ML20083M014

Rev 3 to Phase 1 Plan,

ML20083M014
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	11/09/1994
From:	NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20083L862	List: ML20083L910 ML20083M014 ML20083M032 ML20083M040 ML20083M090 ML20083M101 ML20083M243 ML20083M256
References
PROC-941109, NUDOCS 9505190080
Download: ML20083M014 (90)

Text

r COOPER NUCLEAR STATION PHASE 1 PLAN REVISION 3 wi APPROVED BY:

//-9-1 t Manager Date f, // Id (t/9/94 Site Mandger Date v

pk A

O 00 8

)

~

=

i Startup Plan ID Task Responsibi!ity

% Complete August l September l October l November l December 1

1 Independent Oversight /Self-Assessment 76 %

y l

I ly 2

1 1 SRAB Charter Jones 80 %

3 12 SORC Charter Herron 100 %

+"'= ' = " =*= - - a l

i 4

13 Pre-Startup OA Assessments Sessoms 74 %

p..

-ggg.gq 5

14 Evaluate OC Consistency & Independence Sessoms 51 %

~

"_--'_ hwgg;;gg 6

2 CAP, Planning. Performance Monitonng 84 %

y 7

21 Corrective Action Program Jones 75 %

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;gg g g ga i

i i

8 2 2 NPG Performance Monitoring Herron 100 %

}

9 3 Work Control 100 %

l l

10 31 Work Control, Planning Scheduling Herron 100 %

"'""77-""1 --

11 3 2 LCO Tracking & Work coordination system Herron 100 %

i 12 4 Design Control /Configration Management 77 %

y y

13 41 Plant Con 6guration Venfication Walden 91 %

3g j

i 14 4 2 Vendor Manuals Herron 86 %

i 15 4 3 Configuration Changes Walden 91 %

g i

16 4 4 DBD resolutions Walden 54 %

-- _-_mgge i

i 17 4 5 Adequacy of Surves!!ance Procedures Herron 87 %

18 4 6 Review of SORC approved MWRs Walden 100 %

t 19 4 7 Design Calc Process Walden 100 %

m 20 4 8 System Readiness reviews Herron 32 %

i gemm l

21 5 Engineering Support 74 %

y l

l i

l 22 5.1 NED/ Site Interface Walden 86 %

_m 23 5 2 OD/OE Program Jones 64 %

~~""-

i i

-_- m;g i

i 24 6 Plant Testing 72 %

_.,_._m.,..

i 25 61 Pre-Conditioning issues Herron 95 %

m i

26 6 2 IST & Surveillar.ce Companson Herron 66 %

____Agggq 6

27 6 3 Cycle Extension Herron 68 %

- mpaqq 6_

4 28 7 Operational Expenence Review 77 %

y y

29 7.1 Expenence Reviews Jones 100 %

Novemtw 8,1994

(

p;13 G

y-Startup Plan ID Task Responsit>!!ity

% Complete August September l Odober l Nosamber l December 30 7 2 Special OER Search for S/U issues Jones 54 %

_w:_:_- - - emn 31 7.3 Vessel Thermal Transient issue Walden 100 %

g--

32 8 Procedural Controt 56 %

y y

33 8.1 Procedura! therarchy Jones 84 %

_ - -:g 34 8 2 Specialinstructions Herron 100 %

l 35 8.3 Procedure Backlog screening Jones 100 %

36 8.4 EPZ Doss Assessment Model Mace 22 %

-- --- _-%m:_:- -,--ma 37 8.5 Surveillance revew for LCOs Herron 26%

_gg_:555 g=mmg 38 9 Management 60 %

mmMqg 39 9.1 Progtam Ownership Jones 100 %

40 9.2 Nuclear Safety Awareness Training Mace 15%

-- _:_: __ gp_magem 41 9.3 Management Observations Herron 49%

5. -mgpg 42 9.4 Industrial Safety issues Mace 98%

43 9.5 Licensing Submittats Jones 78 %

- _ _ma November 8,1994

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 1.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Revise the SRAB charter; address member independence and revise membership PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Independent Oversight'and Self Assessment SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

R. G. Jones

~

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Concerns and improvements identified in the 1991 and 1993 self assessments, DSAT, and other Cooper-identified wea'Knesses concerning SRAB Charter and membership concerns have not been incorporated into SRAB procedures.

OBJECTIVE:

Ensure SRAB procedures and membership provide effective independent review, audit and s?;

oversight of NPG activities in order to ensure Cooper Nuclear Station is safely operated and maintained. Changes must ensure SRAB is self-critical and challenges line

~

management.

ACTION:

1.

Provide additional independent membership to SRAB.

2.

Minimize membership overlap of CRG, SORC, and SRAB.

3.

Evaluate deficiencies in SRAB performance from the 1991 and 1993 self assessments, DSAT and other Cooper-identified weaknesses. Revise the charter accordingly.

4.

Develop an effective oversight of SORC.

5.

Review the Phase 1 Plan to assure the Plan provides adequate assurances that all appropriate startup issues are addressed.

6.

Evaluate the completion of Startup Activities.

i a

i:\\ common \\lxm\\revsrab.sjj l

)

re b

3 1

m

/

1 J

ev 1

oN l

6

/

1 1

l l

g n

03

/0 l

1 a

l w

l m

32

/0 1

y g

6 m

1

/

r 0

e 1

q b

c l

m o

t O

9

/0 1

0 m

l 2

/

1 p

q 1

2 m

l

- s 1

l 6

5

/

9 a

D m

4 a

9 I

l

~-

m 9

m 1,

r

~

aa 3

fe 8

n r

a e

t 1

m b

r

/

m m

r 9

a e

h r

v e

o C

b l

N B

m e

t 1

A p

1 R

e 9

/

S S

l 4

/9 ip B

h A

n s

R ito re S

t e

b h

lp m

C e

R ig m

s M

O r

o e

C S

s t

v n

ie o

s e

G c

e n

R n

C it d

e R

iv e

C ic O

n it p

f i

S a

c e

o f

d e

l A

n p

d e

P p

i ta B

u p

u t

t d

r e

e A

c u

r t

a d

v R

e r

t f

a d

O S

S f

t e

S e

a e

e p

t e

z ta lo w

a d

im la v

la u

e e

u v

v o

im k

r v

e e

v

(

s P M

E D

R E

a T

1 2

3 4

5 6

D I

1 2

3 4

5 6

1 ll

November 9,1994 - 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 1.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Improve'SORC Effectiveness PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Independent Oversight and Self Assessment SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron-ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. T. Herron DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The independent oversight of SORC in meeting its responsibilities in accordance with Regulatory requirements needs improvement.

OBJECTIVE:

Improve independent oversight ability of SORC to ensure that an appropriate review is performed for all proposed additions, deletions, and changes to safety-related activities.

,f, Enhance the process utilized by SORC to ensure sufficient independent oversight is

~

maintained.

ACTION:

1 1.

Provide a Nuclear Safety Training course to SORC members and alternates.

2.

Establish a mentor to serve as a protagonist, purview SORC review items and assist in presentation preparation.

3.

Implement SORC Effectiveness improvement Initiatives.

4.

Establish a group to review other utility SORC organizations, membership, procedures and methods of meeting requirements.

S.

Revise Procedure 0.3 to more accurately describe SORC activities.

6.

Evaluate QA audit of SORC and initiate appropriate actions.

7.

Improve SORC minutes.

s i;\\ common \\lxm\\impsorc.scw

6

/

1 1

l 03

/0 j

1 l

32 0

/

1 l

6 1

/

r 0

e 1

b o

t l

c O

9

/

0 1

l 2

/

0 1

l l

g 5

2

/

9 l

2 I

I 1

8

I I

1

/

R S

, E D

I r

I I

e

l

i b

l

i C

m

i a

i

. R

i 1

p4 O W

1

l

/

i 9

E

- S I

e l

vo r

4 p

9

/

m i

l 8

l 2

/8

.sev itia itn I

tne mevo rp m

i ssenev it p

s c

e e

u t

f o

3 u

f r

E G

0 n

it i

m e

d C

w r

n n

O ie u

u C

g g

R d

A R

v e

i ir S

e c

A O

n o

R o

Q S

ia t

t r

n n

r h

P e

C M

m is t

e T

e e

v l

e a

o e

b u

r r

a is la R

t v

p k

O a

lp ts e

v

(

S s

i E

R E

!m m

t saT 1

2 3

4 6

7 D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 I

a; November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID#-1.3 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Independent Assessment of the Phase 1 Plan, Confirmatory Action Letter, and Condition Reports PROGRAMIPROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

QA Assessment SPONSOR:

R. A. Sessoms

- ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

D. R. Robinson

~

- DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

This action plan does not pertain to an " issue." This plan is provided to conduct independent assessments of thePhase 1 Plan, CAL response and actions, and Closed Category 1 and 2 Condition Reports.

OBJECTIVE:

Conduct additional indeptindent assessments as described above and provide timely ~

f reporting of results, as appropriate, to ensure a quality Phase 1 Plan. Ensure that significant issues are appropriately addressed prior to startup.

ACTION:

l 1.

Assess the development and implementation of the Phase 1 Plan.

l 2.

Assess the adequacy of CAL responses and actions.

3.

Assess the adequacy of disposition of Clossd Category 1 & 2 Condition Reports.

J' 1:\\ common \\lxm\\indeass.emm i

I

(9 J1

)

QA Assessment-ID# 1.3 l

September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10!9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 1116 l 11/13 1

1 Assess the development & implementation of the Startup Ac

_g ;-g-m q

2 2 Assess tne adecuacy of CAL responses and actions l

3 3 Assess the adequacy of disposition of Closed Category 1 &

l l

l l'

November 8,1994

e-m, I

i S

1. a U

l

\\

s..

3 Q ;:,

j l

b

' f

'i g

a I

e M

1 b

n G

8 S

i.

