ML20134J894
| ML20134J894 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134J860 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9702120391 | |
| Download: ML20134J894 (210) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:" . _ _ _
,=
c,# "'"%
***++
REGION I PLANT STATUS REPORT f i FACILITY: Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 i i
~
- 1. BACKGROUND II. PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA III. ANALYSIS / ASSESSMENT IV. INSPECTION PROGRAM STATUS
- V. ATTACHMENTS
'l Last Update: March 22,1 -
,i
*f
.ys:&
Update Approval: X' . grinch' i i, Update Approva : I) l ection Chi &fs'
)
CHANGES SINCE THE LAST UPDATE ARE DEMARCA'TED IN THE BORDER The attached status report has not been inade public. Do not disseminate or discuss its contents outside NRC.\ Treat as ' OFFICIAL USE ONLY". m 9702120391 970207 r PDR FOIA O'NEILL96-351 PDR
g . ATTACIIMENT A CONTENTS
- 1. BACKGROUND
}
- 1. Licensee Parameters
- 2. NRC Organization
- 3. Licensee Organization
- 4. Operator Licensing II. PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA l
- 1. Corn:nt Operating Status (last 6 months) l
- 2. Recent Significant Operating Events and Identified l
Safety Concerns (oflast 12 months)
- 3. Escalated Enforcement Activities (oflast 2 years) l l
- 4. IPE Insights i
III. ANALYSIS / ASSESSMENT
- 1. Previous SALP Ratings and Overview l
- 2. Licensee Response to Previous SALP Functional Area Weaknesses /Recent l I Licensee Performance Trends (in the last year) l
- 3. Licensee Performance Strengths and Weaknesses l
- 4. NRC Team Inspections Within the Imt Year l
,j 5. Planned Team Inspections l
IV. INSPECTION PROGRAM STA a
- 1. Status of Inspections (see attached MIPS Report #2) l l
- 2. Proposed Changes to MIP l
- 3. Significant Allegations and Investigations l
- 4. Open Item Status
} l
- 5. Outstanding Licensing Issues l 6. Local / State / External Issues V. A*ITACHMENTS (NOTE: To be detennined based on intended audience)
- 1. AEOD Performance Indicators /LER Summary O
- 2. Allegations Status O
- 3. Most recent SALP Report O
{ 4. MIPS Report Nos. 2 & 22 0
- 5. Principal Staff Resumes (NRC and Licensee) O
- 6. Planned vs. Completed Inspection Hours O Page 1
., Salem PSR
)
I. BACKGROUND
- 1. LICENSEE PARAMETERS Utility: Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G)
Company Iax:ation: Hancocks Bridge, NJ (18 miles Southeast of Wilmington, DE) County: Salem UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Docket No: 50-272 50-311 CP Issued: September 25,1968 September 25,1968 Operating License Issued: April 6,1977 May 19,1981 Initial Criticality: December 11,1976 August 2,1980 Elec. Ener.1st Gener: December 19, 1976 May 29,1981 Commercial Operation: June 30,1977 October 13, 1981 Reactor Type: PWR 4-Loop Same Containment Type: large dry Same
' Power level: 3411 MWt Same Architect / Engineer: PSE&G/UE&C Same NSSS Vendor: Westinghouse Same Constructor: PSE&G/UE&C Same Turbine Supplier: Westinghouse Westinghouse (GE Generator)
Condenser Cooling Method: Once-through Same Condenser Cooling Water: Delaware River Same
- 2. NRC ORGANIZATION NRC Regional Administrator: Thomas T. Martin (Tel: 610-337-5000)
(Region I, King of Prussia, PA) Division of Reactor Projects: Richard Cooper, Jr., Division Director .. (Region I) (Tel: 8-610-337-5229)
- Wayne Lanning, Deputy Director (Tel: 8-610-337-5126)
Edward C. Wenzinger, Branch Chief (Tel: 8-610-337-5225) John R. White, Section Chief (Tel: 8-610-337-5114) i Page 2 Salern PSR
]
i l NRC ORGANIZATION Continued: Senior Resident inspector: Charles S. Marschall (Tel: 8-609-935-3850) Resident Inspector: Stephen T. Barr (Tel: 8-609-935-3850) Resident Inspector: Joseph G. Schoppy, Jr. (Tel: 8-609-935-3856) , i Resident inspector: Todd H. Fish (Tel: 8-609-935-3850) Project Engineer: Robert J. Summers (Tel: 8-610-337-5189) Project Manager: James C. Stone, NRR (Tel: 8-301-504-1419) i
