ML20056A533
| ML20056A533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1990 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008080142 | |
| Download: ML20056A533 (65) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-c r., OFFICIAL COPY s
- c. , e JUL.101990 Docket Nos.- 50-338, 50-339 License Nos. NPF-4, NPF-7
~
Virginia Electric and. Power Company ATTN:' Mr. W.' L.-Stewart. Senior Vice President - Nuclear 5000 Dominion Boulevard 1 Glen Allen, VA 23060' Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MANAGEMENT MEETING
SUMMARY
This letter refers to the Management Meeting held ca July 18, 1990, at the' Region -II office., The meeting concerned a self-assessment for your North Anna facility. A list of attendees, a meeting summary, and a copy of your handout-- are erclosed.
'In accordance with Section' 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10 . Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. Sincerely, Original signed by
'Luis A. Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Meeting Summary
- 23. Handout - NRC Management Conference, Performance Review N.A. Nuclear Safety Assessment, 2nd Quarter - 1990 cc w/encis:
E.-W. Harrell Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric & Power Company-5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 (cc w/encls cont'd - See page 2) 900'3080142 900720 DR ADOCK 0500
]8 gg
,r
'~
q , Ah .o
-? " -
Virginia Elec'tric~and Power' Company' '2, I9 o
'(cc w/encls cont'd)
'J. . P. O'Hanlon
~
Vice President - Nuclear Services Virginia Electric & Power Company-4- 5000 Dominion Boulevard ~ F _ Glen Allen, VA 23060 i R. F.-Saunders, Manager _-
-6 Nuclear Licensing ,' Virginia Electric & Power Company' 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060.-
G. E. Kane, Station Manager 6 North Anna Power Station P. O. Box 402
' Mineral', VA: 23117 Executive Vice President Old Dominion' Electric Cooperative
'Innsbrook' Corporate Center '
4222'Cox Road, Suite 102-4 Glen., Allen, VA 23060 W. T. Lough Virginia Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation
- P. O. Box 1197 '
Richmond, VA '23209 4 William C; Porter, Jr.
; County Administrator Louisa County- " P. O. Box 160 Louisa, VA 23093 Michael-W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton and Williams P. O.. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Patrick A. O' Hare Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building 101 North 8th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (cc w/encls cont'd - See page 3).
u
; % ~ ,a n-it, .
;;x
.,s lll
"., y' ' .: l i :.. :
- Virginia Electric-and Power Company; 3; JUL 2 01993
!O
, j b_ _ ,.[ I _5 Vi~ ," .
.lec w/encls cont'd) >
[ C . M. G. Buttery, M. D. , M. P. H. 9,% Department'of Heal &h '}! ,y' 109 Governor: Street ,' O ,. . Richmond,iVA- 23219
.m-
+,
m . yl : Commonwealth of Virginia l
+. .
a t bec w/encisi s -;
- Document Control Desk '
g..>. h NRC Resident Inspector k i%. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
;6 ,
Route 2, Box 78-A .
' Mineral- VA
, ;;g7 ,
- , 23117 t w
]1 '
'NRC Resident Inspector . U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission p . ,
Routes 1, Box 166 ! gt LSurry, VA 23883 i w . t
'.,-i
'\
- n. i i
I' i i L l RII:DRP RI :DRP R RP y ARuf d :ser 07/p /90 hPFbedrickson % inkule
. 07/$/90 07/p/90 l.
1
.. .. x 1
_9.. - w ENCLOSURE 1 MANAGEMENT MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES Virginia' Electric and Power Company (Virginia Power)
'W. Stewart, Senior Vice President, Nucicar J. O'Hanlon Vice President Nuclear Services G..Kane, Station Manager - North Anna.
- M. Bowling, Assistant Station Manager - North Anna J.- Maciejewski, Manager,-Nuclear Quality Assurance '
-R. Saunders, Manager,. Licensing J. Hegner, Supervisor, Licensing J. Smith, Manager, Quality Assurance - North Anna J. Price, Assistant Station Manager - Surry Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region 11 S. Milhoan; Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)
L. Reyes, Director,! Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII E. Merschoff, Acting Director, Division of Reactor SafeV (DRS), RII G.-Bagchi, Acting Deputy Director, DRS, RII M. Sinkule, Branch Chief, DRP, RII D. Collins, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS), RII W. Rankin, Chief. Emergency Preparedness Section, DRSS, RII J. Potter, Chief, Facility Radiation Section DRSS, RII P. Fredrickson, Section Chief,.DRP, RII M. Lesser, Senior Resident Inspector, North Anna, DRP, RII S. Shaeffer, Project Engineer DRP, RII A. Ruff. Project Engineer, DRS, RII . Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Headquarters L. Engle, Project Manager, NRR J. Balha, Assistant for Operations, Office of the Ex~ecutive Director for Operations,(0ED0)
- ',.. 4 -,
- 3, 4
ENCLOSURE-2 MANAGEMENTMEETING
SUMMARY
)
i A' management' meeting was held at the Region 11 office on July 18, 1990 to discuss Electric &a-Power self-assessment p(erformed Company Virginia- at the North Power), Anna station The meeting by Virginia was opened by ' W. Stewart, Senior Vice Pr'esident.- Nuclear, who introduced the Virginia Power managers and provided the- scope of the meeting. The formal discussion of the meeting then began using the handout provided in Enclosure 3. The subject covered-during this presentation included: North Anna Performance Overview, 3' Self-assessment; Safety Assessment for 2nd Quarter of 1990, and Quality Program Sucinary. The presentation was viewed as beneficial to the NRC management attending and the meeting was concluded following a brief question end answer period. i, r l I l' 4 I
;, 2 :: _ .=
r ,
=;.
1 4 i Virginia Power. a m p: a: C m w
+
NRC' Management Conference Performance Review -i North Anna Power Station i July 18,1990 j i t l
' 'J .
i -
}
m s C to .9
~
@ m O 5--
2 O t_=U CU C W ( R b _@
@ CU O Me I3.Z
-.J 5 3 .'
h 5m 2m O @ E a. b s L ;
m .:
; v
~.~ 3, .g +-.,
_}
~
AGENDAi - 1 l j INTRODUCTION W. L.- STEWART /E. W. HARRELL: NORTH ANNA PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW G. E. KANE NORTH ANNA SELF ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
M. L. BOWLING -! QUALITY PROGRAM
SUMMARY
J. P. SMITH j u _ l l r I _r I L J .! ! _ j
._x....;_
. . ..- , _ . . , . .-;,...,__._,.,._-.,,;..._-.,_., _,__._a.,...., .........._..'
+,
r . ,- f i i l 'i J
.a y
.I q
=
G. E. Kane I Station Manager. - i 1 NORTH ANNA. PERFORMANCE REVIEW l i i e u l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ .- - ,- .-. _ _=._;-~-.= _ _ . ,
.. ._. -._ - t
1
- [
r y _
~
NORTH ANNA KEY INDICATORS JUNE 1989 - JUNE 1990 KEY INDICATORS STATION UNIT 1 UNIT 2 CAPACITY FACTOR 91.6 83.7 99.5 2.3 4.5 0 FORCED OUTAGE RATE REACTOR TRIPS 1.5 3 0 0 0 0 SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS EMERGENCY GENERATORS STARTS / FAILURES 82/0 EMERGENCY GENERATORS AVAILABILITY 98 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE DEFERRAL 1.5 PERSONNEL RADIATJON EXPOSURE 460 PERSONNEL CONTAMINATION EVENTS 262 TOTAL CONTAMINATED AREA 7853 LOST TIME ACCIDENTS 0 I J e ,_
z.' .; t.', .. Z O_ y g. 4 l.- /
-J.
g
=
m g, s< c . g o9
'HH O- om
'b <a om
[] - Z $*m 2 o. 2 2
$ $$0 HW r- - k
{-- - g m m l-CC E-O
- Z 00 N W E
T CO N v-
=
0 8 2::3 2 m W E o u. mom <2m
- - e ,
- ai
- a- ...