I

'b C

e i

E man i

Mg E

h U

i M

i i

a l

5

. f a

i (

l l

l

.~,

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT lD#.1.4 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN i

ISSUE:

Quality Control PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Independent Oversight and Self Assessment i

SPONSOR:

R. A. Sessoms t

ACTION' PLAN MANAGER:

G. E. Smith DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Quality Control inspections are not consistently specified or performed, and personnel are not all adequately trained in QC Program implementation.

OBJECTIVE:

1.

Provide increased consistency in the application of QC requirements.

b 2.

Provide increased QC inspection for additional activities.

M

-3.

Impose limitations on the amount of persons reviewing and specifying QC requirements.

4.

Coach / counsel QC personnel on new program requirements.

ACTION:

1.

Develop and distribute listing of persons (titles) who will review and specify MWR instructions for QC application.

1.1 Identify personnel responsible for assignment and incorporation of QC inspections 1.2 issue listing of personnel responsible for reviewing and specifying QC requirements on MWR special instructions 2.

Revise QCP 12.5 to improve amount of QC and consistency of application.

2.1 Evaluate QC designation and assignment process from another utility (ANO) 2.2 Compare CNS QC process with the other utility's QC process J

i:\\ common \\txm\\qcmda. ras

' November 9,1994 ' 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 1.4 2.3 Solicit input from CNS departments on QC application requirements 2.4 Evaluate results and revise procedure 3.

Revise QCP 12.6 to provide enhanced instructions to QC personnel.

3.1 Evaluate current detail of QC independence 3.2 Evaluate the procedural directions for discrepancy documentation -

3.3 Solicit input from CNS departments on OC performance requirements 3.4 Evaluate results and revise procedure 4.

Provide training sessions for persons affected by the QC Program enhancements.

5.

Conduct effectiveness determinations to assure enhancements as intended.

gx 4

8 i:\\commonuxm\\qcmda. ras i

(

r. $ -)'

0 N.

e

- QC - ID# 1.4 er l

Odober l

November j

ID Task 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 l 11/20 l 11/27 1

1 Develop and distribute listing Mp 2

1.1 Identify personnel responsible g

3 1.2 issue listing of personnel responsible 4

2 Revise QCP 12.5 MP 5

2.1 Evaluate process from another uttilty l

6 2.2 Compare CNS process with other utility s l

7 2.3 Solicd input on QC application l

8 2.4 Evaluate results revise procedure g

9 3 Revise QCP 12.6 MP 10 3.1 Evaluate QC independence l

11 3.2 Evaluate discrepance documentation l

12 3.3 Solict input on QC performance l

13 3.4 Evaluate results revise procedure g

14 4 Provide training sessions 15 5 Conduct effectiveness determinations emem l

i 1

November 8,1994

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 2.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Corrective Action PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

- Corrective Action Program

. SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. Flaherty DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Clarify responsibility, authority, and accountability for CAP, improve root cause quality and-depth of analysis and corrective action to prevent recurrence. Also, review and disposition CR backlog and clarify criteria for category 1 and 2 CRs.

OBJECTIVE:

Use the dedicated Corrective Action Program group to provide clear management of the

.),.)

program and establish a self-critical root cause culture at CNS to ensure rigorous investigation and effective correction of all conditions adverse to quality.

ACTION:

l 1.

Establish a program manager with 5 CR team leaders with sole responsibility for -

program management.

2.

Establish group mission, provide training in leading and/or mentoring investigation teams, perform backend reviews of completed root cause investigations and implement lessons learned for continued program improvement.

I 3.

Conduct a Senior Manager meeting to establish Corrective Action Program expectations and accountability.

4.

Revise 0.5 series procedures to incorporate. CAP organization and responsibilities and lessons learned feedback.

1 4.1 Restructure CRG to provide more effective senior management review of condition reports.

4.2 Senior Management to determine CR category and set prioritization and assign accountability for evaluation.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\corrac.sjj

.. ~

J v

{

+;-

November 9.1994 9:03 'am I

^

' PROJECT 10#.2.1 I

t

5. -

Provide expectations to potential CRT members.

1 5.1

. Focus on ensuring the understanding of timely convening of a Condition Review Team, accurate root cause and corrective action.

t 5.2 Provide additional management training.

l 5.3 Provide managemen't' training to managers not attending initial session.

I 5.4 Provide copies of "CR Team Investigation Plan" to Team Leaders of new Condition Reports for. trial use, incorporate. feedback, and finalize. Plan i

_ document as a tool to ensure consistent, timely initiation of CR team investigations.

6.

Provide method for review, disposition, and management of the CAP backlog to support startup.

6.1 NPG managers provide schedules for tracking and closing level 1 CRs, DRs and NCRs.

i I+

I e

6.2 NPG managers establish schedules for resolution of CAP backlog for level 3 l

CRs, NCRs, and DRs due prior to startup.

7.

Revise the Condition' Reporting Program Guidelines to ensure clear categorization of conditions. This will include a routine work feature for those issues requiring evaluation, tracking, or resolution but do not require apparent or root cause investigations.

7.1 Provide criteria to CRG for review.

7.2 Prepare revised CR Program Guidelines.-

7.3 Obtain approval of CR Program Guidelines revision.

8.

Create permanent CAP organization.

8.1 Obtain authorization approval.

i l

V i:\\ common \\lxm\\corrac.sjj

(.

Gib 1

CAP - 10# 2.1 August l

September l

October 10 Task 8/14 l 8/21 l 8/28 l 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 1

1 Estabhsh program mgr and investigation team l

2 2 Establish mission, train team, and perform backend reviews l

3 3 Conduct Senior Manager meeting l

4 4 Revise & approve 0.5 series procedures for new org & proc y

l 5

4.1 Restructure CRG 6

4.2 Senior Management CRG irnplementation 7

4.3 Revise 0.5 to incorporate Work Cont. Center CR vs M 8

5 Provide expectations to CRTmembers 9

5.1 Focus CRT understanding g

10 5.2 Provide Management Train.ng

--- ;------- ;-----l;-- ;

11 5.3 Provide additional Management Training l

12 5 4 Provide "CR Team investigation Plan

• 1;. JJ. ffJ.:ff.:ffff.7. fJ.;

13 6 Disposition CR startup backlog

_.._....... _ ssssmsssssssms.sssssssss 14 6.1 Managets provide schedules for Level 1 evaluations mm 15 6 2 Complete Level 1 evaluations m mmmxA 16 6.3 Managers establish schedule for Level 3 startup actio

-, ;. g 17 6 4 Complete Level 3 Startup Actions

- mmmm 18 7 Revise CR program guidelines M

19 7.1 Provide Criteria to CRG for Review g

20 7.2 Prapare revised CR Program Guidelines l

21 7.3 Obtain approval of CR Program Guidelines g

22 8 Create permanent CAP Organization 23 8.1 Obtain authorization approval f;;;;;;;,,

1 l

l l

Novemtw a.1994

9

'O 09 C

I A 9

N 9

a S

o

8. 8 5

>i S

.o S

l

~

l oa=

4

}

l 2

i l

z k

(

)4

~

I o

1 8

3 t-I g

K

c November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 2.2 I

~

i PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Departmental Performance Indicator Goals / Monitoring PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Corrective Action, Planning and Performance Monitoring SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. V. Sayer

~

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Determine performance criteria against which departmental goals will be measured.

i OBJECTIVE:

Develop management tools to obtain and monitor goals for key station performance indicators.

ACTION:

dg i

1.

Establish startup performance indicators. For each indicator:

1.1 Define data needs 1.2 Assign responsibility 1.3 Define report format 2.

Establish goals as a miimum for:

2.1 Confirm CR goal of Average Days open and promptness of CR report 2.2 Establish MWR backlog goal 2.3 Establish EWR backlog goal 2.4 Establish Temp Mods backlog goal 2.5 Establish Red Arrow goal 2.6 Establish Caution Tag goal.

v' i:\\ common \\lxm\\deptperf. daw

November 9,1994 9.03 am s

PROJECT ID# 2.2 3.

Start publishing reports weekly.

i*h f.

%,)

i:k:ommon\\lxm\\deptperf. daw

re 3

b 1

r r

/

e 1

)

v 1

eN l

6

/

1 1

l 03 v

/

l 0

1 I

+"i4 i

l 3

2

/

0 1

l 6

1

/

r 0

e 1

bo t

l c

O l _m' 9

/0 1

2

,m ","

/0 1

l 2

l lm "" i i i

2 52 m"

9

/

D I

v r,

g l

n Y

)

i 8

k r

1

/

t; 9

i r

n e

o b

l M

me t

1 f

p 1

r

/

e 9

e S

P l

4

/9 s

ro taic d

In ecn y

a t

t k

m s

a or d

ib m

ly e

s r

f e

n o

k r

f e

e N

o e

t P

p r

a s

o w

t p

a e

p s

u s

t ar D

R e

la e

r s

t e

n e

o u

n g

n t

f:

i G

q S

is f

e h

e s

e n

r is D

A D

s h

h lb 1

2 3

b lis a

a b

1 1

1 t

t k

s s

u s

k E

E P

a T

1 2

3 0

1 1

2 3

4 5

6 l

!i l

-. ~ ~. -...

-. ~

t November 9,1994 9:03 am t

PROJECT ID# 3.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Establish and implement a plan for integrated work control, planning, and scheduling PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Work Control SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron i

ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

- R. L. Gardner

~

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The existing processes for work package preparation, planning, and scheduling work do not sufficiently limit the potential for challenges to nuclear safety and adversely affect the ability of the Maintenance Department to function effectively.

OBJECTIVE:

Correct existing deficiencies in work package content, work coordination, and daily

~

j;)

scheduling through implementation of a work process improvement plan.

ACTION:

1.

Improve work planning / package preparation by:

.1.1 Adding additional planners.

1.2

-Implementing a planning guide to control package content and format, and ensuring that planners address appropriate requirements when planning packages.

