measures and programs in place to move to continuous improvement plan
- Interview, observation, and verification Oconee Nuclear Station 27
Summary 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
- Lack of clear direction and vision Exists now and is reinforced
- Expectations not clearly communicated Communicated and reinforced at most levels
- Lack of Accountability
- Accountability significantly improved
- Some standard Duke processes had.
- Processes now implemented, used, not been implemented and producing results
- Self-critical culture lacking Improved culture now exists High number of plant events Events significantly reduced
- Lack of engineering focus Engineering working on right issues Progress has been made Plant realizes continued effort for improvement is necessary Plant is developing 1999 plan Oconee Nuclear Station 28
Recommendations Fee Nuct Identified a number of recommendations (80)
Three Categories:
- Important for success
- Root cause quality
- Maintenance Work Control
- Important to help improve process (Heads up)
- Good Ideas Oconee Nuclear Station 29
EPOIV operations Review Scope Areas selected for review Equipment reliability (operations perspective only)
- Housekeeping and material condition Work management process improvements
- CRIP management reduction Technical specifications surveillance program Technical quality of operations procedures Operations ownership
- Results reported later in presentation.
Oconee Nuclear Station 30
II Operations Summary 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
- Vision and expectations lacking Focus and emphasis improved. Reinforcement through APA and shift briefings.
Outstanding operations enhancement requests high Bakoreudto20Trnondim
- Backlog reduced to 230. Turnaround time (1675) considerably reduced. Operators using process.
Significantly fewer procedure inadequacies.
High number of control room indicator Reduced to 15 per unit. Focused efforts by Operations to implement CRIP process.
Control and ownership of T. S. surveillance program Established accountability, improved tracking and lacking monitoring.
Reluctance to take charge and demand results Standards in control room significantly upgraded (i.e., traffic and noise reduced, control board.
monitoring, etc.) Operations leadership evident in work around process. Operations driving resolution to issues.
Poor housekeeping and material condition Upgraded rooms (HPI, LPI, Penetrations, etc.)
Significant amount of material taken out of plant.
Matcon Team established-reduced deficiencies from 4500 to 2300. Ownership improved.
Oconee Nuclear Station 31
-v Operations Recommendations Total for this area - 15 Sample of recommendations Oconee Nuclear Station 32
POW~
Engineering Review Areas for Review Equipment Reliability TEPR Program System Team Development Fluid Leak Management Management of Temporary Modification Equipment Aging Secondary System/Component Reliability Piping Reliability Engineering Support Program
- Design Bases Safety system reviews Improved technical specifications UFSAR review project Configuration management Oconee Nuclear Station 33
z E POL~
I Engineering Review Design Bases, UFSAR, Equipment Reliability 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective Unclear direction and expectations Engineering direction and focus clear Engineering priorities not aligned D evelopment of leadership model.
with customers Daily tracking and monitoring of Lack of accountability and follow-issues and projects.
up Accountability, is reinforced.
Customers satisfied with support/products.
Engineering work management poor Work management tool developed.
Organization understands priorities. Improved focus and follow-up.
Equipment reliability lacked focus AProcess (TEPR) implemented.
-Some long standing issues resolved. Remaining items requiring action tracked land prioritized. Organization using processes.
Oconee Nuclear Station 34
y IE ie Engineering Review (Continued)
Mu Design Bases, UFSAR, Equipment Reliability 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective Many processes/tools not Duke standard processes implemented implemented. (i.e.,Nuclear Excellence Team, Design Review Board, Daily Focus Meetings, TEPR, Configuration Management, etc.) Program institutionalized.
Organization using tools/
processes.
Safety System Reviewed A number of reviews completed (HPI, LPI). Process laid out to schedule future systems.
UFSAR Review Project Initial effort complete. Follow up on project.
Oconee Nuclear Station 35
'OV 1E P0 4, Engineering Review Engineering Recommendations
- Total for this area - 29
- Sample of recommendations Oconee Nuclear Station 36
V4E POt, Safety Culture / Work Process Review Areas for Review
- Human Performance
- Self Assessment
- Manager Observation/Group Assessment Effectiveness and Benchmarking
- Enhances SRG Self-Assessment
- Corrective Action Program (CAP)
-PIP Quality
- PIP Backlog
- Root Cause Quality Note: Didn't look at entire CAP because of recent assessment
- Work Management Oconee Nuclear Station 37
_E Human Performance 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
- Several significant human ONS implemented numerous performance related events initiatives to improve human
- Organization had not implemented performance (i.e., six tools, the Duke standard human error manager observation program, reduction techniques etc.)
