ML19330D042

Forwards Summary of 890928 Mgt Meeting Re NRC & TVA Concerns Re Adequacy of Station Procedures & Actions TVA Taking to Ensure That Procedures Deemed Adequate.List of Attendees & Handouts Encl

ML19330D042
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	10/18/1989
From:	Wilson B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Kingsley O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 8911030094
Download: ML19330D042 (31)

Text

,

f

. J y,7 l'

OCTI18'teggi w

i

~ Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- BROWNS' FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-260 This refers to the management meeting coriducted at our request, in the Region II Office on September 28, 1989.

This meeting was held to discuss NRC and TVA concerns with. the adequacy of station procedures at Browns Ferry,

[

and the actions TVA is, taking to enure:that the procedures are adequate for startig f

A rummach a list cf attendcos, and a copy of your bancoat are enclosed.

[

y' w,

understanding of the action to be taken by TVA in resolving statica procedare it it our opinion that the meeting ws beneficial and has prrd6d a bettri j

~'

.y Concerps.

J y.j M//.

In acenrdance with Section 2.190 of NRC's " Rules of Practire," Part 2

' Title 10, Code of Federal Reg.ilations, a copy of this htter and its r

<C,'

enclesures wi11 be place in the NRC Public Document Room.

Should you have' any questions concerning these matters, we will be plessed to t

discuss them.

Sincerely, f

OriginalSigned By BRUCE A.WlL90N I

Bruce A. Wilson, Assistant Director for Inspection Programs

}

TVA Projects Division j

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t

i cc w/encis:

(See page 2) 5 i

8911030094 891018 1

PDR ADOCK 05000260 p

PDC lt TEVf

T OCTI18:1918' Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

2

-_I>_

Enclosures:

1.

Meeting Summary-2.

Attendance List 3.

Licensee Handout Material i

cc w/encis:

F. L. Moreadith, Vice President Nuclear Engineering Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 12A 12A Knoxville..TN 37902 I

0 J. Zeringue, Site Director Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 4

Tennessee Valley Authority

,=v P. O. Pox 2000 4

h/ is <

Decatur, AL 35G02

- v 6

EManager, Nuclear Licensing G<,

b and Regulatory' Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority i

.a" LN.157B tookout Place Ct.attanooge. TN 37402-2801 n

s

..r Dr. M. O. Medford Vice President and Nuclear Te:nnical Directo-Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

' Chairman, Limestone County l

Commission P. O. Box 188 Athens, AL 35611 Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs U. S. House of Representatives

+

Washington, D. C.

20515 P. Carier, Site Licensing Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35602 1

i cc w/encls:

(cont'd on page 3)

P 1

007113199g Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

3 cc w/encls:

(cont'd)

G. Campbell, Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P. O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35602 TVA Representative Rockville Office 11921 Rockville Pike Suite 402 Rockville, MD 20852 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive

'V ET llB 33H Knoxville, TN 37902' Claude Earl Fox, H.O.

State Health Officer State Departnient of Public Health Lt!.

' State Office Building Montgomery, AL 36130 State af Alabama bec w/encis:

D. M. Crutchfield, NRR B. D. Liaw, NRR

5. C. Black, NRR R. C. Pierson, NRR G. E. Gears, NRR D. Moran, NRR W. S. Little, NRR/RII A. H. Johnson, NRR/RII A. R. Long, NRR/RII J. Rutberg, OGC M. S. Callahan, GPA/CA NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatoy Route 12, Box 637 Athens, AL 35611 RII:NRR RII AJoh on: vyg WLit 10//7/89 10///89

a' t

0

(

f I

I ENCLOSURE 1 MANAGEMENT MEETING

SUMMARY

L The NRC opened the September 26, 1989 meeting by expressing the concern that l

there still appears to be problems with the Browns Ferry station procedures and their implementation based on NRC inspections and weaknesses identified by TVA.. The NRC expressed concern about the ef fectiveness of the procedures i

upgrade commitments made in the Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume 3.

i l

TVA made a presentation, summarized in Enclosure 3, describing their analysis of the cause of problems which have occurred in FY 1989 in which the adequacy of procedures may have been a contributing f actor.