2.

Improve work scheduling by:

2.1 Adding experienced schedulers.

2.2 Focusing on schedule adequacy / adherence.

2.3 Developing a short-range look ahead by all work groups.

2.4 Developing an improved short-range schedule.

3.

Provide operations control in establishing priorities for repair of equipment.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\intwork.emm

i l

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID#.3.1 4.

Establish a work control center, outside the control room, to allow aa SRO to control work.

5.

Establish divisionalized work control for the current forced outage.

6.

Improve short-range work control by developing an interim schedule that can be used to transition to a system based 12-week rolling schedule. Focus on maintaining division and system separation, and coordination between groups to minimize the times equipment is removed from service.

O i:\\ common'Jxm\\intwork.emm

(

..b

.)

Work Control-ID# 3.1 August l

September l

October

!D Task 8/7 l 8/14 l 8/21 l 8/28 l 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 1

1 Improve Work Planning / work Packages y

2 1.1 Add expenenced planners

. ~... ".....,.... '........................ -

~

.s 3

1.2 implement planners gude 4

2 Improve work Scheduling l

o 2.1 Add experienced schedulers 4

6 2.2 Focus on schedule adequacy / adherence

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

~-

7 2.3 Develop short range look-ahead i

8 2.4 Develop improved short-range scheduling

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

9 3 Develop Operations prioritding 10 4 Establish work controf center 11 5 Establish divisionalized work controt 7- ;;-;;;;;;;;;;";;;

12 6 Establish interim scheduling organization 13 7 Develop Administrative Scope Control Process 14 8 Develop schedule for procedure changes to support the out g

15 9 Finalize process!organizationalinterface for work planning /

16 10 Obtain additional draft to work backlog November 7,1994 e

y r

)

a 2

1 u

/

rb 2

e F

l 5/2 l

9 l

2 1

l 22

/

1 l

5 y

1 r

/

a 1

una J

l 8

/

1 l

1

/

1 1

3

1. D 52 4

I 2

9

/

9 1,

1 lo 7

r

)

r l

e t

b b

n m

8 o

e E

1 v

C

/

o 2

N 1

k r

r e

o b

W m

l e

1 c

1 e

/

D 2

1 l

4

/2 1

l 7

l 2/

1 1

l 02

/

1 1

l re b

3 1

m

/

1 ev 1

oN l

6

/

1 1

l 03

/0 l

1 l

II

(

l 32

/0 1

November 9,1994 9:03am m.

PROJECT ID#:3.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Implement effective LCO tracking and work coordination interface system PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Work Control SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

E. M. Mace 4

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

An LCO tracking system does not exist to provide the shift supervisor with guidance to assist in work authorization. Mode-dependent LCOs are not tracked. System / train related :

maintenance is not grouped on the schedule and LCOs are not identified by_the schedule.

OBJECTIVE:

Improve tracking of technical specification-related equipment that is out of service to limit '

challenges to safety systems caused by work coordination problems.

.9, o

ACTION:

1.

Establish an LCO tracking system that identifies equipment out-of-service that would cause entry into an LCO or would be a restraint to a division swap or mode change.

Use this system to assist the shift supervisor in authorizing work.

1.1 Revise procedure for LCO Tracking.

4 1.2 Review outstanding open items.

1.3 Review status of significant LCOs a minimum of twice weekly.

J i:\\ common \\txm\\tcotrack.emm 1

(j Eh

,.).

LCO Tracking -ID# 3.2 Wr l

October l

Nmember ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Estat:lish LCO Tracking 2

1.1 Revise Procedure for LCO tracking

..:.7.:.:.*.Z '.*.2.;*.*.?.*.'

3 1.2 Review outstandsg open items & incorporate into LC

.fllllllll"llll*

4 1.3 Review status of significant LCOs daily rneetings twie

' * * " *~ " " ;* ";:.Zl.;T.7.1..*.

Nommber 8,1994

November 9,1994 9:03 am

' n PROJECT ID#.4.1 j

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN

- lSSUE:

Plant Configuration Verification (1 of 2)

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden

' ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

G. S. McClure DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Concerns noted with plant valve configurations, as well as other configuration control problems, indicate a potential configuration control concern with other components that are required to be in specific line-ups. Take corrective actions for discrepancies.

OBJECTIVE:

Verify that the standby alignment of the plant safety systems is properly specified such '

that, if called upon to automatically initiate, the systems will meet their design objectives.

ACTION:

1.0 Design Verification 1.1.

Identify the expected valve, switch, breaker and damper positions for the RHR B Loop after it is auto-initiated into the LPCI injection mode and SGT system after it is auto-initiated into the accident mode.

1.2.

Review the Elementary Diagrams for RHR Loop B and SGTS to determine if, the valves, switches, breakers and dampers start in the expected standby -

mode; if the logic automatically re-aligns these components into the accident mode as expected; and if the logic will in any way prevent alignment into the accident mode.

1.3.

Compare the normal (100% power lineup) standby position from valve and switch / breaker checklists, system operating procedures and operator knowledge against the required design position.

1.4.

Screen discrepancies and resolve. Evaluate need to expand to other systems.

AJ i:\\ common \\lxm\\valswbr.kcw

r November 9,1994 9:03 am m

PROJECT lD#.4.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Plant Configuration Verification (2 of 2)

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

E. M. Mace DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The DSAT team identified many examples of recently identified valve and switch mispositionings. They also identified that many valve lineup sheets had known deficiencies.

OBJECTIVE:

Perform valve, switch, breaker, and damper lineup walkdowns and initiate corrective i

actions for discrepancies.

ACTION:

2.0 Plant Configuration Verification 2.1.

Operations Department to perform valve, switch, breaker, and damper lineup l

walkdown, and initiate corrective action for discrepancies.

2.2.

NED to perform review of past Design Changes against existing valve lists.

3 2.3.

Review NED results and submit to Operations Department.

2.4.

Operations Department field verify conditions.

2.5.

Operations Department generate TPCNs for affected procedures.

2.6.

Operations Department perform valve position verification of TPCNs i

(verification of changes only).

i i

I h

i:\\ Common \\lXm\\plCOnfV1.kCW j

(

lh i

Configuration Verif. -ID# 4.1 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Desx;n Venfication y

y 2

1.1 ID. expected RHR posnions valve and SBGT vat <e s 3

12 Revew RHR Loop B and SGTS elem. diagra 4

1.3 Compare the normal standby valve postions for RHR 5

1.4 Screen and resolve for any ID startup issues mumuga 6

2 Plant Configuration Venfication 7

2.1 Operations department to perform vatve switch break 8

2.2 NED perform review of past design changes against 9

2.3 Submit review to OPS 10 2.4 Operations department field verify condition l

11 2.5 TPCNs

[

12 2.6 Verify TPCNs l

November 8,1994 e

l

?

1 e

November 9,1994 9:03 am

~

PROJECT ID# 4.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Identify and Review Priority Vendor Manuals PROGRAMIPROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

R. L. Gardner/K. C. Walden ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

R. Foust DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

DSAT noted a concern with the backlog of safety-related vendor manuals that have not been reviewed to identify PM requirements for associated components.

OBJECTIVES:

1.

Determine if the backlogged safety-related vendor manuals / vendor manual changes and certain non-safety related vendor manuals / vendor manual changes have recommended PMs that should be addressed prior to startup. Process PMs for implementation as necessary.

g 2.

Determine if backlogged safety-related vendor manual changes and certain non-safety related vendor manual changes contain vendor information that could impact startup or sustained plant operations.

ACTION:

1.

For backlogged safety-related vendor manuals and certain non-safety related vendor manuals: Determine if vendor-recommended PMs should be implemented for associated components not currently in the PM program.

2.

For backlogged safety-related vendor manual changes and certain non-safety related vendor manual changes: Determine if vendor information contained in the change could impact startup or sustained plant operations.

a.

Review change for potential operations, engineering, preventative maintenance or personal safety concerns.

b.

Determine impact of backlogged changes on maintenance procedure upgrade project.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\ptvenman.kcw

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 4.2 e

c.

Determine if backlogged Design Change closecuts contain bendor information not yet identified.

3.

Resolve any identified startup-sustained operations concems. Document discrepancies and prepare final report.

m 9

O 4

C v

i:\\ common \\lxm\\prvenman.kcw

(.

th

')

Vendor Manuals -ID# 4.2 September l

October l

Neverrber 10 Task.

9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11!6 l 11/13 1

1 Ident:fy vendor-recommended PMs that are not currently in t 2

2 Determine of your vendor updates should be implemented in 3

3 Process PMs identifHx! for implementation or approved devi M

p 4

November e,1994 e

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 4.3 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

NED review of procedures and DCNs to ensure Configuration Control.

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

G. S. McClure DESCRIPTION OF lSSUE:

Configuration Control is not effectively maintained. Contributing factors are the need for greater involvement of NED in specific procedure changes that may affect design and the changing of drawings without adequate justification as to the effect on design. The specific concerns are the lack of positive control of:

1.

valve / power supply line-ups that may be due to Procedure changes 2.

operating conditions / parameters that may be due to Procedure changes W

W 3.

drawing changes made independent of the design change process.

OBJECTIVE:

Provide mechanisms for assuring that changes to configurations reflect station design.

This includes strengthening review of drawing changes and specific procedures.

ACTION:

1.

Modify both CNS/NED DCN Procedures to require Engineering justification of reason for DCN, if not a Design Change.

2.

Provide a screening process that identifies when a Procedure change requires NED review to assure the change does not affect the design basis.

3.

Provide a screening process that identifies when an NED calculation requires a CNS review to assure the change does not affect plant operation.

4.

Provide training.

s i.\\ common \\lxm\\nedrev.kcw

(

fh..?