/
- Human performance related events have declined
- Human error site wide PIPs are down
- Component mispositionings are lower
- Direct observation of job briefings and workers indicate positive use of six tools
- Programs have been institutionalized Oconee Nuclear Station 38
roi Human Performance Recommendations
- Total for this area - 2
- Sample of recommendations Oconee Nuclear Station 39
E Self Assessment (INOT) 0ee Nuc~uci 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
- SRG Oversight was not at required
- Independent Nuclear Oversight levels Team (INOT) implemented
- SRG not finding issues, as required
- Personnel rotated through group
- Overall, not a good self critical culture INOT continues to improve
- Recently, two (2) good assessments were done by INOT (i.e., corrective action program, ITS)
- This is an improving area
- Continued management focus in this area will ensure that we continue to improve process
- The concept of having a self critical culture continues to improve at Oconee Oconee Nuclear Station 40
PO 4 Self Assessment e ee Nucc) 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective The number of manager
- Processes were implemented observations, group self A high number of manager assessments, observations performed. Many and benchmarking were low were of good value
- Inwardly focused
- roGroup self assessments
- Lack of self assessment culture increased considerably
- Benchmarking was performed
- Many actions were initiated as a result of the above reviews
- Self assessment culture is emerging as a standard ONS concept Oconee Nuclear Station 41
Self Assessment Total for this area -14 Sample of recommendations Oconee Nuclear Station 42
Corrective Action Program 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
PIP backlog high (350)
Backlog reduced to 175
- Root causes needed work Number of root causes increased Quality ofroot causes improved. Still need work
- Identification low (2000)
Rate now 6000+
- New processes implemented to improve management focus (i.e., corrective action review board and corrective action review team)
Oconee Nuclear Station 43
Corrective Action ee jr~ucte Recommendations
- Total for this area - 10
- Sample of recommendations 9conee Nuclear Station 44
t~%',E POLV Work Management 1997 Perspective 1999 Perspective
- Not implemented in accordance Implemented standard WCQIP with Duke process process
- Work items not scheduled Control room has been freed of traffic
- Changing priorities and noise Backlog high Scheduling/Planning from T-2 to T-0 window is in need of work
- Process has been institutionalized
- The organization is not using the PIP process to learn from improvement areas
- Backlogs have been reduced significantly Oconee Nuclear Station 45
Work Management "ee irmudct Recommendations
- Total for this area -10
- Sample of recommendations
-Oconee Nuclear Station 46
F~tdapEedhjgesConclusions of Review
- Significant progress made
- Generally completed recovery plan items
- Staff generally knew problem areas
- In process of documenting plan for 1999
- Staff open to input/feedback (learning organization)
- Continued effort is necessary
- Evidence supports moving to continuous improvement plan Oconee Nuclear Station 47
1999 Improvement Plan e fuci~
- Focus areas consistent with Recovery Plan
- Key is effectiveness of implementation
- Accountability
- Focus on execution
- Enforcing standards Oconee Nuclear Station 48
ONS Improvement Plan Focus Areas for 1999 Nuclear Safety Production Business and Work Process Efficiency HUMAN ASSESSLMENT DEGN SYSTEM OPERATIONAL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCL EQUIPMENT FOCUS MANAGEMENT mrrOL. IIM FORTER NA7An RELIABILITY n