TVA's analysis of LERs, NRC identified violations and deviations, CAQRs, PR0s and IIRs indicated that while there have been pr0L'lems attributed to the technical adequacy and the

' complexity of procedures, the primary cvuse appe6rs to be the work (thic of 3

BFN personnel.

TVA 6150 presented (Ec results of a sursey of personnel involved in writing, reviedng and using procedures which nipported their V,

. fin 61ngs concerning werk etlic.

a,,

l

' summarizes TVA'6 corrective actions being taken to address the

. identified problems.

They will monitor and trend BFNs parformance end the effectiveness of the corrective actions for 90 days starting Octoo' er 1,1989, and review the results with the NRC in January 1090.

i The NRC stated that the Resident Inspectors will monitor the implementation of i

the lessons learned and the effectiveness of the corrective actions during the ninety day period.

The NRC emphasized the need to expeditiously implement these corrective actions in order to support a 2nd quarter 1990 startup of Unit 2.

i

[

r

.Jl$::f, C '

C i

N c

k'

[

t t

ENCLOSURE 2 LIST OF ATTENDEES r

i i

1.

TVA u

J. R. Bynum, Vice President, Nuclear Production P. Carier, Site Licensing Manager, Browns' Ferry G. Campbell, Plant Manager, Browns Ferry, TVA l

P. Salas, Compliance Supervisor, Browns Ferry S. Rudge, Site Pregrams Manager, Browns Ferry 1

J. Swindell, Plant Support Superintendent Browns Ferry

.2.

NRC st..

B. A.? Wilson, Assistant Director'for Inspection Pr gren 5,'!VA?D. NRR

'-i R. C. Pierson,. bet.istant Oirector for Technical Progesms TVAPD., NRk l

3' '

W 'S.')ittle,'.Sectinn thief, Inspection Prograee, TVAPO, NRR l

'ly

• fg',

. D. R. Carpenter, NRC Site Mcnager, Browns Ferry, TVAPD, NRR A..H Sohnson, Project Engineer, Browns Ferry, TVAPD, NRR

g,-v

HJ f

.i.

r

.'i '

i f

i

.9 I

?

< i. '

) ?-

l t

I i

9 4,

t et-

E-l ENCLOSURE 3 i

i TVA NRC Meeting d

i Adequacy of BFN Procedures l

[

I Atlanta, Georgia September 28,1989 i

J. R. Bynum G. G. Campbell

m Objectives l

• Identify Problem Areas in Procedure Upgrade Process and Implementation l

• Identify Corrective Actions Taken i

i l

• Establish Trond Period e Review Trend Results in Future Meeting With NRC i

l i

l

n i

f j

i Overview l

l l

• Problem Areas l

- Technical Content

- Programmatic Issues

~ Implementation i

L

• Corrective Actions i

- Upgrade Process is now Adequate for l

L Technical and Programmatic Issues j

- Lack of Correct Operational Mentality 1

has Prevented Proper Implementation i

i

• Additional Corrective Actions Required I

c.-

4 l

I i

If I

i h

(-

t l

l o

i

• Trend 5 o.

3 x

• Assessmenb i

, g }.

1

• Corrective Actions 1

I i

n h

i I

l 1

l 1

y a\\

c.

.tv l

~.

S, i,

f s

f 3

s e

u r,

i i

.__ a r

._._T T i

L i

[.

.'A'/

t k'

i s

I E'

/-

'N

,\\'> \\'>-

,/

N w}

g

.i yp

/

s,..::

/-

/

(

i

'.x x

g t

i.

\\, s,,

o

]

y I

8 i g

)

g r

N js.

l 1

N' if) /,

• R, l

k

?

t I

s/!

b Q N

I s,

s s'N l \\

I-

/ g '.>', '

l g/e".

i i

I 6

losom l

II, I

......._...____..._____......__.__..._.____.-d

{

= _ _

i t

APPARENT CAUSES FOR LERs ISSUED JANUARY 1,1989 THROUGH AUGUST 31,1989 i

3 I

H-t l

I I

i

~

YTD LEAS (57)

I l

+

M*

i 1

21 l

T l

\\

l r[ef.

