ML17055E464

Summary of 881222 Meeting W/Util in King of Prussia,Pa Re Unit 1 Restart Action Plan

ML17055E464
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	01/09/1989
From:	Capra R, Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17055E442	List: ML17055E441 ML17055E464
References
NUDOCS 8901250443
Download: ML17055E464 (66)

Text

NRC MEETING

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

DOCKET NO.:

50-220 LICENSE NO.:

DPR-63 LICENSEE:

FACILITY:

LOCATION:

DATE:

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC)

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I (NMP-I)

U. S.

NRC Region I, King of Prussia, PA December 22, 1988 Prepared hy:

au ro,>e ana ger l4/<

a e

Approved by:

R

apra, rector

') 0 /89 a e kki000:

0 0

0 22, 008 t

kt0 tll 00 Corporation met with the NRC Restart Panel as well as other NRC personnel to discuss the NMP-1 Restart Action Plan submitted by letter dated December 21, 1988.

890i250443 990109 PDR ADOCK 05000220 P

PDR

1 F

MEETING

SUMMARY

1.0 ATTENDEES NMPC W. Donlon, Chairman, Board of Directors R. Burtch, Jr., Director, Nuclear Information Services J. Perry, Director, NMP-~ Restart Task Force L. Burkhardt, Executive Vice President, Nuclear Operations K. Dahlberg, Unit 1 Station Superintendent S. Wilczek, Jr., Manager, Nuclear Technology

6. Wilson, Senior Attorney C. Terry, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering'and Licensing C. Mangan, Senior Vice President J. Willis, General Superintendent J. Endries, President NRC

• M. Haughey, Proiect Manager, NRR

• J. Johnson, Projects Section Chief, RI

• W. Cook, Senior Resident Inspecto~,

RI M. Banerjee, Proiect Engineer, RI

• R. Bores, Senior Technical

Reviewer, RI J.

Dur r, Chic+, Engineering

Branch, RI

• W. Johnston, Deputy Director,

DRSS, RI

• W. Kane, Director,

DRP, RI S. Collins, Deputy Director,

DRP, RI

• E. Wenzinger, Branch Chief,

DRP, RI

• R. Capra, Director, PDI-1, NRR G. Horwitz, Public Affairs, RI D. Florek, Senior Operations

Engineer, DRS, RI R. Benedict, Senior Project Manager, NRR

• E, Butcher, Acting Deputy Director, DRS, RI R. Conte, Senior Resident Inspector (TMI), DRP, RI OTHER ORGANIZATION M. Wetterhahn L. Linder J. Roberts Conner 8 Wetterhahn Associated Press New York State Public Service Commission

2. 0 DISCUSS ION On December 22, 1988 the NRC staff met with representatives of the licensee to receive the Restart Action Plan and be given an overview by the licensee of what the plan contains.

The Restart Action Plan was submitted by a letter

.+Members of the NRC NMP-I Restart Panel

f' F

dated December 21, 1988.

During the meeting, Hr. William Donlon stated that the Restart Action Plan had the total comnitment of NMPC.

Mr. Lawrence Burkhardt emphasized that the role of the NMPC Restart Task Force was to facilitate management's effort to create a Restart Action P1an, not to write it themselves.

This process was developed to encourage ownership of the plan through management involvement in the development.

Over 1200 comments were received from=NMPC employees.in the development of the plan.

The licensee stated it would be responding in writing to each of the commentors.

The licensee stated that, in accordance with discussion with NRC management during the October l8, 1988 meeting, it does not plan to submit the long-term action plan (i-.e., The Nuclear Improvement Program) as it is expected to be a

living document.

The long-term action plan will be available f'r NRC review on site.

Furthermore, the licensee stated that the Restart Action Plan does not address the commitment in Confirmato~y Action Letter (CAL) 88-l7 to provide

,iustification <or why completion afte~ restart will not have an adverse impact on safe plant operation for actions proposed for completion after restart.

The licensee stated that its present schedule calls for fuel load at NMP-I March 10, 1989.

3.0 CONCLUSION

S AND

SUMMARY

The NRC staff stated that it will review the Restart Action Plan for (1) its responsiveness to CAL 88-17, and (2) its responsiveness to the six ma,ior points raised during the October 18, 1988 meeting (see the October 27, 1988 meeting summary).