MARTIN Orgamzation Corrective Action Design Basis Equipment Performance &
Program Health Milestones Reliability Inna e Planning &
ost Control Budget Effectiveness Performance Index xecution Performance firnhinsry Enqter An e n jr-fit RnMnrtin Corrective Action Plant Engineering Work Outage Planning Resource Utilization OE Benchmarking Configuration Quality
& Execution
& Management oster nnWiltrie T-R nvd Medlin Self Assessment OE Configuration Quality of Benchmarking Management Maintenance Housekeeping Long Range Planning PntrAnn-refin Medlin Medrlr~
Mrilin Root Cause Procedure Quality Quality Engineering Work anagement lnhann Oconee Nuclear Station 49
Indicators of Success OCONEE NUCLEAR SITE
- Top Quartile in Capacity Factor & On Peak February 1999 Availability
- Top 10 In Production Cost EARNINGS
- Top Docile in Industrial Safety PER SHARE EI NGDTIN (BETVS$
MARTIN)
PO Nuclear Safety Production Business and Work ProcessEfflcieny RCOPERATING OPERATING MEASURECOST BUDGET MAMAEEASURES REACTORR KEY POWER STPS R
ETB NDB CVC P
MANiMEN PACEME PEeNduction COSTN UGET (FOSTER) 10 (MARtN) 11-O JEC SYTE. M OUAG MANGEEN PLACEMEENT PROGREFFICIENCY FORNEE 8MRVMN OU RA HUMAN SEL~CFIOURATION/OPRAINA FNNCA PRFORMANCE ASSMN AI QIMN OU MANAGEMENT I
l lAR I
I IBES I
I I
OcEDe Notea meetnaepeaton YELLW Neds Inpronen
~, POi 4
0~eNucta Closing Remarks Oconee Nuclear Station 51
OCONEE RECOVERY PLAN ISSUES CHECKLIST
[Status: 30 of 44 "Essential to Recovery" items have been closed; 14 remain open, with NRC1 (EOPs) having the longest lead time of 9/99]
Area Action NRC Lead Licensee NRC Inspection/Action NRC Area__
Status (Date/IR/Results)
Status March 19. 1999 (2:03PM) A:11SSCK6T1.wpd ATTACHMENT
[DB3]
N9702 Oconee Safety Landis Projected 1/27-31/98: 98-08 Open Related Designation (NRR-Any completion-(Schin, Thomas):
Clari ficati on licensing 5/15/98-A-5CA (OSROC) issues) 1/99 8/24-9/4/98: 98-08 (Schin, Thomas);
4/19-2399(Schin) 4/71-/99 (SchinM PUI~
19 19 (203M)A:%SSC6TH.VdATTACHMENT
(Schin): P-4A.5A Action Plan 30 days 98-09 (Schin.
after Thomas); P-4A.5A report entered into PIP
[DB10]
Configuration Landis Projected 9/14-18/98: 98-09 Open Management Project completion (Schin. Thomas);
12/31/98 No Assessment 11/30 - 12/11/98; 98-11 (Thomas); P 4A.4C.5C 2/1-5/99 (Thomas),
2/22-26/99(Smith);
P-4C.5C 2rch
- 19. 1999 2:3PM) A:1SSCK6TH.d 3
ATTACHMENT
System Equipment Al Sjcot 10 99 98~6G*'A~~
§os
'98,1 f-~
[SE2]
Control Rod Drive Billings U3EOC19 98 06 G-4B 5B R e p l a c e sm n tEO3P 9 8 -0 6 :
4 A T T A C H e n Replaement98-09; A-4B,5B 99-02 (Proposed)
,ch1.
19" m203H A:NISKf.
4 ATTACHMENT
Human Performance
[Pl] T9720 Human Performance Scott 12/31/98 98A06 G-1A.3B &
Open Measures and A-2B 3A Organization Direction (ORP) 98-10; P-1A,3A (Proposed) 98-11: P-3A,3B,3C 99-03 (proposed)
IO 9. 1999 0:03M) A*ISSCK61I.,pd 5
ATTACHMENT
Self Assessment
[SA1] Nm PIP Activity Backlog Landis 12/31/98 8/24-9/4/98: 98-08 Open (Schin. Thomas);
P-5C 11/30 - 12/11/98; management exception items:
98-11 (Schin, Thomas); P-4B,5C 2/1-5/99; 3/8 12/99 (Girard);
99-01; P-4B,5C-NCV 99-02 Proposed
[SA2] N9732 PIP Quality Landis Complete 8/24-9/4/98: 98-08 Open Improvements (Schin. Thomas);
G-5A.5B & A-5B,5C 11/30-12/11/98; 98-11 (Moore, Schin, Thomas); P 5C 3/8-12; 99-02 (Girard): P-5B.5C proposed rc
- 19. 1999 2:0MA:IS)C6H.%.Pd ATTACHMENT
[SA3]
N9731 Manager Observations Landis 12/31/98 11/30-12/11/98; Open and Group Self-98-11 (Schin, Assessment Thomas): A-5A Operational Focus
[OFl] N97 0 Root Cause Analysis Billings 12/31/98 98-06: G-5B.5C.4B Open and Corrective
& P-5B Action for Operational (Misposition)981;PC3C5 Related Events 9-02 proposed I4.ch9.
1999 m9 A sm 7
ATTACHMENT
Temporary Defense:
Ma0
- 19.