, s, g-
.g-NORTHEANNA : POWER (STATION
'.i t
.i UNIT 2 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC ' q SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL- i d
8 : IS BETTER ' 7 - i N U M 6 - B E .. R 5 - O 4r , F S 3 - C. ; R-A 2 - M ! 1 O - C O O 86 87 88 89 90- 1 I YEAR l
~
. . . , _.;._.. - ~ , ..._ . _ , , ,._..,.,_,s. , ... ,, , - - -
,,.-..;~.- . ,,_...,.._,_..__..;-.
-- -- 5;;; =:::;g +:a , ;----;;gggy 1-gy 3 pg
-: : x .
g_ , --.:- / y.; ,
- q
...+
~, -? 'b
. a d
UNIT'1 REQUIRED SAFETY SYSTEM: ACTUATIONS
~
N IS BETTER U M B E 3-l R
~
E g- l R U ' N / / /
/ l [ / , /
86 87 88 89 90 i YEAR i EDG Si
- - -rf.
NORTHoANNA POWER': STATION WIll
~ ~
UNIT 2 REQUIRED SAFET dYSTEM ACTUATIONS 4< IS BETTER N M B 3-E R { 2-R N 1-I @ g/* ,
/ /
( / / ( / A/ / / ( // 86 87 88 89 90
. YEAR E EDG M si
_ , , l
e UNIT 1 FORCED OUTAGE RATE S LYEAR TREND 40 IS BETTER 30 - E 20 - T 10 8
~
0 1990 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 YEAR
- ' 3 2'
~f - .-:j
~
NORTH ANNA POWERESTATION d
~
ONIT 2 FORCED OUTAGE RATE ~ 5 YEAR TREND ~ 20 IS BETTER 15 - P E .; R C 10 - E lj
.N T
u
-l -
5 i 0 1986 .1987 1988 1989 1990' YEAR
- i
{l
=... r
. ~ . . ~ , . . .. - . ,. -
fr, .- . + . . Z O 8 l<c / a l-CO {r t
.o -e C- 5 amb _'
l.i.] e 3 h ~! O A .5 .!
- g. a
~
Z Pu Z %a .I e I t . .: 5 l- E [' $ O . /.......... !* Z. 8 8 o8 8-8 a r_ ..s 8 8.8 .. . 8, 8 e 8 8
>- O b- 4 I 2 :3 2 m W cc
OW g Z O
- <t ~ m F- *
@ 8 5
% e bO 4
- ge =
LLI 3 JE O a8
- n. g=* ..
r - as-
<C Ea Z $E Z.
;<C 35 h8m -a
'E E8 F- o
.O , , , .
Z C : to H < l-- O Z #
l , i , i. i i i. - i i - North Anna Performance Annunciator Panel . > Status for Second Quarter 1999
- ~ .
c
/..
~s ./. / :*. :-
.'.i////.f.:
- : - : .- ?
- ' 'y X-Ja pg g ( :/
MAINTENANCE {NSS) ENGINEERING - .'.01NERh PERFORMANCE j![. ' (({ EC ~
;//,. /.-{f/// =(-
~
1: -4 EMERGENCY 5.
- - '$,h.
S' s!.k S.'hh:'h'.:- S g S FUEL.v RCS AND SECONDARY g PREPAREDNESS
,--- - $(Ag'g :.. -tf$y$1$J$.:4
..'$QUW. .-
/ PUMP & VALVE
-%RELIABUTY SYSTEM EQUIPMENT ADVERSETREND
-e. PE.R.F.OG.MAf8,C'E. m"'- AVAllABILITY EQUIPar.NT ./AVA.8.:2,9.E, .IY.
.... . ......, : .. INTEGRITY PERFORMANCE .O! !. O !./. O . -
-TO///.r.o.: / -!!.-s -://. ::.!/. . .: - - // . -: .O.!.!!:
.r .:q . * .: . -
THERMAL
. .- ;: :// . . ; /; ; . -
- /,:::?/.$$$::;<:/':. ::6;.$6 ACTOR;;:f CHEMISTRY
. ::- ::-/ j pgyggy/;ggg/.:
/.-: g '.:.- ::g
- 45 .
< TRIPS:. -:e PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE ::-ACIGATIONK. .: e'/.
s.. . A. % T g.:. -:4 .--.gAVAt90lLO9::. ::::::::.. . .
. !.:/.:!// :.:: .
.s /.s/: :. /:;:: :
// : .. //..-
=:
/./.
g >
- A ODIFICATION , PROCEDURE SECURITY
;$, PId5Tpd,S!; MAINTENANCE SCHE R M f: peogamat:.-:-
PROGRAM ~ PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRm
/ ' ://4..:. .:. :
PROGRAM gy .- -
.,.c ,"
- N i SAFETY EMERGENCY MDUSTRIAL SITE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT - MATERIALS
$@1RADIATICD8;# I PREPAREDNESS N ENGINEEM PERFOR88ANCE Ph AND QUALITY PROGRAM PROGRAM 7FROGRAB8p PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM wm :/, :
xy 3, W Wk ' '$- : %' ,yl g.r a . s
-: - f.
#FRoonnas a ,, :,:,:,,:., :,,::;:f m awm RED -
- SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS YELLOW D -IMPROVENENTNEEDED WHITE O -SATISFACTORY GREEN O -SIGNIFICANTSTRENGTH
- Id
+ ..
n. LNorth Anna Performance June 1989 .1990
=-
2 g . 4 Safe And: Highly Reliable Operation
*- Few Reactor Trips and ESF Actuations j
- Low Forced Outage. Rate I i
- Operations Automation. - '
Significant Reduction in Engineering and Maintenance Backlog
- High Reliability of Emergency. Response Equipment- m D
- Experience and Qualification of Personnel :
- Housekeeping and Material Condition - = :
- Contaminated Area Reduction j
= Self Assessment Program j
- Startup Assessment Program j
- Procedure Upgrade Program
- Outage Planning j i
-Weaknesses
- Adequacy and Completeness of Procedures
~
j
- ISI Program Controls Some NRC and QA Commitments Had to be Extended- ,
i t j 1
=- . ,
l _ _-_- , - - - - -
,,~;w -
, , n us . v ,. -c. ,--y,- yu . -. n p - .
g- - - .. __ _ ... . -- --. ... .. .
* ,..,p- -
y, _- jy-. y ggg gg, =_.
".;,' ' g,, n.
we =,,
- w : g ;: y.;, ;; - =,J:$
. = . -
_ - - , ~ 9 _--,_.__;y
=- ; - 2: .- -. .
- . ~
. .x_
' ~ ~
~y v, ,,.
~?y '.;f;j;,~ '
, .y
^
. ::T:.:
f . l Regulatory Performance; Current SALP Previous SALP LERS 18 23 NONCITED VIOLATIONS 9 6 CITED VIOLATIONS 9 '22 L _ _ _ g-e
- w. d
~
~
7~ - ;
- f. - '
~ LNorth Anna:SALP-Performance. m l! AREA 1989- 1990(Projected) j . Plant Operations 1- 1-Radiological Controls 2 2 (Improving) ' Maintenance / Surveillance 2 2.(Improving) 1 Emergency Preparedness 2 1 Security 2 1 ;j Engineering / Technical Support: 2 1- ; Safety Assessment / Quality Verification 2 :1-i i e j
- c. __u..... ,_..__,;_ __
~
. - + 2g:: - ,
~: ~
._ . ; ? ;
. = .