The staff stated that one round of written questions should be expected from the staff with meetings and/or conference calls to resolve additional concerns or provide clarification.

Additional meetings between the NRC Restart Panel and the licensee would be scheduled on site to the extent practicable.

The staff further encouraged the licensee to communicate with the licensees for Peach Bottom and Pilgrim concerning self assessment plans.

Enclosed are the handouts provided by the licensee during the December 22, 1988 meeting.

The Restart Action Plan submitted by letter dated December 21, 1988 is available through the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20555 or at the Local Public Document Room at the Penfield I ibrary, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

T

'I I

F

NIAGARA MOHAWK/NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MANAGEMENT MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1988

~AEND 1,

BACKGROUND 2,

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESTART ACTION PLAN, READINESS FOR RESTART REPORT AND NIAGARA MOHAWK'S NUCLEAR IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM, OVERVIEW,'ROCESS USED AND CONTENT OF RESTART ACTION PLAN UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES 5,

SPECIFIC ISSUES 6,

RESTART LOGIC 7,

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR RESTART 8,

SUMMARY

f C

t

PURPOSE OF MEETING WITH NRC RESTART PANEL I.

DEMONSTRATE THAT NMPC IS TAKING ALL NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT ACTIONS TO SATISFY ITSELF AT ALL LEVELS THAT IT IS READY TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE NMP-UNIT 1 PRIOR TO RESTART.

II.

PROVIDE INFORMATION INDICATING NMPC'S POSITIVE RESPONSES TO THE CONDITIONS IN CAL 88-17 AND AGREEMENTS MADE AT THE 10/18/88 MEETING.

III. REAFFIRM METHODS BY WHICH NMPC AND NRC WILL COORDINATE THEIR INDEPENDENT EFFORTS LEADING TO THE SUCCESSFUL RESTART OF UNIT 1.

f C

f

BACKGROUND KEY EVENTS AHD ACTIVITIES RELATING TO NINE NILE POINT UNIT 1 RESTART (FOLLOWIHG RECEIPT OF CAL 88-17)

RECEIVED HRC CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER 88-17, 7/25/88.

HNPC MET WITH NRC 7/25/88, 8/18/88, 9/21/88, 10/18/88.

RESTART TASK FORCE - ESTABLISHED 7/27/88.

INTEGRATED TEAN - ESTABLISHED 10/17/88.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS NUCLEAR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MET 7/21, 8/18, 9/29, 10/27, 11/17, 12/15.

HMPC NET WITH IHPO 8/18/88.

IHPO REVIEWED DRAFT RESTART ACTION PLAN AHD CONMENTS RECEIVED 12/15/88.

NUCLEAR DIVISION SENIOR MANAGERS MET 9/24, 10/8, 10/15, 10/22, 10/29, 11/19, 12/3, 12/17, 12/19.

PRESIDENT AHD SR.

NUCLEAR MANAGERS MET WITH NUCLEAR DIVISION SHAGERS AND SUPERVISORS 11/16/88 (3 MEETINGS).

l I

C

BACKGROUND KEY EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES RELATING TO HIKE NILE POINT UNIT 1 RESTART (FOLLOWIHG RECEIPT OF CAL 88-17)

SENIOR MANAGERS MET WITH INTEGRATED TEAN 11/30/88 AND 12/17/88.

NUCLEAR DIVISIOH STAFF MEETING - PREVIEW OF TOWN HALL MEETING MATERIAL 12/6/88, MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS BRIEFED OH RESTART ACTION PLAN AND REVIEW PROCESS 12/6, 12/7.

, CONDUCTED TEH TWO-HOUR EACH NUCLEAR "TOWN HALL" TYPE MEETINGS WITH EMPLOYEES COVERING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AHD RESTART EFFORT 12/8, 12/9.

SUPERVISORS MET WITH EMPLOYEES TO REVIEW RESTART ACTION PLAN 12/8, 12/9, 12/12.

EMPLOYEES PROVIDED COMMENTS AHD RECONMEHDATIOHS TO THEIR SUPERVISORS 12/14/88.