199O:
ISM N M,,c 19 19 (2:3P" A:ISSC~fHwpdATTACHMENT
so poeoCed 10/5 17984798" C o bse c ob oml io (RocB
)
2/99 G 2B5 312/9 omas Giraf )~ 99 0 NRC AREAS OF CONCERN
[NRC1]
Emergency Operating Landis 8/99 9/99: (Rogers, Open Operational Procedures Focus Pooe
(~icldi gOEF5 9-1 gB5'5;
[~~A Focus.Schin. Hopper)
Proposed Mach 19. 1999 (2:03PM) A:\\lS$CK6TH.wpd 9
Urc 19 19 (203P)
A:ISSK6T.%.d 9ATTACHMENT
[NRC3]
CREV SSEI Design Landis 98-03 (Poor)
Open Basis/Tech 8/24-9/4/98:
Support 98-08; G-5C.4B 10/5-9/98; 98-09 (Shin); G-28.4B 99-02: (Thomas) proposed
[NRC5]
Containment Coatings Landis 10/14/98;-98-09 Open Equipment (Lenahan); G-4A.5B 11/16-20/98: 98-10 (Lenahan); P-2B 6/99 (U1RFO):
(Lenahan) proposed ENRC1 Minteanc Chrstnt..98-10:
P-2B Open Performance and Compliance) 99-02 (Proposed)
Marc1999 PH) AAISCK6TMu
,pd 10 ATTACHMENT
Fatigue Analysis-NRR Operational
.Landis Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE)
ONS Equipment Aging Julian(PoserviwOn Projectunder licensee renewal)
Mr 19 9 (2:03PH) A U1S$CK6THf.**1A T C M N
Other NRR Actions (Not Essential for Recovery)
SQUG (Outliers NRR monitored under licensee's program)
ITS NRR HPI Amendment NRR CREV (TIA)
Landis MSL Break Detection NRR (BL 80-04)
Kcs1.
19", (mn tH)d A:1SXT1M 2
ATTACHMENT
OCONEE ROLLUP 2/9/99 Y
R Y
y y
1 RR R
Y OPERATING MATERIAL HUMAN ENGINEERING PROBLEM PERFORMANCE CONDITION PERFORMANCE DESIGN IDENTIFICATION/
RESOLUTION R
Y Y
Y R
R Y
Normal Equipment Work Perforiance Design Identification Operations Conditions RgY aY ProgramPand Processes y
N N
Y I
lProgramn and Program and Processes Processes Ecscosure 1
EFW SYSTEM OPEN ITEMS ITEM NUMBER TYPE DESCRIPTION 50-269,270,287/98-09-02 VIO No QA Records to Assure the Ability of EFW Pumps to Operate at Runout 50-269,270,287/98-15-01 VIO Failure to Update the UFSAR 50-269,270,287/98-15-02 EEl Inadequate 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations 50-269,270,287/98-15-03 EEl Emergency Procedure Not Adequate to Mitigate Secondary Pipe Break Events 50-269,270,287/99-10-01 URI EFW System was Designed to Fail During a Main Feedwater Line Break or Non-Seismic Pipe Break 50-269,270,287/99-10-02 URI 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations Incorrectly Implemented the EFW Licensing Basis 50-269,270,287/99-10-03 IFI Testing HPI Pumps when Powered From ASW Switchgear 50-269,270,287/99-10-04 IFI EOP Steps Not Written Clearly or in a Consistent Format 50-269,270,287/99-10-05 IFI Ability to Throttle EFW Within Three Minutes 50-269,270,287/99-10-06 IFI Licensing Basis Revision to Credit Main Steam Line Break Protection Circuit for Protection of the TD EFW Pump From Insufficient NPSH 50-269,270,287/99-02-XX*
IFI
-Procedure AP/0/A/1700/25 Guidance for Establishing Flow to the RCP Seals and to a Dry OTSG from the SSF
- Proposed
VIOLATIONS REQUIRING INSPECTION FOR CLOSEOUT ITEM NUMBER DESCRIPTION EA 97-298-01012 Failure to Adhere to the TS Operability Requirements for the Unit 3 High Pressure Injection System 50-269,270,287/98-03-01 Untimely Reporting of Design Issues (denied violation)
EA 98-1 99-01014 USQ Involving Single Failure Introduced by a 1984 Control Room Ventilation System Modification 50-269,270,287/98-08-02 Inadequate 50.59 Safety Evaluation for 1996 UFSAR Revision Related to ECCS Pumps' NPSH Analysis 50-28.7/98-10-06 Failure to Provide Separation of Redundant Safety Related Cables Inside Enclosures EA 98-268-01 012 Failure to Meet Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.46 for Long Term Cooling 50-269,270,287/98-15-01 Failure to Update the UFSAR