)

NED Review -ID# 4.3 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9-l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Modtfy CNS/NED DCN Procedures 2

2 PCN Screening Process

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

- - - - ~

3 3 Cate Screening Process 4

4 Training on CNS Procedures e

November 8,1994 -

=

,f J

November 9,'1994 9:b3 am PROJECT ID# 4.4

+

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:.

Efficient Resolution'of Design-Basis Questions and Safety Evaluations PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden ACTION PLAN MANAGER:.

W. L'. Swantz DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Provide for a near-term capability, e. g., through augmenting the DBD staff, to provide more efficient resolution of design-basis questions anc: improve the quality of safety evaluations submitted for SORC approval.

OBJECTIVE:

Provide a more efficient method of responding to design basis questions and identifying design basis information and upgrade the quality, detail and accuracy ol'10CFR50.59 k) evaluations before they are submitted M SORC for review and approval.

ACTION:

1.

Add additional senior engineering consultants to the Design Basis Group to focus

, specifically on responding to design basis questions and reviewing work from other groups to ensure that the design basis and requirements of 10CFR50.59 are met.

Focus will be on evaluations associated with current and_ future DCs, STPs and SPs

~

2.

Develop a simple one-page Design Basis Information Request Form, with instructions on the back.

3.

Develop a training session and guidance document on how to locate design basis information and distribute to appropriate technical staff.

4.

Conduct training for appropriate technical staff on how to locate design basis information.

5)

Solicit and evaluate formal feedback through discussion, and through a questionnaire distributed at the training session, on the Design Basis Information Request Form and explain its use.

[,

i:\\ common \\lxm\\dbqres.kcw

i November 9,1994 9:03 am -

PROJECT 1D# 4.4 p

6.

Conduct a review to confirm that recent assessments and inspections resulted in high confidence level of capturing past 10CFR50.59 evaluation deficiencies.

i I

{

I l

l l

l l $4 g

i:\\ common \\lxm\\dbqres.kcw

1. 3.

')

~i

(

DBD Resolution -ID# 4.4 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Hre 6 Consu' tant Engineers 2

2 Develop Desgn Basis information Form 3

3 Develop training on Design Basts

';;;;;3g 4

4 Conduct training for technical staff m

S 5 Feedback from Desgn Basis Info. Request Form o

6 6 Conduct review m

gwmemma m e. iss4

?

4 November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 4.5 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Surveillance Procedure Adequacy PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

E. M. Mace ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

D. W. Bremer DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Verify technical compliance of CSCS (ADS, CS, HPCI, LPCI), RPS, SBGT, Control Room HVAC, and RB HVAC surveillance procedures.

OBJECTIVE:

l Validate surveillance procedures CSCS, RPS, SBGT, Control Room HVAC, and RB HVAC. Validation to other systems if results suggest the need.

ACTION:

a Perform detailed review of selected surveillance procedures to verify testing is being conducted in accordance with CNS Technical Specifications, USAR, IST Program, and DCDs (as applicable). Perform review as follows:

1.

Perform detailed review of surveillance procedures, documents, and drawings for CSCS and RPS.

2.

Screen deficiencies or concerns noted during review of CSCS and RPS for startup

~

concerns. Track startup issues to closure.

3.

Review all deficiencies associated with the CSCS and RPS review to identify any potential operability issues. Screen and evaluate them for generic issues and take appropriate corrective action, including, if appropriate, accelerating the review of additional systems.

4.

Perform detailed review of surveillance procedures, documents, and drawings for SBGT, Control Room HVAC, and Reactor Building HVAC.

5.

Screen deficiencies or concerns noted during review of SBGT, Control Room HVAC, and Reactor Building HVAC for startup concerns. Track startup items to closure.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\survprad.kcw

)

I k

Surveillance Proc. ID# 4.5 September l

Odober l

November ID Tnk 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Detailed Revew of doc. and dwgs CSCS!RPS t

2 2 Resott:rion of concems startup identifed 3

3 Perform detaded review of SPS for SBGT control room HVA 4

4 Resolution of concems startup identified mgm i

l

[

l November 8,1994

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID#.4.6 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

SORC Approved MWRs and Subsequent Design Changes PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden ACTION ' PLAN MANAGER:

G. S. McClure DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

SORC approved MWRa are sometimes used to expedite the installation of a modification.

There have been two cases where the follow-up, formalized design change documented required changes to the original SORC approved MWR. Additionally, some of the design calculations were not prepared until the modification had been installed for over a year.

OBJECTIVE:

Provide added assurance that SORC approved MWRs used to implement modifications receive a higher level technical review to guard against design deficiencies or violation of design basis.

ACTION:

1.

Change 3.4 series CNS Engineering Procedures to eliminate SORC approved MWRs.

2.

Review the outstanding SORC-approved MWRs to assure there are no potential issues that would require additional modifications, changes or safety-significant

~

concerns.

i:\\ common \\txm\\soremwr.kew a

1

- ' ~

[

(h

.l

• :..f(

l SORC MYWts -IDS 4.6

~

i

.y september l

October l

Noveneer ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11Ali l 11/13 1

1 Elamnate SORC MWRs from Procedures M

i 2

2 Review outstanding SORC MWRs Plan Modif.

l l

l 1

e I

r 4.

0 l

9 I

w e. sea '

l 4

Nmember 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 4.7 o

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Inadequate Calculation Control Prior to implementation PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Design Control / Configuration Management SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

G. S. McClure/M. A. Hillstrom DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The current calculation process does not prevent the issuance of an approved calculation before its associated modification is installed in the plant. This can contribute to misunderstanding of " current" design.

OBJECTIVE:

Ensure calculations that are approved prior to the associated field modification / implementation are appropriately identified.

f?h ACTION:

1.

Develop and implement a process for identifying calculations that are approved and not implemented in the field.

2.

Approve PCN to Procedure 3.4.7 to include Installation StatJs of Calculations.

3.

Identify current calculations that have been approved, but are yet to be implemented, and revise revision status.

4.

Provide Training on changes made by above PCN.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\inadcalc.kcw

(

!lfp

-) f Inadequate Calc. -ID# 4.7 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 1 116 l 11/13 1

1 Process for Unwnpfemented Calcs 2

2 Develop PCN, proc. 3.41,insta!!ation of Cat.

;;;;;;;;;;;

;; ;- -;;g 3

3 Id current Unimplemented Cal. & adjust Revision 4

4 Provde training on changes made by PCN gg l

i I

e

. ~.

November 9.1994 9:03 am m

PROJECT ID# 4.8 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Multi-discipline Team System Reviews PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: DesignControl/ Configuration Management SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. W. Gausman DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The DSAT identified a number issues regarding the ability and resources in System Engineering to perform adequate reviews of systems. This multi-di.scipline review will provide a comprehensive check of the reviews that have been performed for the various programs (OERs, MWRs, CRs, etc). Reviews will also ensure systems satisfy USAR and.

Technical Specifications requirements. From these reviews, recommendations will be made to upgrade the system checklist and to outline a multi-discipline approach for reviewing system readiness in the future.

, r, OBJECTIVE:

Complete a multi-discipline review of the open items and conduct walkdowns essential systems. Revise system checklist for walkdowns and conduct multi-discipline reviews of

]

all critical systems prior to startup. Take corrective action for conditions as required before startup.

ACTION:

1.

Perform Pilot Multi-Discipline system reviews for the RHR and SBGT systems.

1.1 Identify scope of review for multi-discipline team, develop schedule for completion.

1.2 Complete documentation reviews.

1.3 Complete system walkdowns.

1.4 Document results.

2.

Based on Pilot Multi-Discipline system review results, identify changes needed for the system checklist and incorporate changes.

-s i \\ common \\lxm\\multrev.scw

-~

_.-..r

^

k t

November 9,1994 9 03 am l

W PROJECT ID#.4.8 6

i 3.

Revisit the RHR and SBGT multi-discipline review previously completed to ensure' systems satisfy USAR and Technical Specifications requirements.

4.

Develop schedule and complete system multi-discipline ' reviews for the DG, SW,'

REC, and CS systems to support Operations & Maintenance with divisional transfers.

5.

Based on system review results in support of divisional _ transfers, identify and-incorporate any additional changes needed for system checklist and incorporate changes.

l 6.

Identify remaining system review scope based on the CNS Probabilistic Risk Assessment _ Study.

7.

Develop schedule and complete system multi-discipline reviews of remaining critical l

systems prior to startup based on revised review checklist.

8.

Provide recommendations.to upgrade the system checklist and outline a multi-discipline approach for reviewing system readiness in the future, r

r t

c r

h i:\\ common \\lxm\\multrev.scw i

+

y

{

l 11 ll,lll!!il ll!Il!

)i i

=

4 r

e b

3 g

1 m

/

1 e

g v

1

)

o N

l g_

s t

i g_ 4 j

0 p

3

/

l 0

1 l

r 3

p 2

/0 1

4 l

6 1

/

r 0

e 1

bo t

l c

O 9

/0 1

l 2

/0 1

l 8

l S

5 g

4 l

2:

D l

/9 I

s l

se 8

n 1

%9 i

/

d 9

'.i a

h-l eR m

1 1

e l

S l M[ -;

/9 l

ts y

f f'

4 m

/9 s

me tsys lac it ir t

c S

is s

C l

f s

k D,

k o

tis c

s l

e w

w c

R h

ie e

c ie C,

r v

h v

o e

le r

n C

e W

f r

u w

m s

e S.

d n

o g

w in e

lp e

o d

e t

s h

it la y

k s

E n

e ic w

c a

n w

S T

E a

iv ie s

t h

e is G

s c

t v

d e

s o

e s

i ls r

d i

B w

e n

m m

l t

t u

e i

S ie t

s v

a m

lt k

u n

R a

t c

u e

e c

s e

s d

e o

m h

e e

r n

p o

y R

e n

r h

o d

s g

a p

ts c

n m

r y

e p

c t

i s

e e

n o

s m

m a

R e

c la s

t c

t t

e e

e h

H t

e t

s y

lp lp n

m c

s i

c.

y s

i f

P y

D it u

e s

d er s

n m

m c

t e

n t

s y

it d

r t

t y

y e

d e

o o

o a

h e

a c

e luM I

C C

D t

e o

e 1

2 3

4 p

it k lo 1

1 1

1 o

is lp i

f lp a

f i

r t

t r

t c

a m

n n

m g

o e

e o

p s

i n

h C

Id I

C U

P I

d a

(

T 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

D 0

1 2

I 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 1

1

?