RESTART ACTION PLAN DRAFTED AND APPROVED, DRAFT 1 - 8/30, DRAFT 2 - 9/6, DRAFT 3 - 9/11, DRAFT 4 - 10/17, DRAFT 6 - 11/02, DRAFT 6 - 11/7, DRAFT 7 - 11/21)

DRAFT 8 - 12/06, NNPC APPROVED PLAN ISSUED WEEK OF 12/19.

f 1

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PLAN, REPORT AND PROGRAM THE RESTART ACTION PLAN (RAP)

A)

RESPONDS TO CONDITXONS 1

AND 2 OF CAL 88-17 B)

ADDRESSES REGULATORY CONCERNS C)

ADDRESSES ACTIONS NEEDED TO ASSURE SAFE RESTART PLANT OPERATION.

THE READINESS FOR RESTART REPORT (RRR)

RESPONDS TO CONDITIONS 3

OF CAL 88-17 AND WILL CERTIFY ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS FOR RESTART.

THE NUCLEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NIP) IS AN ONGOING, CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS INTENDED TO:

A)

CONTRIBUTE TO REALIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR DIVISION'S VISION B)

IMPROVE MANAGEMENT 6 ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS C)

INCLUDE ALL ACTIONS COMMITTED TO IN RAP PLUS POST RESTART ACTIVITIES D)

INCLUDES BOTH REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

6448G

l I

t t

CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER.88-17 (JULY 24 1988)

The NRC concerns regarding progress in addressing Inservice Inspection, Fire Protection Programmatic

Issues, and other technical issues led o the issuing of a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) from the Regional Administrator that contains the actions to be taken by Niagara Mohawk prior to restart of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, These specific actions are.'1, Oetermine and document

[Niagara Mohawk's] assessment of the root cause(s) of why Niagara Mohawk line management has not been effective in recognizing and remedying

problems, in particular, the problems which were the subject of CAL 88-13 (maintenance of operator licenses},

Inspection Report 50-220/88-22 (licensed operators' knowledge and use of emergency operating procedures),

and the issues discussed during the June 20, 1988 meeting at Region I, 2.

Prepare a proposed restart action plan and submit it to the NRC Region I Regional Administrator for review and approval.

The plan wi I identify all actions required to be completed prior to startup and a schedule for completion of all other actions o be completed after startup that are needed to address the root cause(s) identified in Item 1.

For actions proposed for completion after restart,

[Niagara Mohawk] will provide justification for why completion after restart will not have an adverse impact on safe plant operation, 3.

Provide a written report relative to the readiness of HMP1 for

restart, Include in this report.

a) [the] bases for concluding that NMP1 is ready for restart, b} a self-assessment of the implementation of the restart action plan, and c) [the] conclusions as to whether Niagara Mohawk's current line management has the appropriate leadership and management skills to prevent, or de ect and correct, future problems."

I

THREE PRIMARY BJE TIVE F

THE RE TART A TI N PLAN I,

TAKE AGGRESSIVE YET CAREFULLY CONSIDERED MEASURES TO IDENTIFY THE

ISSUES, TAKE REQUIRED ACTION, AND ASSURE THAT THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED, VERIFY ADEQUATE COMPLETION OF RESTART ACTIONS, AND MAINTAIN AN AUDITABLE

RECORD, 2,

ASSURE THAT THE PLAN IS OWED BY NMPC PERSONNEL AT ALL LEVELS, WITH LINE MANAGEMENT DEFINING ROOT CAUSES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND TAKING NECESSARY ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND VERIFY THEIR COMPLETENESS, ASSURE THAT SENIOR NMPC MANAGEMENT IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTART ACTION PLAN,

l I

I I

LE N

LEARNED FR N PA T EXPERIEN E

1, COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT TO IDENTIFY ISSUES, 2,

STRUCTURED ANALYSIS WITH FORNAL ROOT CAUSE ASSESSNENT WITH ENPHASIS ON HUNAN PERFORNANCE, 3,

ITERATIVE PROCESS TO GENERATE BUY-IN BY THE LINE ORGANIZATIONS IN IDENTIFYING ISSUES, ROOT CAUSES, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND IHPLEHENTATION OF REQUIRED ACTIONS, ANALYSIS OF PAST PROBLEN AREAS TO IDENTIFY ISSUES, TRENDS AND CONNON ROOT CAUSES, S,

INVOLVENENT OF ALL LEVELS OF SUPERVISION IN IDENTIFYING, TRACKING, RESOLVING AND CLOSING OUT PROBLENS NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED, 6,