4 M. L. Bowling
- Assistant Station Manager
-NORTH ANNA SELF ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
g
s , *. a r i l
~
i < PREVIOUS SALP IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES RADIOLOGICAL CONTROIE
- Instances of radiation area access controls violations
~l
- Collective dose slightly above national average 1 MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE
- Implementation delay of key maintenance programs j
- Procedural deficiencies
.q
- Limited personnel resources in some areas j SECURITY
- Hardware material condition
- Priority given to equipment repairs ;
l l l .; #.i
~
i
- - . _. . .- - + -
r . PREVIOUS SALP IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL SUPPORT
- Weak Root Cause Program
- Post Maintenance Testing and Design Verification EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
- Timeliness in Resolving NRC Identified Items SAFETY ASSESSMENT / QUALITY VERIFICATION
- Root Cause Program Not Effective
- Offsite Independent Review Group Not Meeting Oversight Responsibilities
- Problem Resolution Capability in Need of Improvement
- Licensing Submittals Not Always Timely J
E d45tl?-jf Af f'y$ft"-:;
~~
" QIf _. . . ,, z. .
I
3 [* .w 4) _ - g A * -,. S* ' a
'y . < '. ~
1'4 , .- * .W.,y #
'k O,.,' ?
* , ~ we .
.( '$
. z x'4;,tc.. .
J -
.. ,, g w~;. . . "."g,%. . __ . -..4 -,, ' -
',A.e
- .i >' :-
-c e ' .
t --
".-.e 3q. '[ ' _ ; ^ _ ,' .~ . _ ,
[ [-" N. , . ,
- ww ., . . , .
A. ' - A w.1 ,.
# , ,_.. 3 '. .
. ~~ l; 4 -
^
,_ ~
_; [*
~
North Anna Perforinance Annunciator Panel ; Sta?ms for Second Quarter 1998
-. :/----: .::.!//.
PGR$QNNGL
,::.- /://.:.//.
y MAINTENANCE NSS ' ENGINEERING OTHER [ PERFORMANCE [!:((.N::::: E
- : , ..:.il@Pj;:: .
./ .: .
! !. ! - / ! ::.-:. . i: .:::... : .- : : ! ..
~. 1- EMERGENCY RCS AND gg,
'//::)Qggy:d:
- %. . .grggi ::::
.jgy.g(:::/ . . ': FUEL
/ :::::.-::.-s.t.sfis.h.
' : SECONDARY SYSTEM PUMP & VALVE PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT
/AvpasMLair - RELIABOUT.Y ADVERSE TREND ~
EQUIN.NT P.E.R.FO,R.M,AN.CE. m - INTEGRITY AVAILABluTY
.. f. ,
PERFORHANCE /.:
-/ .//. -:/ ::/....
- s .-
- / .
S-:g;;//././:;/ THERMAL
// /.:/ /.:
- ././/: : !
///.
- /:: .//////.
- ::; .:/// /.
- .f14EAOTOS?f CHEMISTRY
.- -. :::.g$ g .gyge:.2d :fe:.s.<@::.-:. :f.-
I.ds,g d'.'
- M. , . . .f.,f:f . . . . .: PERFORMANCE
.:: :.:: .:.: .: .: ::AT10M5::
- .'::4RI
- .:: :: :.: .:.::. .:. .P.S:/
PERFORMANCE
.:.4CTU. :. ::: :-
..i:
- . AMTE.//- :
- . .: .::A M.G.: /-h.:BILD 19.: .
+
!/!. i."!!!: '
a SECURITY l/ll.
- 6Minfi //le~::- .
.5 MAMTENANCE PROGRAM SCHEDULING MODIFICATION PROGRAM PROCEDURE PROGRAM PROGRAM
/:.J4IOGRMt:-:- PROGRAM
. . ,v,e s ,. .
. : . g..? fn'!f ,.C' INDUSTRIAL SITE PROGRAM bRADIGON !" EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT IMATERIALS PREPAREDNESS SAFETY ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE AND MITY PROGRAM PROGRAM g'.g% PROTBOTION PROGRAM 9 PROGRAM PROGRAM
. ann w :./ : //.
. ;,,/ :i /. i. -
n- - 2 $MOGGAM9:'- N
, enoen.m+- .: / /. :. : : :.:.:
- x. . - %
RED '-
- SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS YELLOW D -IMPROVEMENTNEEDED WHITE - SATISFACTORY GREEN O -SIGNIFICANTSTRENGTH
_ - ~
. ~
m
~M-i :
North Anna Local PerformancelAnnunciator-Panel: .
~
OPERATION PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE ., Status for Second Quarter 1990 .i t :. .-.
/.
- ./.
- . ::;; :./.::..... .
l.
- .":/.*:
; ; ; . . i ;; i,. / :*: : ?..:;;. *.
/ :;:.!
- 'i/:-;-:. : ; i . * ;;;;. :" : i. .
l
/: -
- s+
.::::/ ,,. ;. .. .
-:::.::::<::-:::-:::$hb:'-: '- ::::-::1::-p: ::::.::.::-:%s6dfist.v::.::-::l .: - SIGNIFICANT LER -:! ::- * --- - :
- ./..'VI'O'.LAT. tCMS. :::: :'.. '.: /.'"./l.-L.
l:.::.s. 'O'G'~ v "l-l 'l
. l -lll EVENTS ~
illll./lllli. ' ': l// / l l : / i./ /:*I:'/ / 'l l
*/ .:.
~ ll*/ / / / /:" / . ' *.~:*
~ :* :* / . ~ / / :* . * :* : :* . ~ .- :* : . :*
.: ~.~/ .*i
; :.:.:: :.:. :. :.:: : /?/ .!.:
* . * .::.i . .*: / l::
.- :i .:~ :.::.:.
/:i/."?- - t y
QA PERFORMANCE, -NRC. H,50lOLOGICAL STATION AUDIT, & ACTIVITY IfJSPECTION PROBLEM DEVIATION REPORTS REPORTS REPORTS REPORTS r l 1
...-:.. / : .. . i s . ::. :. :. : :< . .
INPO ! v' : : :! - !: : ': - : U"'-' PERSONNEL i MISPOSITION OBSERVATION EXPOSURE AND ::/TfMNSPOSITIONl':
.: ! .: / / -
s..: - EVENTS & --:/:.G94NT$'i.:.: i: !!. PCE ' i EVALUATION -: -////:*/:*// -
. l ,.-l l . . l.! : : l ::
llllllllll **,/
':!/: -
; . ;;;i; .., //."l
;;p:.
- .: :...::.-:le:.-:.
- .-:.e :: :.
.- :: !.: ..!.:: / /:
i -l::/ ::lND.USTRIAte:: : '. . ! :-::-: ::-::::Snpsif:::-:::-:':::-
. i
- , ./ .: , . :: :; . . : . :
, : . . : . .:: : .:: : .: : :: :: i i -::-:::..::-:: ::::.: ::: -::::-::::: .::' ; 1 i i 1 RED G - SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS YELLOW - -IMPROVEMENT NEEDED ~ WHITE . El- SATISFACTORY: GREEN - SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH - k
. , _ n - n, . . . . + . aw._,,,m. ._g ,.J._. -+ ,.e..-rv . - - , ,;,,,.~ p. ( sww -
- ,e...g. ,,,n u . g+ -.,,.,.,-r--- ,e p. p p u ,-y l
A North Anna Local Performance Annunciator Panel ~ KEY SAFEIY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE States for Second Quarter 1999 l*:*,... *..:. : :*:*:-
- ... -. . -:.*l
.- : : . ~ . : .- - .- .~ .- -
* .l.*
*..*:
- l; .;*; e. , . *
- .*l :. :*: :.: : : .* : :
.,: p* l, a ,.: ;: .:,:.: : ** .p;
*l l
* * : . *.*** l
;* l
...* : :**...*l*.*.*l 4.*
* * * : :.*:*. *;l
.$ p: *.* ;l
*9 : : : :
*:.*: :** *l' l-:.:-: ::::-:~::.:<6kif::l::::::Y:::::~6 UNIT 2 * :::Y:r3NTEINMUNfY::
.~ ... -
-::$::UONTAINMENTI$: - -- -- . -: .- l
. *.: *.:v.:!.: A.fW'*//.