~

9 l9 8

7 5

5(( /

3 G

ryrm 1

1 2

3 r,g:ii,Aw;2 y n,p e cra _

v/

• s #he // /

Y a-r

rf. c f

4.

I Number of Events s,

a,

., - =...

=.

l f

1 MEh%WAh4 a l

8 WM//MJw 1

1 r

,.~

<a n

io

$E sss%%%S5siMis M E M M E M

• f I

.j q W/G:/?!Zf////W%

• l

{

a f

c E T.311 N & M W o2 sRh%%Rh\\MS

=

y WMW w

j y

a o

u

)

I

• h-o i

pg:

i h%3E%NN1

=

j y M////M/>

w Fg j

r u

O i.

t O h.

i i

g-I m

i E000 t

l l-1 i

L l

l

~

.- i

J j

+

,.w

-a

& Om.

t h

l y

1 t

l

^

l I

s, a,

a, a,

i, 9,

5, I

I t

j M *7**.

f i

B-w. xm y, a

\\

o

,m,

1

{. 5 N g

E9 j

- MM OO j

h.... e vx m

i b

T.f_:

,4 t

1 E

R I I b

g J'E E

$ ^N$

g

=

i t

59 K.

se _.

l

. ~..

- w. ee er e-i i

INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS l

l

\\

8 l

15-

\\

L 8

f f

I i

j I

n-I

}

=

u9 m

3 I

s-i f

i i

..1 o

oat uw o

m r.s uar y

uay sm.

su u,e see e

e-~---mew--

remise e e+

e.,

D:

~'

5,'~

e.

y j

..* 2

f. '

Assessment i

F i

i i

u i

L i

L r

~

r Technical Adequacy

- Verification / Validation Process

- Strengthened Review / Approval Process i

l-I' t

I i

D l

h l

l

l l

l VERIFICATION / VALIDATION UPGRADE i

March 1989 VERIFICATION l

Combine BFW reviews and industry good practics into QEE comprehensive checklist.

j i

EUREG/CR-1369 R1 - Frocedure Evaluation Checklist for Maintananse, Test, j

and Calibration Procedures IMPO S4-020 R1 - Review of Operations Department Procedures l

l I

Checklist applicable to ALL man machine interface procedures.

i Operating Procedures Maintenance Procedures Surveillance Instructions l

Test Instructions VALIDATION Added a validation Checklist (previously a statement of performance)

Used after prc,cedure approved and either during first use of procedure /on

{

simulator /by walkdown Requirement to validate each mode the procedure can be used for.

Reinforced user involvement Improved quality by validating actual maa machine procedure use Identifies field type problems f

Promotes teamwork between users and technical group RESULTS sis

- small percent of technical changes (6%)

{

- more clarifications /enhancaments i

Other Procedures Larger percent of technical changes (37%)

(Sequence, steps, technical corrections) f FURTMER E N Increase line management involvamant la review and resolution of validation findings 1

9

~

O_--

s 3, w'T,;fd ];f' 4...

R j

+

u j

Assessment (contd.)

.c c

m e Programmatic Issues

- Conduct of Testing

- LCO Tracking

- Scheduling System

Monagement Involvement / Commitment l

Y

\\

e l

l ll L-1 l

l' t-l.

}

t.

~.