SYSTENATIC REVIEW BY SENIOR NIAGARA NOHAMK HANAGENENT,

I I T

Y TENATI APPR A

H j.,

ISSUES ARE IDENTIFIED, 2,

ISSUES ARE EFFECTIVELY ANALYZED TO DETERNINE ROOT CAUSES, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE IDENTIFIED HHICH EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS ROOT CAUSES, 4,

APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INPLENENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IS ASSIGNED, 5,

FOLLOW-UP EVALUATIONS TO ASSESS IF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE ACCOHPLISHING THE DESIRED CHANGE IN PERFORNANCE,

I I

BUY-IN APPR A jI RESTART TASK FORCE/LINE MANAGEMENT INTERACTION INTEGRATED TEAM INVOLVEMENT LINE MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS INVOLVEMENT EMPLOYEES INVOLVEMENT

INTEGRATED TEAM

~

UNIT I STATION SUPERINTENDENT

~

LICENSING PROJECT MANAGER (NMP-1)

~

MANAGER NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

~

MANAGER NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY o

SITE MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT

~

SUPERINTENDENT TRAINING NUCLEAR

~

DIRECTOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

~

MANAGER SITE ENGINEERING

~

SUPERVISOR RADIOLOGICAL SUPPORT 6448G

l I

i t.

NINE NILE INT UNIT 1 RE TART A TI NWi.AN TABLE F

NTENT EXE UTIVE UNNARY INTR DU 11 N

PART 1

VERVIEH F

PLAN DEVEL PNENT AND INPLENENTATI 1,

RESTART ACTION PLAN DEVELOPNENT PROCESS 2,

UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES 3,

SPECIFIC ISSUES RESTART ACTION PLAN INPLENENTATION 5,

CONCLUSION PART II I UE /R T

AU E

WITH A TI N

BEF RE RE TART AND TRATE IE AFTER RE TART 1,

UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES 2,

SPECIFIC ISSUES APPENDI E

A, TASK FORCE CHARTER B,

PROCESS FOR ASSESSMENT OF UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES C,

CRITERIA TO DETERNINE IF AN ISSUE IS A REGULATORY CONCERN

r

UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1.

IDENTIFY SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO REVIEW.

2

~

REVIEW DOCUMENTS FOR ISSUES i TRENDS i COMMON ROOT CAUSES.

3.

SORT BY CAUSE CATEGORY, COMBINE ITEMS.

4.

DEVELOP ISSUES, SORT BY REGULATORY VS NON-REGULATORY.

5.

IDENTIFY ROOT CAUSES OF ISSUES.

6.

DEVELOP CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BASED ON ROOT CAUSES FOR ISSUES AND DETERMINE PRIORITY OF EACH AS REQUIRED BEFORE RESTART VS POST-RESTART.

7.

ASSESS COMMONALITY OF ROOT CAUSES OF ALL ISSUES.

8.

DETERMINE SPECIFIC BRANCHES OF CAUSAL TREE REFLECTING BULK OF ROOT CAUSES, USE THIS AS BASIS FOR SPECIFYING 5

UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSES.

9.

DEVELOP CORRECTIVE ACTION OBJECTIVES UNDER EACH UNDERLYING ROOT CAUSE.

10.

REVIEW EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION, ITS RELATED ROOT CAUSE TO DETERMINE WHICH APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION OBJECTIVE TO GROUP EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION UNDER.

11.

DEVELOP LONG-TERM STRATEGIES BASED ON POST-RESTART CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

NOTE:

REFER TO RESTART ACTION PLAN, APPENDIX B FOR A MORE SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION.

6648G

UR E

U A

INPUT T IDENTIFY UNDER Y

N R

AU E

A, ORIGINAL RESTART MATRIX (INITIAL TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES)

NUCLEAR GENERATION INPUT ON V, STELLO'S LETTER DATED 7/8/88 TO J,

M, ENDRIES C,

MANA EMENT Y

TEM RT I

LERs/SPECIAL REPORTS II SALP/INSPECTION REPORTS III INPO ASSESSMENTS IV ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES V

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CASES VI Q,A, SEMI-ANNUAL TREND REPORT lA/GAABG

I

~

~

r

UNDRYING ISSUES AND THEIR SOURCES Underl in Issues The time required to reorganize and make changes from announcement to implementation is too lengthy, There have been failures to prevent or detect and correct problems in a timely roanner.