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 5.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Improve NED Site Support during Startup and Power Ascension (S/PA)

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Engineering Support SPONSOR:

K. C. Walden ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

S. McClure, R. Wenzi DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Improve NED support and station interfaces to assure timely resolution of operating problems.

• Clarify the interface agreement.

• Augment on-site NED to support start-up & power ascension OBJECTIVE:

9 Conduct coordinated review of the NED/CNS Engineering functions and interfaces related to startup and power ascension, and develop an upgraded interface agreement better defining work function and responsibilities Provide augmented NED on-site support for CNS startup and power ascension activities.

ACTION:

1.

Conduct NED/CNS Engineering Managers Meetings to review current work activities j

and identify Engineering responsibilities and areas.

2.

Develop an integrated Engineering Plan showing all startup related activities through the end of the year. The Plan will include a schedule for design changes, startup plant items, NRC commitments, major CRs, major Training Sessions, SEO commitments and design criteria document production.

3.

Identification of Plant Temporary Modifications that should be: 1) removed, 2) converted to a Temporary Design Change or made permanent by a Design Change.

4.

Evaluate backlog of Engineering Work Request by the WPMC Sub-Committee to determine if there are any modifications that need to be implemented prior to i:\\ common \\lxm\\impnedss.jel

' ;.! L

~.

November 9,1994 9:03 am p

PROJECT ID# S.1

-s startup.

5.

Select a team of NECD ~ engineers to be placed on site during the preparation for startup phase. This is to include two safety evaluation consultants to review 50.59s, t

OEs, etc. prior to being submitted to SORC.

6.

Select an NECD startup and power ascension team to be'placed on site during -

actual plant startup to help resolve problems encountered during~startup.

$h v/

i:\\ common \\lxm\\impnedss.jel v

r e

b 3

1 m

/

e 1

v 1

)

oN l

6

/

1 1

l S:

f 0

4:

3/0 l

1 l

3 s g 2

gt

/

g q 0

X 1

f_

f l

f 6

f

. 4

f f

f 1/

r 0

e 1

b o

t l

cO 9

/0 1

l 2

/0 1

1 l

5 l

g 5

2 D

/9 I

4 t

l 9

r 9

o 1,

p 8

8 v$

1 p

r

/

e u

9 en S

r e

i e

v e

b l

o it m

N e

S 1

tp 1/

D e

9 S

EN l

4

/9 e

s tseu D

s q

d e

E n

o R

N a

s l

M g

P k

m e

n y

r z

a il o

r W

T b

e i

it g

a e

n ro o

e E

r M

p g

e n

n r

d m

i T

iz e

e ig

/

r e

e e

t c

a T

e a

g n

in D

n r

f t

g C

a re e

g k

t t

la n

E r

s n

n a

I I

P E

N O

(

T 1

2 3

4 5

6 D

I 1

2 3

4 5

6

November 9,1994 9:03 am

.9 PROJECT ID#-5.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

OD/OE Review.

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Engineering Support SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

C. R. Moeller OBJECTIVE:

Review ODs and OEs for degraded and nonconforming conditions that currently exist and assess startup significance.

ACTION:

1.

Obtain listing of all ODs and OEs approved to date.

2.

Determine status of documented condition.

. d>

1. J 2.1 Cross reference each OD/OE to a CAP document or MWR.

2.2 Review status of CAP document or MWR to determine if documented condition has been resolved.

3.

. Review adequacy of "open" ODs/OEs for startup.

3.1 Adequacy review will be by CNS Engineering or NED, depending on which organization supported the original OD/OE.

3.2 Validate results.

4.

Evaluate "open" ODs/OEs for cumulative impact.

5.

Develop methodology to maintain Control Room current with OD/OE status.

v i:\\ common \\lxm\\od&oervw.jel

re 1

m b

3 1

m

/

e 1

)

v 1

N l

m o

6

/

1 1

w l

m m

03

/

l 0 1

l w

l w

32

/0 1

6 1

/

r 0

e 1

o t

l M

I o

b cO 9

/0 1

l 2

/0 j

1 l

2 l

d 5

52/

9 D

I l

w e

8 9 1, 1

i

/

v 9

t e

r R

e l

b E

m O

e t

1 I

p 1

D e

9

/

S O

l

j l

4 g

/

9

. j e

E s

O tn

/

e t

D n

O m

e f

u m

a co u

n d

c ig o

p d

iro ac p

f a

o t

e c

t o

c t

y a

a f

c s

p d

e o

a m

p e

lt s

u u

r tu q

s i

u ne e

o a

y e

e v

t s

e t

c d

R it d

u f

s t

e a

a w

u w

t la o

e a

r u

h g

t q

a n

s s

e i

s e

i d

m t

e e

t e

o iv d

v h

u m

s n

r e

a e

a c

E i

C R

R V

te p

n rm w

leo ia te i

3 3

la v

1 2

e 1

2 u

t 2

2 v

k b

e e

v e

s O D

R E

D

(

a T 1 2

3 4

5 D

i 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

w November 9,1994 9:03 am

^

PROJECT ID# 6.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Pre-Conditioning CATEGORY:

Plant Testing SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. Peaslee

+

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

NRC identified preventive and corrective maintenance which would preclude discovery of degraded conditions through scheduled testing. DSAT found insufficient guidance for evaluating potential preconditioning cases to determine whether system functionality concerns potentially exist due to past practices.

OBJECTIVE:

Complete resolution of the CAL pre-conditioning issues.

ACTION:

9M; 1.-

Identify and revise station procedures which direct possible pre-conditioning of components:

2.

Review and integrate surveillance and PM schedules as necessary to ensure potential preconditioning concerns due to scheduling of activities is precluded. This i

, should be done by performing the following:

2.1 Surveillance Coordinator (J. Peaslee) and Maintenance Planner / Scheduler (R.

1 Alexander) jointly devise an interim plan for controlling performance of SPs.

and PMs to preclude preconditioning.

2.2 Activate interim plan.

2.3 Communicate requirements / limitations of interim plan to affected personnel and Management.

3.

Include in GOT Training (Initial /Requal).

i;\\ common \\lxm\\pinttest.scw

(

,3;

-}

c p

Plant Testing -ID# 6.1 September l

October l

N0verrber ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1 Ident@/ Revise Procedures l

2 2 Revew & integrate Schedules y

y 3

2.1 Devise intenm plan for controlling performance of SP 4

2.2 Activate interim plan

• ,* *

  *f.;.;;*JJ.;;~fJ * *JJJ.;_*.;;;?ff;fJ. '.1;;;M$2 5

2.3 Requirements &nitations of plan affecting personnel

jgg 6

3 include in GOT Training (Initial /Rega!).

l l

I Nwomber 8,1994 e

-4.

e November 9.1994 11:42 am PROJECT ID# 6.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

IST and Surveillance Testing PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Plant Testing SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER: J. Gausman/M. Spencer DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Incomplete IST and Surveillance Testing program scope or inappropriate testing methods.

OBJECTIVES:

1.

Verify IST program scope and testing adequacy by constructing the basis for component IST requirements and identifying discrepancies. Resolve discrepancies as necessary.

2.

Conduct an evaluation of [ types and numbers of] surveillance tests performed to determine program adequacy.

ACTION:

1.

IST -

1.1 Complete development o't ASME Section XI testing and inspection boundary identification and basis.

1.2 Accelerate review of sys?em components for testing requirements and development of testing basis which was previously scheduled as part of the third interval IST program update.

1.3 Compare existing IST Program to the program basis requirements to identify discrepancies.

1.4 Evaluate identified discrepancies to determine startup concerns.

i:/ common /lxm/ist&surv.scw l

l

p

.v i:

. November 9,1994 11:42 am

. m PROJECT 10# 6.2

- 2.

Surveillance -

2.1.

Obtain a list of surveillance procedures for selected safety systems from two other BWRs.

2.2.

Compare the listing with CNS surveillance procedures for selected safety systems to identify if the number and types of tests performed at CNS appbar to be appropriate.

3.

Document review performance. Initiate corrective action for any items of concern noted during the review.

4

/

e 6

f 9

J i:/ common /lxm/ist&surv.scw i

q

)

ISTISury. Testing -lD# 6.2 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 l 11/13 1

1iST

______smm..____.

..__m._____._ _ _ _ _

2 1.1 Complete development of ASME Section XI testing b

- ;;;;.-- f;;;ff;;. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

3 1.2 Accelerate review of system components for testing r

- 2;$$$$AMcm%%sNNA%3 4

1.3 Compare existing IST Program to basis requirements 5

1.4 Evaluate ident6ed discrepancies to determine startup g

e 6

2 Surveillance y

y 7

2.1 Obtaining listing 8

2.2 Compare listing CNS surveil proce.tD if # & types of t 9

3 Document revew performance 9

Nevernbar 8,1994

h

')

c r

2 a

1 M

/3 l

5

/3 l

62f j 2 l

9 1

/2 l

y ra 2

1 u

/

rb 2

e F

l 5

/2 l

9 2

l 2/

1 6

1. D l

I 22 4

/

g 9

1 9

n 1

)

i j

s l

e t

a.

f e

T.