'!*.! - AFW '/.:/.4SOLATIOW. : : .ll: lll. IS. O. t.A.' T. K.* W. e: !..'.
* ..* * . . '. % ....**.'*:..... ..* :...*..... ?,.**..* * :* *
*. . * .* . ~. * *
...... * * ! :.*.**l : : :l.: .*?.-: .
l e *.*l ....*l-l
*.*l : : *.*l : :: :..*: ** *
*l*l ..l ..* l*
* .**l l.*l *:*:.: l : :*:*l :*:.. * ::
..::.l *
~*l.*..* * *
- l l
- l l l. *l *
* : /.::.:*.*.*.* : : *.
*l. *l * *
. * .? .*
.;.;. .* .:.l J.*ll.* . w . . . . . s' :~ * * .
* .- l l ...*l:
l-l .* .* *l.*. . -* **l.. ..* *
*l.*l. : :
l.*
*:.: .: : :.* *.): :.*
*.f -
~. .
- .::.::.::.:* :: UNIM.:. .::::.-::: ::l UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 2
'!'f:tHSt/RH8:!':/!:-
..: *.: . . ..:::p. LHSI/RHR CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT
/. ' -///-:~ :-;:::: :e ' SPRAY SPRAY ~
- .-.. . -.:. * :..e.-..::.. .....* .:. :. ::: ::.- :..:...
ll . .*. l. ~l:* . - . *ll . **/llll. . . . .
~
- :s. .:.:.: . : .*...a :.:. *:: :. .
.*: :s.,
J .- .
-: =: :
- p:.. .::.. . .
*: : :::::....~.
. : .- s:., . ..: .- :* : : * *. . -
.- : : . .- : a: * : . : = : : .~.*:. . : :. :. :. .:
!!::*ll
- : . .* .* l : :Y:$!.*:
- e.* .!:*.*.*ll.:ll~l:. !*!!.*:*:!.*.:
l C W l: ..*l.-. *:*:lll*
- *
- l .*
- 0NII k !!! ;E:;OY,. .(Y.' :!!!
- : :/, 6* .* .* -* :
- l
/. '.-
l..**l
^
l l : .- : .*
; : - ,*.e *l*l
- l : ,. .. *l .* l *
- 1:.**:
. *.:.:.*l*
.* lj .*:*:
. l ':*:y . . * * * . . -.*:. :*
- l :.*:*:* .-
- *..*:* l . * ..* :. .**.*...
*l:l :l . . .* : ..l
.-l :
.l*:p*::*..*.*
... . (: . . . . : ......6.*...
* * :.:.*:* . * .*: *:.*: ..* .: .*l.. ..
.*** l *
* *:. .J
.* l
* / ~p / ,: : .*
..*-l.
. ,:u*: l
... .*l*l.l.
.. -l
- ..* l l
- .*: ..* }: : * : : : *....*.:
* : .
- l *
- l : :
**l . f:.* ** : : .* l I
- l .* .* *l
./*l:::.*
* : .p :.
* :l p * . : .!* * : :.': . * .* : .p .* :: *
..*l* * * * :
- s'.* .. .=:.. ** l*:*:. *'.
*
- l ;**l. *....*l*.**
- l
...*l .: ..*. *...** ." .. * :.*l.:
l ...* l .* ... : ....*.*:
* * * *l *.% * *l
.. *. ..:. . , * . ? / .: :.*:**.*.
l * * * * * *
. * ,g
..?:.*. .* -'
- l \
i 1 1 J' A< i t, i I s p 4 e -. _ P f I RED G - SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS YELLOW 0 -IMPROVEMENT NEEDED .
- WHITE - SATISFACTORY GREEN O - SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH !
i t
,.e < . v _. _ _ __- __ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i . i . .,
. t North Anna Local Performance Annunciator Panel
~
SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS PANELS OTHER PERSONNEL MATERIALS PERF E COST PERFORMANCE- PROGRAM: g; PERFORMANCE: ADEOUACY OF L 7,HNICAL MISPOSITION i STORAGE FACILITY SPECIFICATION EXPENSE BUDGET EVENTS ! AND ENVIRONMENT COMPLIANCE STATUS COST PERFORMANCE: i i EXPENSE ' PROJECTION STATUS l . l L- - 1 I ___-______________-____-_=_...._-_!
. t 1
, .j 1
NOTE (for the SALP Functional Areas) ; I t Indicates Identified Strength or Weakness ! i
- Indicates Specific Activities In Response to Previous SALP j i
i t i. i l ! i e . i
{ , 4 Strenstths : I Conservative Operations Especially During Shutdown Few Reactor Trips .No Reactor Trips on Unit 2 Few Spurious or Required ESF Actuations ! Low Forced Outage Rate (Zero Percent on Unit 2) . Reactor Startup Training on Simulator Prior to Each Startup ! Annunciator Blackboard !
- EOP Documentation and Effectiveness
! Automation of Annunciator Responses, Status Control, Tagging j
- Technical Specifications and Emergency Action Levels j
! Fire Protection Program ] ' i 100 Percent NRC License Exam Pass Rate
- Weaknesses 1 i 4 t l
- Some Abnormal Operating Procedures Need Enhancement I i
j < . 1 ;
y. r . Maintenance / Surveillance - , Material Condition / Low Forced Outage Rate Key Safety Equipment Availability and Reliability is High Significant Reduction in Safety Related Work Order Backlog ; Housekeeping
- Development and Implementation of Enhanced Maintenance.
Programs (e.g., Check Valves, MOVs, Relief Valves, Breakers)
- Staffing Levels Increased and Organization Made More Effective !'
- Procedure Upgrade Program Initiated Effective Planning and Scheduling
- Testing Integrated into Outage Schedule
- Follower Program Effective in Ensuring Post Maintenance Testing is Completed Erosion / Corrosion Surveillance Program Ten Year NDE Inspection Program-Weaknesses Job Coordination Not Always Completely Adequate ;
- Maintenance Procedure.s Not Always Adequate '
i Several Inadvertent ESF Actuations Several Missed ISI /IST Surveillances j l l 4 i
, - -, . - . . . . . . . . . _ . . . ~ . . _ _ . . _ . .. .
r Radiological Controls Strengths
- No Overexposure Events
- Personnel Exposure and Contamination Below Industry Average
- Significant Reduction in RWP Violations
- Source Term Reduction Program
- Use of Digital Alarming Dosimeters-
- Contaminated Area Reduction
- Contamination Control
- Utilization of Lifetime Exposure Limits
- Utilization of Low Micron RCS Filtration
- Hot Spot Reduction Weaknesses Some Program Controls and Implementation Need Enhancement Work Practices Need to be Enhanced to Reduce Contamination and Release Events L
~
L 1 j' [ ! Engineering / Technical Support t ! Strengths j
- Significant Reduction in Backlogs
= Qualification and Training Program for System Engineers ]
* ' State of the System' Reports by System Engineering i
- Implemented Design Basis Document Program
- Instrument Air System, Kaman Radiation System, Security E Field and Meteorological Tower Upgrade Program
- Task Teams Implemented to Address 7300 Process Card Failures and Reactivity Management Events -
- Engineering ' Plan of the Day' Procurement Engineering Program ;
All Training Programs Accredited by INPO Weaknesses ISI Program Controls q
f -,
f Safety Assessment and Quality Verification I
Strengths
- Management Sensitivity to Safety Significance and NRC Notifications Very Low Threshold for Identification of Deviations Root Cause, Trending and Nuclear Safety Assessment Program Implemented
- Effective Operational Experience Program (No Industry Events)
- SOER Revalidation Program Startup Assessments to Verify Safety of Plant Operation Self Assessment Program (Performance Annunciators, Departmental Self Assessments, QA Performance Based Assessments)
- Corporate Nuclear Safety Independent Assessments (EOP,ESF, Loss of RHR and Electrical, Commitment Tracking)
- Implementation'of a Management Safety Review Committee
- Completeness and Timeliness of Licensing Submittals Weaknesses l Some NRC and QA Commitments Had to be Extended i !
i i k ~ f l
r ;. r , j - : i i l NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSESSMENT Past Performance in key safety areas relative to the industry performance. 1 l - Current performance in key safety areas relative to past performance. Events which could challenge the operators and the plant. Reactor Coolant System and Steam Generator integrity. Material condition of key safety systems, safety related equipment, and equipment which if not available, has a direct impact on the operator. i Precursors of significant industry issues and events. Precursors of significant personnel error events. L J
= __
s
~
r StremEths ; Implemented 5 Year Security Equipment Upgrade Program Enhanced the Perimeter Berrier Detection Equipment j High Priority Maintenance and System Engineering Support of Equipment Repairs !