Too much emphasis in terms of resources and I

I mana ement attention was given to the comp etion and startup of Unit 2 at the expense of Unit I, There vias a,failure to recognize the full implications of changing nuclear industry standards and requirements on the continuing operation of Unit 1 or a hesitancy to take action on these

changes, There has been a lack of an integrated system for tracking and prioritizing work in the Nuclear Division.

Nanagement has not been consistent in doing self-assessments of its own performance, Source A,B,C A,B A,B,C A,B,C

J g

~

UNDERLYING ISSUES AND THEIR SOURCES (CONT'D)

Underl in Issues Source Surveillance tests required by Technical Specifications or commitments to the NRC have been missed.

There is a lack of coordination and cooperation between various groups.

Focus has been more on immediate technical matters and less on programmatic and personnel matters in problem solving, Commitments were made without proper assessment of the scope and

impact, Emphasis had been placed on compliance with requirements rather than on attaining high standards of performance.

Some personnel exhibited poor attitude and low morale in carrying out some tasks.

There has been a lack of integrated action plans to implement Nuclear Division goals.

A,B,C A,B,C A,C A,C B,C B,C

I I

0

Underl in Issues Source Training of personnel related to new or revised procedures has not always been consistent, timely or effective.

Some supervisors of workers performing tasks inside he plant have not consistently implemented certain requirements/standards.

There has been a lack of cooperation and team-work among various groups on site.

Supervisor involvement as the work was taking place was less than adequate in some instances.

There has been a lack of consistent direction regarding skills of the trade and level of de ailed instructions required to perform work.

Some supervisors are overloaded performing functions that detract from their direct supervision of workers, 4B/6448G

I r

CRITERIA TO DElgllNE IF AH ISSUE IS A REGULATOIOlONCERH (If one or more apply, the issue goes into the RAP)

Significant lm act Does this concern/issue affect compliance with technical specifications, the operating license or the FSAR?

Does this concern affect compliance with the Environmental Protection Plan or Environmental Report?

Does this concern affect compliance with regulations,

rules, orders or HRC commitments made as prerequi-sites to restart?

Does this concern address an immediate safety issue relating to:

See Restart Action Plan - Appendix C

Does this concern reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis of any technical specification?

Does this concern increase the robabilit of important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report?

I p

y occurrence of an accident or ma function of equipment Yes Ho Yes Ho Yes No Yes Ho Yes No Yes Ho

l I r

CRITERIA TO DEllllNE IF AN ISSUE IS A REGULATOIRONCERH (If one or more apply, the issue goes into the IAP)

Significant Im act Does this concern relate to concerns that have been repeatedly identified and not completely corrected and relate to items I to 6 above?

Does this issue or item relate to repeated management or supervisor deficiencies and effec corrective actions that were not taken and relate to item 0 to 6 above?

Does this issue relate to satisfying Confirmatory Action Letter 88-13 or 88-I??

Yes Ho Yes Ho Yes Ho 4C/6448G

I g

I 1

UNDERLYIN R

T AU E

THE MANAGEMENT TASKS OF PLANNING AND GOAL SETTING HAVE NOT KEPT PACE WITH THE CHANGING NEEDS OF THE NUCLEAR DIVISION AND WITH THE CHANGES WITHIN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, THE PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING AND RESOLVING ISSUES BEFORE THEY BECOME REGULATORY CONCERNS WAS LESS THAN ADEQUATE IN THAT THERE WAS NOT AN INTEGRATED OR CONSISTENT PROCESS USED TO IDENTIFY, ANALYZE, CORRECT AND ASSESS PROBLEMS IN A TIMELY WAY, MANAGEMENT'S TECHNICAL FOCUS HAS CREATED AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE THAT DIVERTS ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE NEEDS AND EFFECTIVE USE OF.ITS EMPLOYEES, STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED OR DESCRIBED SUFFICIENTLY FOR EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT AND SELF-ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT OR EFFECTIVE, LACK OF EFFECTIVE TEAMWORK WITHIN THE NUCLEAR DIVISION AMD WITH SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS IS EVIDENCED BY LACK OF COORDINATION, COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION IN CARRYING OUT RESPONSIBILITIES,

I I

I

~

l

CORRECTIVE ACTION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (PREREQUISITE FOR RESTART) 1)

SIGNIFICANT TO SAFE OPERATIONS, OR 2)

NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS ON RESOLUTION OF THOSE ISSUES THAT WILL NOT BE FULLY RESOLVED BEFORE RESTART.