5 y

1 yr a

1 r

/

u u

ir S

a l

/

J TS 8

I

/

1 l

1

/

1 52

/2 1

l 8

1

/2 1

re b

l me 1

c 1

e

/

D 2

1 l

4

/2 s

1 e

l r

7 l

2 i

/

1 1

s

(

l u

1 m

02

/

s 1

s s

,~

-+

l

~

i

' November 9,1994 10:04 am

[

^

PROJECT ID# 6.3 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Cycle Extension r

PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:-

Plant Testing SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. W. Gausman 4

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

'l r

Verify all items affecting the extension of the current operating cycle have been identified, =

reviewed, and the resulting actions determined.

OBJECTIVE:

Conduct an in-depth review of PMs, programs, NRC commitments, projects, surveillances, operability evaluations and other items which potentially affect extending the current 4

operating cycle to the. fall of 1995. From this review, determine which items are acceptable for performance during a fall 1995 refueling outage and those items which must be performed during the current forced outage in order to extend the operating cycle.

ACTION:

1.

Identify 18-month frequency Tech Spec surveillances and incorporate into forced shutdown 94-03 schedule.

4

2..ldentify and review once-per-cycle related Tech Spec surveillances and determine acceptability of performance during a fall 1995 refueling outage.

3.

Review projects scheduled for spring 1995 implementation and determine acceptability' of fall 1995 implementation.

4.

Review design changes scheduled for spring 1995 implementation and actions relating to NED-assigned programs to determine acceptability of fall 1995 implementation.

5.

Review PMs and actions relating to site engineering-assigned programs to determine acceptability of fall 1995 implementation.

s i:\\ common \\lxm\\strtupex.sjj

=

i November 9,1994 10:04 am

^

PROJECT ID# 6.3 6.

Incorporate items into forced shutdown 94-03 schedule which must be performed in order to extend the current operating cycle.

7.

Evaluate effects on fuel cycle due to cycle extension.

8.

Develop cycle extension letter and Tech Spec. changes for submittal to the NRC.

Q

s. ' '

l 1:\\ common \\lxm\\strtupex.sjj i

1

(

ih!

. ).

Cycle Extension ID # 6.3 l

September l

October l

10 Task 8/28 l 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 1

1 IdentJy 18 month frequency Tech Spec f

2 2 ident fy once-per-cycle Tech Spec survedlances

- gggggg 3

3 Rev:ew projects for spnng 1995 4

4 Revew desgn changes scheduled for spnng 1995

-- -- --- ------ y - ;;

5 5 Revew PMs and programs M MW'hMWM d

l 6

6 incorporate stems into forced shutdown 94-03 l--

- -- ___ m m m W X W RE MM ANN 7

7 Evaluate effects on fuel cycle l_-

~ -

wps&'sss 8

8 Develop cycle extension letter MY6cMSR94MRRAN l

i i

l l

l l

November 8,1994 i

s b

b n

E n ne E

en N

D n

e M

.O m

C D C i

o s

c

.34 g

4 d

c-e Q

E.

u

=

M*

s w

d

=

L'3 0

5 A

=

N,-

g O

U; s._

h.

M N

$p.$ $

u

l November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID#.7.1 i

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Open OERs PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Operational Experience Review SPONSOR:

R.'G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

C. Gaines OBJECTIVE:

Evaluate current open OERs for startup significance.

ACTION:

1.

Obtain listing of OER documents received subsequent to previous Stone & Webster review.

2.

Upgrade previous review methodology to reflect current task.

3.

Complete initial screen for possible startup significance.

3.1 Level 1 and 2 screening to be done by Stone & Webster.

4.

Disposition potential startup issues identified by initial screen.

4.1 OERs identified by Stone & Webster will be directed to the appropriate line organization for further evaluation. This review effort will be coordinated by the Technical Staff.

5.

Establish the operation experience review group for CNs.

5.1 Survey industry to determine appropriate staffing level for an effective OER.

5.2 Acquire management approval for additional staffing.

5.3 Develop position descriptions and post positions.

5.4 Interview / hire candidates for the permanent OER staff, i:\\ common \\lxm\\strtupex.sjj w

1 i

s 5

/

1 1

)

l 0

3

/

0

_L '

L l

1

- j l

m "

m "

3 2

m 0

m "

/

l

m. ""

1

.m 6

1

/

r 0

m "

e 1

t l

bo c

O 9

m

/0 m

1 l

m m

2

/

0 m

1 m

m l

l 5

m

~

2

/9 1

~

7 l

m 8

D 1

I

/9

- ~.

r s

e

~

w b

l 4

e m

99 1

e i

1 m

~.

4 v

p 1

t r

(1 e

e 9

/

a R

S e

~.

b rn e

c l

w o

N n

,m"

.~.

e 4

i

/

r 9

e p

xE l

8 l

2

/8 e

s eus is pu t

w ra e

y n

t t

v g

e s

e o

e sa r

r R

lo c

t e

d s

n c

o e

n h

ia to e

g e

ia p

t n

n n

e i

m i

n p

t h

e s

x x

h t

it is e

E n

lb

p o

i s

la tb t

m p

a a

n s

o s

o 0

E c

D i

ita 1

2 3

4-re 1

1 t

1 k

p s O a

T 1

D I

1 2

3 4

5

e 5

)-

/

3 l

62

/

l 2 l

9 1

/2 l

y ra 2

1 u

/

u 2

te F

l 5

/2 l

92 l

/

1 l

1 2

7 2

/

1 D

I l

s 5

y 1

w r

/

e a

1 u

iv na e

J l

}..

R e

8

/

c 1

ne i

l rep 1

x

/

E 1

52 2'

1 l

8 e

1/2 1

re b

l me 1

c 1

e /

D 2 1

l 4

/2 1

l l 7 2

/

1 1

l 02

/

1 1

d 4

S l

?.

5 9

5 re 3

b 3 4

M h

R 1

m M

/

5 e 1 5

v 1 m

W o

6 L

i b

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 7.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Startup Experience Following Extended Outages PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Operational Experience Review SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

C. R. Moeller OBJECTIVE:

Conduct special operating experience search for startup issues following long shutdown and take action as necessary to incorporate lessons learned.

ACTION:

1.

Conduct search for industry lessons learned.

2.

Obtain listing of CAP documents generated during CNS startups.

2.1 Identify startup dates from extended outages (i.e., greater than 30 days) for last ten years.

2.2 Identify CAP documents generated one week prior to two weeks following startup date.

3.

Interview selected CNS personnel for input.

4.

Assess INPO, CAP, and interview input for significant startup issues following long shutdown. Assessment to be conducted with at least one individual with SRO background.

5.

Develop and schedule training and/or simulator scenarios to emphasis lessons learned.

k 6.

Develop i,chedule to address non-training issues.

7.

Present training.

8.

Resolve non-training issues.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\strtupex.sjj

L.y s

r, I

November 9,1994 9:03 'am.-

PROJECT IDF7.2

, 9.

Maintenance -

Operations

^

Engineering Radiological 9.

Schedule field activities to implement recommended actions.

10. Finalize PCNs to implement recommended actions.

i

11. Prepare report.

i i

,.s, l

?

i 4

i:\\ common \\lxm\\strtupex.sjj b

4 7

9 w-

-v, y

rvv 1

--, -, -.--.--,-+------

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

L.)

)

v Special CER Secrch -ID#7.2 j

September l

October l

ID Task 8/28 l 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 1G/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/6 1

1 Conduct Search l

2 2 Identify CAP Documents

[

3 3 Interview CNS Personne!

'f;fllll 4

4 Assess input M

5 5 Develop and schedule training f;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.

6 6 Develop Schedule for Non-Training issues 7

7 Present Training 7g; -

Aoosaggm 8

8 Resolve Maintenance issues

J.*ff.':J;fffff 'ffi f ff f ' ';:ffff.;;'f.*f.:f 1:.:J.*ff ffff *Jf3:4:RsR4;4 MM 9

9 ResoNe Operations issues

-:-xca-dodas&;tst;8&qR to 10 Resolve Engineering issues JJ'f,JJffff: JJf';'

''f ff 'ff 'f ':':f :J "'ffff :f.:f :'f JJ fJfJ. M lRRR4 11 11 Resolve Radiologicalissues 12 12 Schedule Field Activities 5:RRRRR 13 13 Finalize PCNs

. 9m$0tRRRR 14 14 Prepare Report it5555555tRRR5555tN November 8,1994 i

I 4

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 7.3 3

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN i

ISSUE:

Reactor Vessel Thermal Transient PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Operational Experience Review SPONSOR:

. R. E. Wilbur ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

W. L. Swantz DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Resolve the reactor vessel thermal transient issue.

OBJECTIVE:

Review reactor vessel and attached piping thermal transients and determine that the thermal fatigue limits have not been exceeded. Ensure that an adequate margin for further operation exists.

ACTION:

1.

Contacted Roger Reedy concerning code requirements on fatigue. Mr. Reedy stated i

that no Code Requirements had been violated. 9/16 2.

All Fatigue Analyses for Class IN Piping have been reviewed. All piping has edequate margins to allow for the number of transients, which Cooper has experienced with the possible exception of the RF piping. 9/16 3.

hhe Civil / Structural Group has performed a preliminary review of the RF Piping Fatigue Analysis. Based on this review, they feel that if the existing conservatism in the analysis were to be removed, that the RF piping could be shown to have a Usage Factor < 1.0 based on the number of transients, which Cooper has experienced with '

adequate margin to spare. 9/16 4.

Neil Watts of Advent Engineering Services reviewed the CNS RF Piping Fatigue Analysis to help identify possible conservatism in the analysis. Mr. Watts will assist the NED Civil / Structural Group in re-evaluating the RF piping to show that there is still adequate margin in the RF piping, as well as the other IN piping. 9/16 5.

NED is evaluating the CRD Mechanism Nozzle fatigue based on the thermal cycles observed to date. 9/16 i:\\ common \\lxm\\reacvess.sjj v

^-

s

f. -

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 7.3 p.

6.

Revise OE 94-000-050 to limit scope of discussion to_ technical evaluation. Remove section on long-term operability. Add discussion on long-term reporting requirements.

of T.S. Sect. 6.4., this will remove CR 94-0599 resolution from the startup issues list.