- Significantly Reduced the Number of Computerized Access Control System Failures !
- Trending of Safeguards Events to Focus Management Attention and Corrective Action ;
Training and Qualification of Security Force
- Strong Corporate Security Involvement Weaknesses
! Personnel Errors Leading to Safeguards Reportable Log Events l (e.g., Lost Badges, Access Door Control) t i, e .
~
. -i Emergency P1
.h Strengths I
i
- Management Commitment to Enhancing EP Drills and Performance 1
- Completion of ERF Inspection Open Items ~!
High Reliability and Availability of the EWS, SPDS and PN.iS
- Notification and Callout Methodology Significantly Enhanced l Integrated Simulator Training of Operations and HP
- Successful Annual Emergency Drill
! I Weaknesses ! i l Several Drill Control Weaknesses Identified in 1989 Annual l Emergency Exercise ; i t L k t l -
[ r i t J. P. Smith Manager Quality Assurance i QUALITY PROGRAM i
SUMMARY
c . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . -.. . . .._m . . _ .. ..- . _ - . . . - . . .,._ . . _ _ , ,.... -.. _ - - .
[
?'
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS ,-
- Methodologies Operations Maintenance Health Physics
- Evaluations. / Observations Dynamic Scheduling Safety Significant Issues Requested By Management
~
AUDITING J
- Performance Based Auditing
- Use of Technical Specialist 1
- Team Concept j
- Performance Indicator Reporting
- Corrective Action Follow-up Process u
7q
^
ENHANCED MANAGEMENT INTERFACE PROCESS
- Monthly Station Quality Briefing & Report
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
- Items identified and addressed utilizing existing Corrective Action processes / Deviation Reports /
Audit Findings / Work Orders Enhancement items identified for resolution (Action Assignments madeD < Items identified and corrected L
- i. . ,
l
-ENCLOSURE 3 p) y M:morandum Pemst i
To DISTRIBUTION North Anna Power Station From M. L. Bowling July 13, 1990 I' NORTE ANMk NUCLE &R SAFETY ASSESSMENT l Sacomo commTER - 1sso l The attached " state of nuclear safety" is derived from a a number of indicators which provide direct and indirect input on past, current, and future performance in areas that affect nuclear safety. These areas include:
- Past performance in key safety areas relative to the i
industry performance. i Current performance in key safety areas relative to past performance. Events which challenge the operators and the plant. : l
- Reactor Coolant System and steam generator integrity.
- Material condition of key safety systems, safety related L
equipment, and equipment which if not available, has a I direct impact on the operator. Precursors of significant-industry issues and events.
- Precursors of significant personnel error events.
Esch area is assessed below. Past Performance In Rev Safety areas Past performance in key safety areas relative to the industry is obtained by comparing the standard deviation of the last four (4) quarters at North Anna to the most current average of the key INPO indicators. This provides reliable indication of North Anna's past performance relative to the industry and smooths erratic performance in any single quarter. Of the eighteen indicators assessed, North Anna's Unit 1 performance is below the industry average in seven areas and Unit 2's performance is below in three areas. The most significant statistically for Unit 1 is reactor trips. For Unit 2, the most significant area is thermal performance. However, all of these ten areas are less than one standard deviation below the industry average and most are very close to the industry average. h* $"" E E $f
- _ __ .~ . . _ __ _._ _ _ _ _ ___ - ___ . _ . _
- c. . ;
(2) current Performance in Rev Safety Areas ' Current performance in key safety areas for Unit 1 shows a weakness in AFW availability. Unit 2's current performance shows a weakness ' in fuel reliability. Both of these areas show more than a one standard deviation variance in the last quarter's performance from the previous four quarters. ; Events Which cha11ence The onorators and The Plant The positive trend on infrequent challenges to the operator and plant continued in the last quarter. There were no required or e spurious safety system actuations, but there was one loss of safety function. An adverse trend has been identified with loss of safety function events. i Reactor cociant Syster and Steam Generator Intecrity Reactor coolant system integrity remained very high on Unit 1 but on Unit 2 exceeded the goal of less than 0.3 gpm unidentified. However, the average on Unit 2 in the last three months has trended down and is well below 0.3 gpm. Primary to secondary leakage L remained low on both units indicating good steam generator tube integrity. 1 Material. Conditions l Material condition as evaluated from CFAR (INPO NPRDS Data Base for Component Failure Analysis) show a failure rate below the industry
' average. Approximately 20% of the NPRDS reported components for l
' North Anna are above the industry failure rate average and eight component categories have a failure rate significantly above the l industry average in the last six months. Long term equipment l problems (i.e., not fixed in 90 days) directly affecting the L operator remained low for the last quarter. Precursor Events Station Deviation Reports (DR) were correlate'd to INPO, SOER, and seventeen DRs were identified as precursors. Of significance was valve misposition events and MOVs whose numbers exceeded the moving I ' average for these precursors in the last quarter. Administrative errors for operation and maintenance personnel are being tracked as a precursor of a significant event due to personnel error. Administrative err 1s by key personnel exceeded twenty per month during the last quarter. 1 l
j e. i (3) In summary, North Anna has demonstrated relatively few l challenges to the operator or plant, and key safety equipment i availability is high with low failure rates. Precursor of more significant I industry events are being reduced. However, l edministrative errors of key personnel (a precursor of a more ! significant event) appears to be high. Also, of significance is the adverse trend on loss of safety function and Unit 2 fuel integrity. ' overall, the state of nuclear safety is assessed as high. t 4 a ! Mw M. L. Bowling l Chairman SNSOC MLB/sim Attachment k c . l t l t i r e
)
SECOND QUARTER 1990 l;
~ NUCLEAR SAFETY !
ASSESSM'ENT . i 2 3 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION i July 11,1990 9 4
.m. ... _ ,,. ..-.. _ , _. ... . _..,~.. ,,._,.
INDICATORS ASSESSED
. Key INPO Indicators
- Auto Scrams
- Scrams per 1000 hours
- Equivalent Availability Forced Outage Rate
- Thermal Performance
- DG Availability
- HHSI Availability
# - AFW Availability
- Safety. System Actuations
- Maintenance Backlog Greater than 3 Months
- Ratio of.PM to Total Maintenance
- PM ltems Overdue
- Lost Time Accidents
- Radiation Exposure
- Skin and Clothing Contaminations
- Solid Radwaste Shipped
- Chemistry Index
- Fuel Reliability
. Forced Power Reductions and, Transients
. Safety System Actuations
- ESF Actuations Due to Test & Maintenance Activities
- Safety System Failures
- RCS Leak Rate
- Primary / Secondary Leak Rate
- Safety- System Performance a NPRDS/CFAR High Failure Rates
- Long Term Equipment Problems a DR Comparison to SOERs
- Personnel Errors - Operations and Maintenance
, ; ! , j:1I;:b I l $j a '
N - - - - - - - - A - P NS 8 D 0 ( 2 WE 0AD (M ) O V A TS AA T E R I S A R R S E( E YRU AR TNA T I _ E A SE S - H A PO T I EVEDD (
)
1 0 N SN MR AA O N I
- A 1S .