4E/6448G

e 4

~

I 1

4

VERIFI ATI N A T N

REVIEW PROCEDURE OR POLICY TO ENSURE THAT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN

INCLUDED, REVIEW RECORDS OR DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TAKEN, REVIEW TRAINING MATERIALS TO ENSURE THAT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN

INCLUDED, REVIEW INDIVIDUALTRAINING RECORDS, OBSERVE WORK OR TRAINING IN PROGRESS, INTERVIEW PERSONNEL FOR KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING, OBSERVE MEETINGS TO ASSESS COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS, WALK THROUGH PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THEY FUNCTION, INSPECT EQUIPNENT OR FACILITIES FOR CONDITION, TEST PROCEDURES OR PRACTICES IN THE SIMULATOR OR THROUGH

DRILLS, CHECK EQUIPMENT STATUS AND LINEUPS,

~

I

~

RE TART A TI N PLAN F RHAT',

UNDERLYIN R

T AU E TABLE UNDERLYIN R

T AU E,'RE TIVE A Tl N

BJE TIVE,'E TART RRE TIVE A TI N

VERIFI ATI N A TI N

L N

TERN TRATE IE 4G/6448G

0

~

~

e I

~'XANPLE F

F RUAT PE IFI I

UE A,

ISSUE DESCRIPTION REFER TO TABLE FOR CORRELATION OF ISSUE SUB-ELENENTS, ROOT

CAUSES, CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND VERIFICATION ACTION, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND VERIFICATION ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN TABLE MILL BE COMPLETED BY RESTART, LONG-TERN STRATEGY REFERENCES

I l

~

~

SUB-ELENENT ROOT CAUSE EXAMPLE OF SPECIFIC ISSUE TABLES TABLE SPECIFIC ISSUE CORRECTIVE ACTION VERIFICATION ACTION 6.1 (Sub-element) 6.2

{Sub-element) 6.A (Root Cause}

B.B (Root Cause) 6.A.1 (Corrective Action) 6.A.2 (Corrective Action)

B.A.3 (Corrective Action) 6.A.4

{Corrective Action}

(Corrective Action) 6.B.2 (Corrective Action) 6.A.1.1 Verification Action) 6.A.2.1 (Verification Action}

6.A.3.1 (Verification Action) 6.A.4.1 (Verification Action) 6.6.1.1 (Verification Action) 6.8.2.1 (Verification Action)

I r 0

4

~

I 4

v

SPECIFIC ISSUES LIST 1,

OUTAGE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT 2.

MAINTENANCE OF OPERATOR LICENSES 3.

EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES 4.

INSERVICE INSPECTION 5,

CONTROL OF COMMERCIAL GRADE ITEMS 6.

FIRE BARRIER PENETRATIONS 7.

TORUS WALL THINNING B.

SCRAM DISCHARGE VOLUME 9.

APPENDIX J - TESTING OF EMERGENCY CONDENSER AHD SHUTDOWN COOLING VALVES 10.

REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL PRESSURE/TEMPERATURE CURVES 11.

EROSION/CORROSION PROGRAM 12, MOTOR GENERATOR SET BATTERY CHARGERS 13.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM PROGRAMS RELATED TO l8tC TECHNICIAN ALLEGATIOH ISSUE 14.

SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION 15, CRACKS IH WALLS AHD FLOORS 16.

FEEDWATER NOZZLES 17.

IHSERVICE TESTING 18.

125 VDC SYSTEM CONCERNS

I. PHYSICAL OUTAOE I.S.I.

ARE PIKITKCTION MAINTENANCE SURVEILLANCE EfC.

II.RESTART ACTION PLAN RESTART LOGlC DETHLED SCHED. TO BE PROVIDED SY NUC. OPNS.

FINAL REVIEW NRC 4c SUBMllTAL III. READINESS FOR RESTART REPORT DEVELOP 5ELF ASSKSSMENT PROO.