7.

Vectra'to incorporate the results of NEDC 94-208 into the attachments of the Operability Evaluation.-

8.

Add paragraph which deals with the impact of the Dec. 14,1993, stratification event on CRD nozzles. Also mention that these nozzles should be considered a limiting component in vessel fatigue summary.

9.

Final version of OE 94-000-050 will be prepared, checked and approved at GO on 10/10/94.

A CONCLUSION:

The long-term action plan for CR 94-599 will require and define the plan for monitoring and documentation of actual thermal cycles to ensure future operability of the primary system pressure boundary (require resolution prior to Cycle 17 startup). OE'will be SORC approved on 10/12/94. No interim actions needed prior to startup. -

m.

m i

r k

'[

i:\\ common \\lxm\\reacvess.sjj d

,7 p--

,,---e.,

m

(l2

)

s.

Vessel Thermal Transient Issue - lD#7.3 J

l September l

October l

_ iD Task 8/21 l 8/28 l 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 1

1 Determine code conceming vessel fatque 2

2 Reverw fatigue analysis for class 1N piping

- " " " " - " ' - - " " " " = = = - -

i 3

3 NPPD Cml/ Structural Group to revew fatque analysis e

4 4 Per'orm analysis to identify possible conservatism in possibt i

5 5 Evaluate CRO mechanism nozel fatque based on the therm l

6 6 Revise OE 94-000-050 to limit scope of discussion to techni i

7 7 incorporate the results of NEDC 94-208 into the attachment I

6 8

8 Add paragraph which deals with the impact of the Dec.14,1 9

9 FinalVersion of OE 94-000-050 Neemtw 8,1994

J :

November 9,1994 9:03 am 4

PROJECT ID# 8.1 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Develop procedure hierarchy to identify controlling procedures PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Procedure Control SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones

~

ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

C. R. Moeller DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

There is no management position on which procedures take precedence over others.

OBJECTIVE:

Identify all procedures which control and take precedence over other procedures. Screen lower level procedures for compliance with controlling ~ procedures.

ACTION:

~.

1.

Develop list of controlling procedures utilizing procedure hierarchy process used at another utility (Nine Mile).

2.

Promulgate procedure hierarchy guidance and procedure list to NPG Managers and S.upervisors.

3.

SRG provide interim screen for procedure revisions to ensure compliance with controlling procedures.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\dbqres.kcw

02/

1 1

)

l r

9 G

3 8

1 n

/

Sh U

1 e.

1 c

R N

l 53

$S 6

S 5$

/

1 1

l M

03

/0 l

1 l

l 3

2

/0 1

l 6

1

/

r 0

e 1

bo t

l c

O 9

/0 1

l 1

8 2

/

0 D

1

[

I l

9 y

l 4

9 h

5 1,

c 2

8 re r

/

),

a 9

b ie l

M r

mev t

H o

N 8

c 1/

o S

rP re b

l me 1

tp 1

/

e 9

S 4

s roisv re pu S

se ru s

d r

e e

c g

o a

r n

P a

g M

n o

h t

g to e

inn r

t c

n n

e o

a e

C iu s

d rc fo g

s e

m t

h a

i t

re o

lg t

p u

i n

le m

G v

o R

k e

r s D P

S a

T 1

2 3

0 1

1 2

3 li I

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 8.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Special Instructions PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Procedural Control SPONSOR:

J. T. Herron ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

R. L. Gardner DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Numerous problems have been experienced with the use of Special Instructions at CNS.

Among these problems have been the absence of SORC approval, technical and procedural inadequacy of the instructions, and absence of adequate validation and walk-down of the instructions prior to their use. These deficiencies have resulted in a range of problems, from inadequate control of work to tripping or initiation of Engineered Safeguard Systems.

OBJECTIVE:

Develop procedural controls and methods that ensure work performed using Special Instructions is performed at a quality and safety level consistent with that of existing SORC approved procedures.

ACTION:

1.

Ensure that all Special Instructions used on work that could have an effect on nuclear safety are reviewed and approved by the SORC.

2.

Ensure that Special Instructions are not used to isolate work boundaries for personnel protection. This must remain within the exclusive authority of the Plant Clearance Order process.

(3)

Validate and walk-down Special Instructions prior to SORC review.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\specinst emm s

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 8.3 r.

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Screen backlog of procedure changes for start-up items.

PROGRAMIPROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Procedural Control SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER: C. R. Moeller DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

There are ~ 400 procedures currently in the change process; ensure screening applied to these changes remain valid.

OBJECTIVE:

Identify all in-process procedure changes requiring approval prior to start-up or early in start-up sequence and ensure entry into tracking system.

ACTION:

,. y 1.

Develop checklist of start-up related issues for screen.

2.

Incorporate checklist into screen performed on future in-coming procedure changes.

3.

. Apply screen to assess validity of assigned priority.

4.

Develop implementation schedule for start-up related procedures.

5.

Implement procedure changes for startup.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\bkigprch.emm

re b

3 1

m

/

e 1

v 1

o

)

N l

6 1

1 l

03

/

l 0

1 l

3 2

/0 1

l 6

1

/

r 0

e 1

b o

t l

1 c

O 9

1

/0 1

l 2

/0 1

3 l

8 l

l 5

D 2

/

I 9

4 g

9 o

l

~

9 1,

lk 8

8 c

r 1

e a

/

b

)

B m

9 r

ev e

o g

b l

N n

m P

l Mf M h

e f,

t 1

f C

p 1

f

/

e 9

l c

S l

o f

r f

ffff 4

f

/9 f

sN g

C n

P le i

u r

e d

o d

s e

ru N

h n

u C

c o

t s

m t

f s

P l

r n

e t

o t

k f

n o

c t

i c

e t

n e

s r

ta a

r h

h u

n m

c k

c e

r c

n e

o m

d o

f e

r e

h t

e v

e e

c n

lp o

p rc e

e r

e m

p t

S ta r

i p

ne p

r c

p A

o o

s o

m p

s le r

lp v

y le e

v o

N lp k

e c

p e

C m

s n

D i

A D

P I

a T

1 2

3 4

5 6

D I

1 2

3 4

6 l

ll llll t,

r -:

November 9,1994 9:03 am r.

PROJECT ID#.8.4 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

ADAM Changes PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Procedural Control SPONSOR:

J. W. Dutton ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

N/A DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Resolution of the impact of EPA-400 methodology on the atmospheric dispersion assessment model (ADAM).

OBJECTIVE:

Purge ADAM (class "B" model, as defined in NUREG 0654) of all reference to dose, dose rate and any use there of for determination of PARS.

ACTION:

1.

Complete ADAM code changes.

2.

Revise ADAM section in EPIP 5.7.17.

3.

. Complete EAL revisions in EPIP 5.7.1.

4.

Emergency Plan change submitted for SORC Review / Approval.

5.

Emergency Plan Change submitted for SRAB Review / Approval.

6.

Complete NRC submittal of Emergency Plan Change.

7.

Emergency Plan printed and distributed.

8.

Complete training for Dose Assessment personnel.

i:\\ common \\txm\\adamchng.emm

)

i

.f

.)

ADAM Chestges -lD# 8.4 September l

October l

November ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 j 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 114 l 11/13 1

1 ADAM Code changes ffffff.

2 2 EPtP 5.7.1 Revise ADAM section f 7"::

3 3 EPIP 5.7.1 EAL revisions lffffffffff; 4

4 Emergency Plan Change-SORC Review /Appr

sy

ssss 5

5 Emergency Plan Change-SRAB Review /Appt Kw- _ - -- +----

6 6 Emergency Plan Change-NRC submittal M

t 7

7 Emergency Plan Change-Emerg Plan print & dist m g-e- e:e 8

8 Training for Dose Assessment personnel e - s f_-,--_---___--_2, - -____-,t y

_-_--2 i

Nmember 8.1994

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 8.5 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Surveillance Testing Program Controls are Inadequate PROGRAMIPROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Procedural Control SPONSOR:

R. L. Gardner/E. M. Mace l

ACTION PLAN MANAGER: E. M. Mace DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

l l

Administrative controls for scheduling, operability, authorizing and controlling the f

performance of surveillance testing is not consistent with guidelines of GL 91-18.

l OBJECTIVE:

l 1

Provide administrative controls for allowed out-of-service times for Technical Specification j

l instrument surveillances and implement additional administrative guidance to ensure l

consistency with the guidelines of Generic Letter (GL) 91-18 with respect to operability

)

during testing.

ACTION:

1.

Accelerate and complete development of the upgraded scheduling program that will control divisional surveillance test schedule.

2.

Revise Procedure 0.26 to implement administratively controlled out-of-service times for Technical Specification instrument surveillances and provide additional guidance with respect to operability during testing, 3.

Conduct training on Procedure 0.26 Revision 13.

l l

l l

i:\\ common \\lxm\\srvticos.emm

a

s y

rauna J

~

re b

me ceD l

re b

m e

v o

N i

m;;;

re bo tcO g

m 5

ime 8

tp S

e D

S I

49 s

9 e %

1, O

te 0 0

0 8

C lp 4 3

.)

L m

t o

s C

e T.y ru i

y t

S ubs p

lm e

m n

o le lo o

s H.

H.

s a

e e

R C P

C e

leu d

n h

io e

S is c

veR tse 6

6 T

2 o

2 la 0

0 n

n e

o o

r is u

i d

i v

c D

s e

e o

t r

n s

P e

e r

e m

p is lp in e

v a

k e

m r

s R I

T a

T 1

2 3

i D

I 1

2 3

J 1j u

R

i November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 9.1 r.

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Resolve the lack of program ownership in the NPG PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Management SPONSOR:

R. G. Jones /R. L. Beilke ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

R. G. Jones DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Some NPG programs lack ownership. These programs need to be identified and procedures changed to clearly provide one owner who has the overall responsibility and authority to carry out that respective program. This issue must be resolved so that programs can be effectively managed and proper accountability assigned.