0 0 TGN S
- Vc EE D A 4 TA
-
- 4 2 GoF 0
mR FNQ RDUA N DA pO o _ 0 s O eS R eM s T RT O d I A E t I N NR D PD E B oN OA AV EiD T n I TdU I RVA D A DET RI 1 Eu RsS N T A DAO E GN T r T H )yR 8 P VES I A E T
) A N
Y O . I N I OD NIN 2 A V G EA M N S G D I 9 N 0 S C 2 A T S O A R F T E H F E S C Y T A H D E R M O R C O U R A S S F N G f A Y S w S I A A L E D V A M S U F E T A V A V A P O L E P T O O M A V A L E R U T T N E R S R
.-- A L R A F A A C
R C T A B L
.A S
B L O P M G E V A 1 0 0 A M N U L O I A I T A R L 0 S T I T Y A A IT O Y Y N C T E B L H R R N S E I T S T Y H A N ( N (
)
2 D A F R E M 4 e E C U ODS A U(R T N ( ME U ( M C I L A R PI AE V R ) 1 E Do E T S EIT D mN 1 T VOI pD OO I NN a r UU S S iA s ASO R T F A 0 oT T 4 N n E L D h RQA A h tN US R oA I SAT D 2 h sP 9T OD R h I MeS 0EUE h P fs
- RA V R A I 1
h R) O 1
)2 MT T h V EE ARO I
h f E D N N , S S '
)
- 2 ' ' '
INPO INDICATORS FOR NORTH ANNA UNIT 1
^
DEVIATIONS FROM INDUSTRY MEANS TREND. AT NAPS 1 (NAPS 1 compared to industry) (Comparison to self) WORSE THAN AVG BETTER THAN AVG DECLINED IMPROVED
-c oe MAINT BACKLOG > 3 MONTHS --
- o 33 '
RATIO OF PW TO TOTAL MAINT -- in foor
~
PW ITEMS OVERDUE q LOST TIME ACCIDENTS RADIATION EXP)SURE -- O 'S 0 88 SKIN & CLOTHING CCNTAMINATK)MS .. 0 02 SOLID RADws51E SHIPPED .. ge g iss
-o 37 CHEMISTRY INDEX -
-: is FUEL RELIABLITY -
j . (2) ( I) 0 1 2 (2) ( 1) O I 2 (MEASURED IN STANDARD DEVIATIONS) (MEASURED IN STANDARD DEVIATIONS) NAPS DATA BASED ON 4 OUARTER AVERAGE ENDING 90-2 DEVIAllONS OF LAST OUA'RIER INDUSTRY AVERAGE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FROM PREVIOIM 4 OUARTER MEANS ARE ESTIMATED FROM INPO DATA (LAST OtlARTER IS 90-2) 88
-.-..c. .w - -e E'.,.. . , . . . -- -w .p
I 1 !;; 4 ' i { , 4 ,.lil C i i 4 )1 !95 M - - A . P . Ne S ( D D 2 W E - U AD (u ) O R V A TSTA CA S I R R S A E YS U E(T T AN I E A A R N A PO S V E S E ( a i l E D 1 8 N SN WR D I ) 6 A 2S AAON Vc TGNS EE T GoF D A 4 A c mR FNO RDUA D N O oi pO a O A R '. eM r WS I T R D A T h* [ d I MD P NR E E D ' h h j B oN l h EiD OAA D A DE RV A V I T h h h T n T dU I N . R I 1 h EuS Rs A EG T DA NO
- h* j Iy R tsT P I
A V E )S T E h h N)Y A H O . I N I OD Ne 2 A V G EA M N Se G D I 9 N 0 S C 2 A T - S A O F E T H F E S C R - T Y A M D E R O R C O U R A S - S r M I W A . Y S W t S G A A L E D A V S U F . O I T L T A A V P O E P O E V A M A A I L V AI I L A E R F U T A A N T E R S C R . L R C T A B I A B 3 1 U O R M G E V A 1 0 0 A W N U O I L R 0 S A I L T A R . T I T Y A A T I O Y Y N C E T E S L I H R R N S I T S T . Y H - A N ( N (
)
2 D A , F M E E C U R ODS ME U A ( U(T M CR N I ( E L A PI E V R A ) doe T S R EDD mN 2 T VOI pD OO I NN o r UU S S iA s ASO R T F A o oT T 4 N n E ROA A L D t N I SAT D US R " oA sP R I 9T OD MeS 0EUE Pf l
- RARIV i R)2 O
2
) MT AT '
" V EE I E AR O D N N S S
)
2 N N N .
,l l{ll\!l l '(. ';;
. 4 : j . I II ii < 4
~
r 4 N . . . . - ' ~ - - A I P D NS ( E D ( V UDA W 2 W S ) O I A A T R A A T E R S T E R Y B US I A A R E T (MA O ~ E VS E ( NPN S RD T E E D I A S S
) N 2 IMA I
T AGON EN S 0
- A VcF E T 3 c
- gor D A
, N D O DN 4 A 3 o
e mO p E U O oM OS A WTA RT A R D g 0 0 0 0
. s e
dI t N M NE DR DE I ' 2
. B oD PAA O V EiU T n D R DEV A I
T udS A ED RA O T I I
- E RsT I
N T rR t AVG I E SN Ty N)Y P - A ) T I ON E A N M d NID 2 A E I . SN G G V A N N _ 9 0 S I D _ 2 S C K I N R W T A S A A L O C R L O T O I I N O
, C O I
L O A D S P W O T S R H E M R D A T H I A T T T l I T E F P A C S I K I S w A I N G O N W E M S M L O F
-. O T T R S E A O G Y C O I
N T E S T O N X P O C C I D E V R T O T 3 R m D E X H IP A W S U R E N D U A L W O N . E P 4 N A E T S E W N O D O T I A I N T H S R N T T S H g
, _ _ . - - ~ - - A .
N ( M (
)
2 g D N A F R OD S MEV UR E A g
- E C
L I N T U N - ( L PAI E A ERT D S T IVO I I (
)
I g g E(R DCE oN m pD I T N N 2 OOS UU A SO A R T 4 f N ST 0 g ar iA sT o n E L D ROA A l N oA US R 1 5 A T D - R O D I sP e 9T 0E U E Ml S P f L 2
- R RA AV I 1
o R) O 2
) WT IT s V E E e E AR O N D N S s '
S )
- o 2 ,s 9
- 5. .
Performance Indicator Forced Power Reductions & Transients Definition: The number of times the unli reduced power, generally 10% or more, due to unplanned events and unplanned transients. Goal Minimize (Not Quantified) Assessment for Unit 1. the only problems so for in 1990 were "A" feed train molnienonce, e condenser waterbox maintenonce, and reactor trip due to FRV closure. Unit 2 has had no forced power reductions or transients in the post four quarters. { Unit 1l { Unit 2 l
'$ 10 *! to 8 8 g . - . - _ . . . . . . _ - _ . , - _ _ . - - _ g ._ . . -
g . . - . - - . . . - - . - - . g . . . . . - - - - - ~ ~ , j (h f g4 - - - - - - - - - - - g-. ': --- --- - g4 -- u s B 2 - - - - ~ B 2 --
) , __T w e9- 1 e9 2 et*3
- i e9-4 90-1 90-2
),
w e9-1
. O e9-2 e9=3 el-4 90-l 90-2
} Year-Ouorter j Yeor-Ouart er Unit 1 Unit 1 (cont.)