- 3. LICENSEE ORGANIZATION Mananement Personnel:
E. James Ferland -Chairman and Chief Executive Officer lawrence R. Codey -President and Chief Operating Officer Robert J. Dougherty -Senior Vice President, Electric i Steven E. Miltenberger -Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Stanley LaBruna -Vice President, Nuclear Engineering l Joseph Hagan -Vice President Operations and General Manager l l Salem Operations
-General Manager, Quality Assurance and Nuclear ~l Richard N. Swanson Safety Review Lynn K. Miller -General Manager, Nuclear Operations Support Francis X. Thomson -Licensing Manager Lee Catalfomo -Operations Manager Michael P. Morroni -Manager, Maintenance-Controls I Arthur Orticelle -Manager, Maintenance-Mechanical John W. Morrison -Technical Manager Terry L. Cellmer -Radiation Protection / Chemistry Mauager Richard T. Griffith, Sr. -Station QA Manager ,
G. Charles Munzenmaier -Manager, Salem Station Planning Peter Moeller -Manager, Site Protection Greg Mecchi -Manager, Nuclear Training Christopher Connor -General Manager, Nuclear Support and Services Workshifts 5 operations shifts,2 working 12 hour shifts / day,1 relief crew,1 crew in training, I crew off. Shift Comolement: TS minimum Actual 3 SRO 4 SRO 4 RO 5 RO 1STA 1 STA (dual role SRO) Non-licensed Operators 5 7 or 8 Page 3 Salem PSR
;i Maintenance Electrician /I&C 1 2 i Chemistry / Rad. Prot. I 2 Fire Brigade 5 6 (site fire brigade ' shared with Hope 1
Creek) i
- 4. OPERATOR LICENSING l a. Licensed Reactor Ooerators (Licenses Cover Both Unitsk l
- Total number of active SROs: 29 l
- Total number of active ROs: 26 l
- Total number of certified instructors: 13 l
l l
- In June 1993, NRC performed TI 117, " Licensed Operator Requalification l Program Evaluation"; results were satisfactory.
, I
- l
- One simulator (modeled after Unit 2) located at the training facility in Salem, l NJ, and used for Unit I and Unit 2 operator training and NRC administered 3
e l licensing exams. PSE&G completed a major modeling upgrade package in the l summer of 1993. I i l b. Other Licensed Ooerator Trainine / Performance / Staffine Concerns: i l l l
- Shift Supervisors began working 12 hour shifts during refuel outages j ~, l conducted in the spring and summer of 1992, formally implementing that
' schedule in November 1992. The remainder of the shift complement l
maintained 8 hour shifts until April 1992, when, upen a union vote, they also l l adopted the 12 hour shifts for a 1 year trial basis. The reactor operators and , l equipment operators will be voting again in April 1993 as whether to l permanently stay on 12 hour shifts. i
- I l 1 '
a Page 4 Salem PSR
-l
II. PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
- 1. CURRENT OPERATING STATUS (for period 10/1/93 to 3/1/94)
PSE&G shut down Unit 1 on October 1,1993, to commence a 72 day /9b M1 refueling and maintenance outage. Prior to the shutdown, the unit had been on #44. I . line since July 15,1993, and operating at or near full power. Plant nr. l management extended the outage completion date (originally scheduled for ( December 17) because of emergency diesel generator (EDG) operability b, gy concerns. On December 2,1993, a cracked cylinder liner in a Unit 2 EDG raised generic operability concerns for Unit 1 No. IB EDG because of the similar liners installed in No.1B. Operators restarted the unit on January 24; w' e,aw f. j it automatically tripped from 100% power, on January 27 in response to a low , water level condition in No.14 steam generator. Operators restarted the unit 4fg M l on January 31, and operated the unit at power until it automatically tripped, har (snen j from 100% power, in response to a loss of control power to the main turbine 44
- 8W !