NRC FINAL APPRVL PERIOD 1

5ORC REVIEW 2, SAFETY REVIEW

• AUDIT BOARD

4. RESTART REVIEW BOARD

4. INPO A55IST TEAM

5. EXECllllVE VP REVIEW COMPLETE ACTIVAlES REQUIRED FOR RESTARf r

COMPILE READINESS FOR RESTART REPORf DRAFT READINESS REPORT I

I I

READINESS FOR RK5TART NRC INTEORATKD TEAM IN5P.

CEO APPROVE READINESS FOR RESTART REPORf I

NRC REVIEW I

4 APPROVAL I

I IV NUCLEAR IMPROVEMENT PROORAM ISSUE PROCESS A PROCKDURE NRC REVIEW 4c APPROVAL OF CLOSEOUT PACICAOES IMPLEMENT NUCLEAR IMPROVEMENT PROORAM EADY FOR RESTART UPDATE

C4l

~v e

t t

ELF-A E

MENT F READINE F

R RE TART LEVELS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS INVOLVED IN PROCESS',

'INE ORGANIZATION COMPLETE CORRECTIYE ACTIONS INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS COMPLETE YERIFICATION ACTIONS

'ITE OPERATION REVIEW COMMITTEE - OVERVIEW AND APPROVAL

'AFETY REYIEW AND AUDIT BOARD - REVIEW AND COMMENT

'ESTART REVIEW PANEL - CHAIRED BY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR OPERATIONS INPO ASSIST TEAM ASSESSMENT

'XECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDATION FOR RESTART

'RESENTATION TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BY RESTART REYIEW PANEL

'RESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S NUCLEAR OYERSIGHT COMMITTEE

'HIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RESTART DECISION

V VC I

sl

SUMMARY

RESTART PROGRAM AGRKRKNZS ADDRESSED BY 1)

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONMUST BE CCMPLEZE ADDRESSED BY NIP AND RM?

PROBZZN IDElZIFICATIQNIS A CCÃZINUING PROCESS.

2)

THE RESTART ACTION PLAN NEEDS ONLY TO ADDRESS THOSE PROBZZHS OR ISSUES THAT ARE OF R1KULATORY SIGNIFICANCE.

3)

ROOT CAUSES NEED TO BE IDENZIFIED FOR ALL ISSUES.

4)

SHORC-TERM AND LONG-TERM MOTIONS NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED.

SHORT-TERM ACTIONS NEED TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO RESTARZ, OTHERS LATER.

ISSUES SCRE2lEX) USING CRITERIA DISCUSSED.

RAP INCLUDES ALL ISSUES MEETING SCREENING CRITKUA FOR REGULATORY CONCERN.

UNDERLYING ROOZ CAUSES CQM'AIN1% IN RAP TABLES FOR MANAGEKWZ AND ORGANIZATIONALEFFEC-TIVENESS ISSUES.

ROOZ CAUSES FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES CONZAINED IN RAP T~.

ALL ACTIONS CONTAINS IN NIP.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINA-TION OF CORRECTIVE MOTIONS TO BE CCMPLEK BEFORE RESTART IDES'IFIED AND CONTAINED IN RAP.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO BE CCMPLEZE PRIOR TO RESTART CQÃZAINED IN RAP.

C

's,i 0

SUMMARY

RESTART PROGRAM AGR1ZMWTS ADDRESSED BY 5)

~TERM ACTICNS MUST BE IDEÃZIFIED IN THE PLAN ALTHOUGH A PARAGRAPH OR TWO IS ACCEPTABLE.

THEY WOULD THEN BE FQLDED ISO ANOTHER PLAN IN MORE DETAIL AVPQLABLE FQR STAFF REVI1Ã BUT NQT SUBMI~.

~

RAP CONTAINS LONG TERM STRATEGY

SUMMARY

STATE-MEÃZ FOR EACH UNDERLYING ROCZ CAUSE AND EACH SPECIFIC ISSUE.

~

NIP CC5TAINS DEZAILS QF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE A1".ZER RESTARZ.

6)

SPECIFIC ISSUES (SUCH AS TECH-NICAL ISSUES)

MUST ALSO BE IDEPZIFIED IN THE PLAN.

~

RAP AND NIP FACH CC5TAIN SPECIFIC ISSUES.

4

~

t'