89-1 2/ 16 - 2/ 17 increased primary lookoge 12/5 Transient due to EHC system e3 due to pocking look on 1-RC-63 governor volve closed. Unit lost 300 MW. 12/5 Reactor trip on low-low level in (854 2/25 to 305 power) Reactor trip o ff er cir supply line "B" S/G due to EHC system transleni 89-3 9/ Wo n turbine governor volve 90-1 W Condenm weida molnienonce (100s to 905 power) 100s to 905 power 1/23 Rdoctor trip due to FRV closure molntenance 7/19 Reactor (trip on turbine trip) caused caused by folled drivgr cord s C" st p sure 90-2 5/11 "A" feed train molnienonce 39 4 hjj'g C se gov r o vo (1005 to 894 power) (1005 to 804 power) 11/13 Low EHC pressure (1005 to 905 power) 12/5 Governor Woog voNo work (985 to 855 power) 12/5 Shut el governor volve Unit 2 (855 to 655 power) 12/5 Transient due to EHC system. Lott 89-2 5/15 Shut el governor volve 100 MW. steam dumps open (84% to 68% power) 12/5 Watch e3 governor volve with e2 governor volve (655 to 305 power) w..
L*, , Performance indicator 33fsty System Actuations Definition: Actuations of the emergency core cooling system (octuol or spurious) or the emergency AC power system (actual, in response to o low voltoge on a saf eguards bus). ECCS actuallons counted are actuollons of the high pressure injection system, low pressure inlecilon system or safety injection tanks, Gool Minimize . INPO's 1990 goal: 0.8 octua?fons per unit Assessment There have been no safety system actuotions in the post four quarters. This is a strong positive trend. i
~
l Unit 1l Unit 2 l ! 2 - 2 E E
.9 .9
}
i
}
y, . e i j
< ,i
% m/f
[
., lt l c
y a 7 >v v u-3 u-. n-i n : n-3 n-. so-, co-:
,/u-3ee-.n-in:
t .. ,. .. ,. .. n-3 n-. so-i en.2 Year-Ouoder Year-Ouoder Unit 1 Unit 2 88-3 RSST top changer motor brooker irlpped 88-3 HHSl pump inodvertently storied during PT due to follure 89-2 EDG stort due to inadverient ground - 89-1 EDG stort due to emergency bus during DCP modificollon i de-energized inodvertently during PT 89-2 EDG stort due to inodvertent ground during DCP modification [ u,,, 1 l
I. " i L Performance Indicator ESF Actuations Due to Test
& Maintenance Activities 1 % Definition: Inadvertent ESF octuations, with the reactor of power, where ;
lest'or maintenance errors were considered to be o contributing factor. , i Goal Minimize Assessment ' Unit I has had no events in the post two years. Unit 2 hos had a high number of events in this ilme period, including two in the post year. Unit 1l Unit 2 l t 5* $* wi . __ . . _ _ . . . _ wi . e _ o o f ![
?
NI 2 1 [' % } l o ie ,e ie ,e ie .. ,e ,,
,, v re ,e i ,e 7 ie I es-s es-4 so-# eo- so-a ee-4 so-: 90-3 es-s es-4 so-i so- et-a so-4 eo- so- !
Year-Ouort er Year-Quorier .I Unit 1 Unit 2 l None 88-3 HHSI pump inodvertently started during i the performance of on undervoltoge 1 periodic test on the 2J emergency bus. l (LER 88-2) l 88-4 AFW pump inodvertently started while l beln0 removed from service for , peoplanned mointenance. (LER 88-1) . 89-3 Ino vertent ESF octuation during SSPS d testing. (LER 89-8) l 90-1 Inodvertent portial train ESF octuation J of the contoinment depressurization j system during PT. (LER 90-1) 1 1 l 1 l l l l .e l l i a
., -- c
, 3 a s '
j i i Performance Indicator Safety System Fallures
- Definition: Sofety system follures are any events or conditions that, by '
themselves, could preverit fulfillment of the safety function for structures or systems. If o system consists of multiple redundant subsystems or trains, follure of all trains constitutes o safety system f ailure. ' i Go0I No loss of sofety function J Assessment Unit I remolns high. Unli 1 Unit 2 2 2 E $ k .5 e E i e i i E . e i _. . . g . . _ - . . _ . - 5 . d.-
+
1 5 , Fe T v i e.. U . a n y , E
' # 2' ' ' '-
O o et-3 es=4 89-l e9-2 e9-3 et-4 00=1 eo 2 e8=3 ee-4 etal e9-2 09-3 e9-4 00=1 00-2 Year-Ouoder Year-Ouader Unit 1 Unit 2 l 88-4 Service Water flow to RSHX may be 88-4 Service Water flow to RSHX rnoy be insufficient insufficient 89-1 RHR inoperable when volve failed closed 89-2 Loss of CC to RHs hoot exchangers 89-4 Contoinment Equipment Escape Lock lookoge
- 90-2 RWST level indicollon collbroted nonconservatively high l
l 1
Y[ i 9,g4 - Perf or'monce Indicator RCS Leak Rate P Definition: The sum of the identified and unidentified lookoge from the Reactor Coolant System.
~
Goal A moximum of .3 gpm imidentified leokoge and 3 gpm identified lookoge from the Reac,or Coolont System.
- Assessment 4 - RCS leak rote overages have remained within ceceptable limits..
; Unit. 2. Identified look rate hos been gradually increasing, but remains
' within acceptable limits.
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unidentified RCS Leakage l Unidentified RCS Leakage l 0.8 HCH 0.8 McH
-- AVE -- AVC
.. LOW , Los 30.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30.6 - ---- - --
.5 __
.S E , E p,4 _. . . . . _ .c___.... . - . . _ _ . - -- 0.4 - - - - - .
-- - -- - - ~ - - -
. L 1-
; ; 4ij- - - - - - - - - - -
30.2 --=-=---'-*" --- - - - - - --- 30.2 - - - e- - tn - cb t 0
' ""~ ' 0 10/89 12/89 2/ 90 4/90 6/90 10/89 12/89 2/90 4/90 6/90 t1/89 t/90 3/90 S/90 11/89 1/90 3/90 S/90 Identified RCS Leakage l Identified RCS Leakage l 3 HIGH 3 H10H
-- Avt ,
-- Avg 2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tow y 2 .5 - - - - --
---------g- p Low 2 -- ---+--
2 - - - - g 4 -t- N 1.5 - - - - - - 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - E E g _ . - . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . ~ . . _ _ o g _ 0.5 -- - -- --- -- 0.5 -- 0 0 10/89 12/89 2/90 4/90 6/90 10/89 12/89 2/90 4/90 6/9u 11/89 1/90 3/90 S/90 11/89 t/90 3/90 $/90 sen ii 1
4 ;p '
..- .=
_. ., s : + Performance Indicator Primary / Secondary Leak Rate o 000I' Less than 15 gpd total
- Asse sment -!
3 _1 Unit 1 Moln Steam hoo' der look role exceeded 15 gpd in June (16.43 gpd). ) Unit 2 has molntained on extremely low leokoge rate. i
- I.:
.-l Unit 1 Unit 2 j Primary / Secondary Lookge Primary / Secondary Leakge -!
i Main Steam -Header l Main Steam Header l } li ,
- l. ~~ HCH -- HCH p ~~
jg _ , . . . . . . _ . - . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . , . . . . . . . . _ .
-- Low j$ . . . . _ _ _ . . . .._.. .,- --
-- Low
,N --
,O y a '-=-- ---
------a g 10 --- - - +
g 10 - - - - - - ' - - - - - -- -
; e n
. g- -- -- g
! - i, 3 ._ . . _ . _ . .
%, 3 . _ _ _ _ . . . _ , . _ . . . . . .
~~
q
~0 0 l: 10/89 12 / 89 - 2/90 4/90- 6/90 10/89 12/89 2/90< 4/90 6/90 .;
j' 11/89 1/90 3/90 $/90 11/89 1/90 3/90 S/90 l i
~
RM- 121 -- Air Elector l RM-221 - Air Elector l 10 l .. Hgg 10 - ggg
-g . . . . . . . . . . . . . - , _ . _ _. _
-- LOW , , _ , , , _ _ _ _ , _
-- W- ,
~~
- l. .