_. ~.

t PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS l

CONDUCT OF TESTING j

Nov 1988 hoo levels of test control

• Test Director (Special/ Restart Tests)

[

• Lead Performer (normal tests) j Chronological test logs and preshift briefings for test directors j

Attention on minimizing ESF actuations i

r March 1989 -

Require performance of new walkdown (all parts) prior to performance Require SOS to review and acknowledge all test deficiencies (TD) for operability considerations and notify STA of LCOs

{

t May 1989 Incorporated new valif ' ion process (checklist) j i

l June 1989 sis with TDa affecting acceptance criteria or requiring LCO tracking held

[

open until resolved Clarify methods to clear test deficiencies Require signature of SOS and STA to acknowledge TDs (open and close) i Sept 1989 Require chronological test logs for lead performers if test exceeds onc shift (change or if multiple group coordination is exceeded Require STA to enter an SI into LCO tracking when SI is not performed pending)

Require cognizant review within 3~ working days for sis with TDs and 11 working days for others

. Require sis with TDs-open greater than 2 weeks be returned to Work Control 4300a/3

, e e%

9 9

'O U.

S A _L. -,... _,. _ _

t I

l i

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS l

LCO TRACKING 1

1 Formally implemented January 1989 l

i, i

i Tracks Surveillance Instruction (SI) Test Deficiencies (TD) l Conditional Releases Current Mode LCOs (action LCOs)

-Long-tern Potential LCOs (Potential LCOs) l Input From

(

SI TDs i

Impact Evaluation Sheets Notification on shift t

Identifies

' Start of-Condition

(

Impact Date Most Limiting LCOs I

6 h

~

i

~. = ',

e

'W

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULING SYSTEN Performing section has to have procedure complete or extension approved and verified by schedule due date SI extensions require superintendent approval Weekly trend reports of sis monitor:

Extensions Increased Frequency sis Outstanding sis sis with open TDs sis performed but not closed i.

^ ~

~

_e

((

n,

--M L_-.t..~%.,w

'_..hm--.

,_ui

,s

.m m.._m.,..

t z.

Assessment (contd.)

Performance Problems

- Employee Survey Problem Areas SI Task Group Procedure Review Group V/V Implementation

==

Conclusion:==

Work Ethic

'l

,,,w

....--___,--.-,,__4

,-,....-.,--._.y.,

,,_,y.,,,

,,..mw..,_,,,,,,,,_,

,,,7,c,.w_

,_y.m,,--c.,,,,-,,y,wr,,.,-e.

l i

P i

PROCEDURE SURVEY REVIENERS/ WRITERS / USERS i

General

Conclusions:

5 Upgraded procedures are more technically accurate / adequate Writers and Reviewers are more comfortable with upgraded procedures than are users l

i Upgraded procedures are heavy on detail (45% too much, 44% about right) l Revision cycle is better and supports ongoing work but is still too long t

Verification / Validation will help improve technical accuracy and adequacy f

Concern over attitude toward verbatim compliance to procedures l

i Reviewer User l

YES 77%

64%

No 3%

7%

Usually 20%

29%

e 9

ln _ _

^

v,

__.:.=.~

I t

I i

b Issued YTD 60 / YTD Voluntary Reports 5 / Sept 3 huus Se5 Husman Unen Rose Fires Dee Sept Duin Sys fine fisE Cossusel ONier l

q Ops S

S 1

1 2

• Netes Mese then i

tendet 9

8 2

1 1

4 1

2 he M i

Tosh Supp 2

2 of LIBS"aHeibuted 3

i andeem torootemune.

j PItSupp 2

1 week ceasses l

Chesmistry 1

Other 7

9 2

2 3

i

• 100S itMAL 22 9

9 4

1 2

8 2

5 3

3 l

l Apposent Cause Weeldy Deud Mostildy Dead j

n n

W l

s-40-l m-m-

u te

'L et p

_. ~.

...~c CAQR/PRD ROOT CAUSES (January 1,1989 - August 31,1989) knm neu nwnen una need-sort-i i

Pers Pres Des Supy Train Sys Fee Fall Ceaun were were i

I 7l S!

2 1

9 l

Meine 3Si 27 3

2 2

1 3

14 34 TeekSupp 9

8 1

1 7

9 10 I

j Redoen 2

in 3

y Pit Supp 3

11 1

1 3

13 Werk Centrol 1

1 l

Cheenistry 1

l 1

i 1

_3l 1

10 0

27 71 1989 TOTAL 80 54 4

0l 4

1 l

OIO 4

m........................e

....e too-We-71 D

. e.,,,

e mau Nordware Software I

t i

S'

~,

L.