OBJECTIVE:

Establish effective ownership for programs which affect reactor safety.

ACTION:

1.

Determine which programs need ownership corrective action.

2.

Assign ownership responsibilities.

3.

Correct procedures as required.

4.

Counsel selected personnel assigned program ownership on responsibilities.

5.

Evaluate effectiveness of results.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\lackown.rlb

~

1'.

4

~

,/

m.

r e

3 tn 1/

a 1

~

v 1

o

-. ~., ~

N l

5M 1

1 l

03

/

l 0

1 l

32W 4

1 l

f l

6 1W w

1 to t

l co 9

/0 1

l 2

/0 1

1 l

9 I

S 5

D 2

I

/

0 9

p 49 h

l 9

i 1,

s 8

r 8

d e

O n

l m

1 n

W

~

.(

w re n

m a

1 i

a p

1 P

l g

r e W g

s g

o r

4 W

no itca ow s

tc e

e t

r h

r s

i o

ie ib c

i n

t s

g lH n

it o

id d

p s

n se e

o r

p i

s n

f o

s e

m r

s a

ip e

te r

n rg h

u n

s d

o o

r e

s r

p e

c r

s n

o e

lt e

w r

p u

n o

p ie es im n

c s

r t

g e

t i

e re r

r t

t is r

u d

k e

s o

o u

s D A

C C

A a

,I T

1 2

3 4

5 o

1 2

3 4

5 t

4 i

1 4

]

i i

l November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 9.2 PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Nuclear Safety Awareness PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Management SPONSOR:

E. M. Mace /R. L. Beilke ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. W. Dutton DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

The NPG has been ineffective in fostering and promoting a heightened sensitivity and awareness of Nuclear Safety.

OBJECTIVE:

Strengthen the NPG nuclear safety culture an' establish high standards of safe, reliable d

nuclear plant operation.

ACTION:

1.

Provide SORC, Managers, System Engineers, Design Engineers, and Supervisors with comprehensive Nuclear Safety Culture training.

2.

Develop Nuclear Safety Culture training for presentation to entire NPG.

3.

Senior Managers present Nuclear Safety Training to their reporting personnel.

4.

Conduct ongoing field observations and solicit feedback to determine effectiveness,

of training.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\nucsafe.rlb

-e.

4

/2 1

55 5

5

)-

l 55 7

55 l

2

/

3 l

w 1

1 02

/

1 g

1 p_

g l

r e

=

b 3

1 m

/

e 1

e v

1 e

S o

=

N l

p 6

g mo 9

/

1 1

g:=

g 5

l e

p 0

e 3

0

=

/

g l

1 9

5 l

m 3

2

/

p 0

1 I

c l m l

p 6

g g

m 2

=

1

/

9 r

0 e

1 b

g 4

D o

m 9

t 9

1 O

S 9

y

/

t 0

e i'..

a 1

f S.

l c

2 u

/0 N

1 l

l 5

2

/9 e

gn in ia g

r n

T in g

e n

r ia in u

r w

lt T

ia e

u e

rT w

C ru e

y t

tn R

t lu e

e C

s s

fa s

e S

y r

e t

r e

p ne a

f s

e a

r itc v

S e

lc g

u ra a

e N

f e

n f

a E

s lc e

u M

r tc g

N r

u a

o d

n G

n n

k a

P e

o s M N

S C

a T

1 2

3 4

(-

D I

1 2

3 4

, i t

i l

1

r 1

i November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 9.3 O

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN l

l ISSUE:

Management Observations - Field Coaching Team Plus Management Observations PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY:

Management i

SPONSOR:

R. L. Gardner/R. L. Beilke ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

J. V. Sayer l

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Management's involvement in the field is not sufficient to ensure work is maintained to high standards with respect to industrial safety, procedural adherence, and material conditions.

As such, basic concepts in the operation of a nuclear power facility are not being communicated to the work force, nor are they well understood or practiced at CNS.

OBJECTIVE:

Increase Management and Supervisory involvement in the field in order to:

1.

Assess station material conditions 2.

Assess compliance with established radiological and industrial safety work practices 3.

Assess compliance with station work documents 4.

Coach and mentor personnel in the field 5.

Re-enforce management's expectations and standards in the field 6.

Improve organization communication channels ACTION:

1.

Develop manager / supervisor field observation checklist which assists managers / supervisors in accomplishing the objectives listed above.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\mgmtobs.rlb m

,.=

November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 9.3 -

n J

2.

Develop standard manager / supervisor field observation schedule which specifies dates and blocks of time to conduct field observations. Include specific management issues to be reviewed with schedule.

3.

. Review with Field Coaching Team the objectives of the Start-up lasues Plan. The Field Coaching Team provides specific issues with regard to appropriate field knowledge of the Startup Issues Plan and manager / supervisor involvement in the field.

7'4 i:\\ common \\lxm\\mgmtobs.rlb m-s-

1--.4

. m

M 4

o_

M re b

3 1

m

/

E e

1 v

1 o

R

)

N l

R R

R R

6 R

/

R 1

R 1

5 5

5 l

U N

03 R

/

R l

0 RR 1

l N l

32

/0 1

t l

N 6

1

/

r 0

e 1

bo c

O 9

!0 1

l 2

/0 1

l l

t 5

3 2

/

9 9

1. D l

9 4

I 9

1, 8

8 s

1 r

b

/

e 9

b J

O m

~

r e

e vo t

b l

H m

m e

g t

1 p

1 M

e

/9 S

l 4

/9 e

ts li kc e

h ev C

it n

ce to ir i

D av y

g es ic n

b to ihc O

P a

p p

o le lo C

o e

d v

v l

k e

e ie s D D

F a

T 1

2 3

D 1

2 3

I l

l,

.~ -,

. ~. -.

u y

g.

b November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT 1D#.9.4 m.

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Industrial Safety PROGRAM / PROCESS -lSSUE CATEGORY:

Management SPONSOR:

E. M. Mace ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

H. T. Hitch DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Industrial safety practices in the station are considered a weakness. Management expectations regarding industrial safety are frequently ignored or otherwise not carried out by the employee population. Observations were sufficiently numerous to indicate that management is either not out in the plant observing or, if they are, are not regularly-enforcing expectations.

OBJECTIVE:

One of the major objectives of the District is to protect its employees and the public from accidents. Whenever economically possible, the District will eliminate hazards from employee work areas. However, where hazards cannot be economically removed, it becomes the responsibility of each supervisor and employee to recognize these hazards and deal with them in a manner that will prevent accidents.

4 ACTION:

1.

Provide industrial safety training to managers and supervisors.

2 CNS Directive 7 requires managers to monitor their areas of responsibility "no less '

{

than twice per week. In turn, department supervisors shall also be expected to j

implement a program which follows these same guidelines.

2.1 Field Observations will be conducted by Managers during monitoring activities to provide feedback on progress or weaknesses noted. (CNS Procedure jl 0.11, and proposed new CNS Procedure 0.11, Management Site inspection, Audit, and Field Observation Program.)

3.

The regular General Office Safety and Risk Management Department will provide 1

regular site assistance visits to strengthen the Industrial Safety Program and increase the industrial safety awareness level of CNS Managers and Supervisors.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\indsafe2.emm s.

. ~. -,

IJ) t

,J i

industrial Safety -ID# 9.4 september i

october

-l Nevereer

)

ID Task 9/4 l 9/11 l 9/18 l 9/25 l 10/2 l 10/9 l 10/16 l 10/23 l 10/30 l 11/5 - l 11113 1

1 Man /Sup industrial Safety Training 2

2 Field Observations conducted by Manag. monitoring activibe f-f-3 3 General Omce Safety & Risk Manage. Departments mentori

}

J 4

4 e

November 8,1994 s

m-

Q, i

e November 9,1994 9:03 am PROJECT ID# 9.5 m

PHASE 1 ACTION PLAN ISSUE:

Licensing submittals PROGRAM / PROCESS ISSUE CATEGORY: Management SPONSOR:

' R. G. Jones ACTION PLAN MANAGER:

R. Godley _

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:

Licensing submittals do not always supply sufficient identification, review and accountability for the correctness of information. Additionally, commitments that are ernbedded in licensing submittals are not clearly identified in internal NPPD documents with accountability for action. This has resulted in reduced credibility to outside agencies, enforcement actions and potential for important safety-related commitments to be missed.

OBJECTIVE:

Development of intemal procedures and practices that assure that alllicensing submittals n

contain accurate information and that all commitment made to external agencies are completed on time.

ACTION:

1.

. Review past problems and current procedures and practices in preparation of licensing submittals.

2.

Identify changes to the current procedures and practices that will resolve these past problems. The new procedures should assure that the sources for information in licensing submittals are clearly identified to NPPD management, all commitments and accountable parties are clearly identified, and that commitments are entered into the commitment tracking system prior to signature.

3.

Implement the improved practices and procedures for licensing submittals.

i:\\ common \\lxm\\licsubm rlb L

?

2 y

02/

1 1

)

l re b

3 1

m

/

1 ev 1

oN l

6

/

1 1

l 0

g g

3

/0 g

l 1

l g

32

/0 1

l 6

1

/

r 0

e 1

bo t

l c

O 9

/0 1

l 5

9 2

/0 1

D I

4 l

9 ls l

!l 9

1, 5

a 8

2 t

r

/

a t

S b

h im nrev

(

b l

o u

N S

8 1

/

c 9

iL re b

l m

e 1

tp 1

/

e 9

S e

se r

e u

r d

u e

p d

c u

e o

or c

r g

o p

r k

p w

s e

a w

n

~

t e

t ie n

n b

p e

e lo m

m e

e s

v lp k

s e

m s A D

I a

T 1

2 3

D I

1 2

3

(