- N 3-
- g. _ . _ ._.
o a _- a e a r 4 .C 4 . _ _ , , , , _' '
- C I 4
t <
$O $O \
o a g -- . ._
. . _ -.. g _. .
= =F = m =
- m m c, 10/89 12/89 2/90 4/90 6/90 10/89 12/89 2/90 4/ 90 6/90 ;
11/89 1/10 '3/90 S/90 11/89 1/90 3/90 S/90 wiu
~
'g i
?
ll / _.- - - - , . - ' , .['y 3
.. g t j .-
'e
-Performance Indicofor Safety System Performance Definition: Equipment perfomance in key safety systems os shown by NPRDS/CFAR.
Goo! A Z-volue of less than 1.645 for the lost 6 months and zero f ailure rote for the last-3 months. Assessment Methodology Information 3 Generol: CFAR uses the NPRDS datobose to find f ailure rotes. The time period used will end 3-4 months prior to the date the dato is obtained Jue.to inherent delays in the reporting procedure. The Z-value is the number of stonderd deviations between the two groups compared (unit vs.' industry). Only other Westinghouse plants are used in the comparison. If the Z-value exceeds 1.645, the failure rate is considered significantly high. A 1.645 value corresponds to o 95% confidence level.
- Methodology: . .
Follure rates are obtained for the unit and for the Industry, along with a 2-value, N on 18 month period. . Fallure rates ore obtained for the unit and for the Industry, along with a 2-volue, for the lost 6 months of that period. The #-of f ailures versus time is shown graphicolly. The Z-voluis are examined for significant f ailure rates. Assessment Unit 1 - All six systems (AFW, HHSI, RHR/LHSI, Emergency Power, CDA, Oontainment Isolation Volves) had f ailure roles that were either lower than the industry or not significantly high for both the six month and 18 month periods.
- Unit 2 .
. Auxiliary Feedwater had a significontiy high follure rate for the 18 month period, but not for the six month parlod.
The other five ystems had failure ,otes that were either imr ihr. ine Industry or not significantly b.gh for both the six month and 18 month r erlods, f-Selfl4, t of $
,'~ ,
.c w -
j
.. I Safety System Performance .
Unit I' Unit 2 i AFW l AFW l
.. e g 3 a m*. n. . . - .
Z-Volues Z-Volues 10/88 - 3/90 :Z= 1.624 10/88 - 3/90 Z= 1.986 10/89 - 3/90 Z= -0.660 10/89 - 3/90 Z=- 0.219 HHSIl . HHSIl s U Z-Volues Z-Volues
'10/88 - 3/90 Z= 0.851- 10/88 - 3/90 Z= - 1.565 i
o 10/89 - 3/90 Z= - 1.312 10/89 - 3/90. Z= - 1.503 a RHR/LHSll ~ RHR/LHSll 3 8 g.
- g. _ __
O4 04 . i
. .ds _ . .
S.- l f".5 e. SI f"I f=3 . i Z-Volues Z-Volues 10/88 - 3/90 Z= -0.171 10/88 - 3/90 ~ Z= 1.384 10/89 - 3/90 Z= 0.567 10/89 - 3/90 Z= -0.791
?l6..
b i _d-e,
\
Safety. System Performance j Unit .j. Unit 2 l Emergency Power l- Emergency Power l
= = !
)-
I t
.}.
.. g ..
, g4 }4 -- - _ _
Z-Volue' _ Z-Volue 10/88 - 3/90- Z =-0.452 -10/88 - 3/90 Z= 0.213 ' 10/89 - 3/90- Z= 0.252 10/89 - 3/90 ' Z= 0.626 i. Containment Spray l Containment Spray l s I t l.
-f s fs w
- i. t. -
1
- l. : - - -
3 --
- _. _ . = _ _ .= _.
= -
Z-Volue Z-Volue - 10/88 - 3/90 Z= 0.832 10/88 - 3/90 ' Z=-0.867 ' i L 10/89 - 3/90 Z=-0.429 - 10/89 - 3/90 Z= 0.536 Containment Isolation Volves Containment isolation Volves l
- e 1 3 3e 1
- g. -
2 I -- r -
, 3 '., -
M s.p i N. M i,
#!I 4 Z-Volue Z-Volue 10/88 c. 3/90 Z -v.790 10/88 - 3/90 Z=-0.390
.10/89 - 3/90 Z=- 1.656 10/89 - 3/90 Z=- 1.373
% y-
., L o -
Performance Indicotor NPRDS/CFAR HIGH FAILURE RATES Goal; Minimize number of gro'ups with significantly high f ailure rates Assessment A CFAR report is presently being distributed' quarterly. This report does not
- contain any- onalysis or recommendations. CFAR is not presently being ef f eetively utilized.
; The eight groups listed below (out of the 228 compared to the industry) are potentially significant because of a recent high failure rate. These were identified by examing o CFAR Stonderd Report from INPO.
CFAR[ s g00 -- . ~ . - - - - . . . . ~ . . . ~ . , -, 150 ...._L,.. ,_ . ..._ _ _. . , _ . . _ _ . . 1 M 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
4/87-9/M 10/87-3/49 1/M-7/49 7/66-12/M 10/M-3/90 CTAR Time Period Potentially Significant Groups The following groups have o significantly high failure rate when compared to the industry and have o high f ailure rote the lost two quarters of the s!x quarter time. period. The six quarter time period was 10/88 through 3/90.
~
Unit 1 Unit 2 X Heater /Superheater X Electronic Power Supplies X Motors 2000+ hp X Valves; vent, sample, drain and other X Condensole Low Pressure Heater X Moln Feedwater Pump Motor X Main Steam Power Operated Relief Valve Operator X Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Seef 10
??i.
T
- .F .o ;
Performance Indicator ung Term Equipmr1 Problems Definlilon: Additional problems (including T.S. Action Statements) from the North Anna Plant Status Report which directly offect the operator and have not been corrected within 3 months of the date the problem was identified.
-Gool'. Minimize
.- Assessment a;
There ore four equipment problems greater than 3 months old. Two are over one year old, one is nine months old, and one:Is six months old. These prob' ms were addressed in the " Equipment Status Update (06/28/90)". 1 l Equipment Problems More Than 3 Months Oldl 10 fs _ . . _ 5 is
$f -.
l's '{ M if'f f 1, a cfi - \ - h gl- . a s y o 2 - M2.: - m e?: - -
- k. M $s
* ,4 49 ik
@;y 'J by e(@
mg . $,y. .
-3/09 6/89 t/St 12/09 3/90 6/90 LONG TERM EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS AS OF 6/29/90 Mark # Identified Cause 1-SW- P- 8 03-10-89 RSHX RM sample pump togged cut; one phase pulls 200%
of design current. '(Status ODR-hold.)
$-AB-E-?B 10- 16-89 "B" ouxillory boiler tagged out for repairs. (Action required:; / ?" Performonce indicator- Personnel Errors i Operations & Maintenance < Defintilon: Less thon;odequate personnel performance' by Operoflons or.
Molntenance personnel os indicated by the.following areas: Se c urity, , Radiological-Problem Reports (RPR), and Station Deviation Reports, t
' Used as a precursor.for o more significant event, Goal- Minimize * :
, , s.
- Assessment i
. The dato.shows on improvement over lost quarter. l
[ ; 1-u I
-e
{ l 3 If Personnel Errors [ Operations & Molntenancel l: 1 L 40 34 3' l i t 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l 3 L .$ , 22 2 s w 20 -, - . - . - . - . - - - . . . - - - - - - -- E
-l
.- y I 10 -- -
L . q h 1 L 0 90-1 90 L Year-Ouarter O Ops O Maint i Self 13 i
;}}