E.

L u

P 1

i

[

Radiological incident Reports YTD (Plant) 44 / Month (Sept) 0 I

Jon thb Mer Apr Mer June July Anag Sept foTAL t

i ope 2

2 1

3l 4

12 Maint 3

4 2

1 4

2 3

19 Tech Sepp 3

1 4

i.

Redoen S

1 2

1 9

l rusupp I

Werk Con Cineenistry isosior4L 11 o

a 4

2 e

a a

o 44 l

)

w u m.

Me me T,e 4 r

r 4-a

{

8 a

a i

a-s-

t 8

8 8

3df4 Mh M o

w a

a

=. -

_m

_u_.m_.

I i

4 i

i i

i i

INCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPOR15 i

kren itell Humme Unna j

Pers FWes Dee Supv Train Sys fins Fall CeaWA Other l

Ops S

3 1

1 1

Maint 11 7

1 1

2 7

r Took Supp 1

% Mers the.

Iledese 1

one oeuse sney be l

looued for e l

m S.,,

a i

1 g,. g.

e,,,

it Weric Control 1

finalreporte j

,,ey, Cheanletry 1

1 1

4 I

Other 4

1 4

1 2

4 100010 fate 20 11 5

3 3

4 11 4

it 0

0 F

me-s-

t I

t l

86-4-

S 3 3 4 4

8 l

g Ersam m m m

3

?

yY'

. e 3

m:,.

g.

e

's e

4 i

4.

i i

i What is BFNPs record i

i

,i Personnel Errors Jan 1-August 31, 1989 i

i l

From Jan 1 thru August 31, 1989 i

4

[

i LERs (53 issued)

CAQRs RIRs l

Maintenance 13 38 17 i

Operations 8

8 9

l Tech Support 0

10 4

I Chemistry 1

0 0

RAD Con 0

0 9

1 3

0 Plant Support Work Control 0

1 0

4

'7 Total 23 60 39 l

e 4

.O 4

.o',

~

... -.. ~....- -.

.~

~

t t

i I

5 l'

t i

?

I t

SI REVIEN GROUP FIEDIEGS I

Confusion over conduct of testing

{

Confusion in entry condition to LOOS and conditional sis Lack'of line management involvement i

I 1

i

=

s 9

.a.

- 9 ';

ss 4

m.

s J

PROCEDURE REVIEW GROUP Analyze Events and Problem Areas where Procedure Adequacy is in Question Review of 32 T Ense l

5 stand along incident investigations 6 Motices of Violations Reasons for Procedure Revision:

Technical Problem:

14.7%

Recurrence Control and Enhancements:

85.3%

I i

I Sample Review of Each' Type Man-Machine Interface Procedure 30 procedures reviewed j

No change required:

70% (21)

Enhancement needed:

20%

(6)

(

- Technical problem:

10%

(3).

i l

t

[

I i

j

- e e.

5

=

O,

^

^ *s -l,. em

^

- w

_. u 12 _ _ x m._..mm._m m..m...

._u._.

s

r yg.

-l r

1 Corrective Actions

]

. Technical Adequacy

- V/V Program

• Programmatic Issues

• Work Ethic Standards

- Set Expectations - Plant Managers Talks L

= Procedure Compliance a Goal Zero Personnel Error

- Define and Correct Impediments m Train on Paper Use a Test Jack Improvements t

a Quality vs Schedule

- Reinforcement a Superintendent Meetings to Discuss Performance and Criteria Events a Post Results in Work Place

- Personnel Corrective Action s Progressive Disciplinary Action

= Error Review Committee

_I 1

1

3 n

l

+9. v...

l Summary 1

• Additional Corrective Actions Taken

• Evaluate Performance for 90 Day Period i

o

• Confirm / Adjust Corrective Actions g,

L

• Review Results With NRC l

l 1

i l

l l

-