control system. PSE&G restarted the unit February 13, synchronized to the grid February 20, and has operated the unit at or near power through, 1t of the month, mmor . PSE&G operated Unit 2 at or near full power throughout the fall, until December 3,1993, when operators shut down the unit due to failure of a cylinder liner in the 2C EDG. After completion of repairs to the EDG, operators restarted the unit on January 3,1994, and operated at full power until January 19, when the reactor engineering staff discovered that PSE&G had apparently operated Unit 2 in excess of 3411 megawatts (thermtl). Since then, and through February, operators have maintained Unit 2 at 95% power. 1 2, RECENT SIGNIFICANT OPERATING EVENTS AND IDENTIFIED SAFETY CONCERNS
, a. Si2nificant Events (of last 12 months)
- Unit 1 automatically tripped on February 10,1994, from 99% power, in l
l response to a loss of 15 VDC power to the main turbine control system. The l plant stabilized at normal operating pressure and temperature. PSE&G determined that the 15 VDC power supplies had tripped when their protective l l relays sensed an over-voltage condition. (See IR 50-272/94-01) l 1
- Unit 1 automatically tripped on January 27,1994, from 10% power, in l
l l response to a low water level condition in No.14 steam generator. The cause l of the trip was a level error controller in the control circuit for No.14 cteam l generator feedwater regulating valve, which caused generator water level control to malfunction in the auto position. This malfunction gererated the l low water level condition and subsequent reactor trip. (See IR 50-272/94-01) l PageS
. Salem PSR l
- .:. . = - -- - ---
- l l
- Operators shut down Unit 2 on December 3,1993, from 100% power, due to l
failure of a cylinder liner in 2C emergency diesel generator (EDG). PSE&G conservatively determined they had a basis for concern about the particular l l liner's reliability and consequently declared Unit 1 EDG 1B inoperable as well, since the IB diesel had similar liners installed. (See IR 50-311/93-27) l l
- On November 2,1993, operators declared an Unusual Event (UE) in response l J
- to a fire in a 230 volt lighting transformer in the Unit 2 turbine building. The l
l fire brigade responded to the scene and extinguished the fire. The station was in the UE for approximately one hour. A loose electrical connection caused l l the fire. No personnel were injured and no safety-related equipment was i l l affected. (See IR 50-311/93-23) J l l
- On October 13,1993, operators declared an UE in response to a fire in the l
Unit 1 No.12 service water piping penetration bay. The shift supervisor
. l notified PSE&G Fire Department, which responded to the scene and l
j extinguished the fire. The station was in the UE for about 50 minutes. The fire was caused by sparks from a grinding activity, which ignited insulation l l from service water piping. Three contractor employees were treated for i smoke inhalation; no equipment sustained damage. (See IR 50-272/93-21) l l' I
- On August 24,1993, operators initiated a Technical Specification-required j l
shutdown of Unit 1 in response to a degraded voltage on a cell in the IC 125 l volt battery. The need to shut down was relieved when the NRC exercised l enforcement discretion in response to the licensee's request and associated l 1 j justification. (See IR 50-272/93-20) , I
. l
- On July 11,1993, while the repairs to a faulty Unit 1 feedwater isolation l protection relay were being performed, the main feedwater regulating valve for j the No.14 steam generator inadvertently went closed at 8:38 p.m., resulting in the water level in that steam generator dropping to a level sufficient to l
cause an automatic reactor trip. The licensee determined that the technician l who was repairing the SSPS relay lifted an improper lead and caused the l isolation of the No.14 steam generator. The licensee additionally determined l the root cause of the technician's error was inadequate detail and direction in
, l i the SSPS troubleshooting plan. Subsequent to the cause determination of the l
l trip, PSE&G repaired the SSPS and commenced a reactor startup on July 15, 1993. The unit was retumed to service on July 16,1993. (See IR 50-l
- l 272/93-19) l
- On July 10,1993, toxic gas release (ammonia) in the Unit 1 turbine building l
l caused by a loop seal failure on the ammonia hydroxide storage tank due to 1 overpressure. This apparently resulted from excessive ambient temperature l
' conditions. The licensee will change the concentration of the ammonia l
j hydroxide in the tank to increase tne boiling point of the solution to prevent l recurrence. (See IR 50-272/93-19) I Page 6 Salem PSR
i 8 f
- On June 8,1993, Unit I automatically tripped following massive intrusion of l
l 1 l sea-grass into the circulatire water system suction. Four of five operating i circulating water pumps trippn!, causing a loss of main condenser vacuum, l l i l turbine trip, and subsequent reactor trip. (See IR 50-272/93-19) l l
- On May 28,1993, Unit 2 was r.utnually tripped by the operators per abnormal f [
l operating procedures when control bank "C", group 1 control rods (four rods j l total) fell into the core during reactor start up operations. At the time the i
~l operators were diluting the RCS to criticality for post-refueling startup. A card failure was attributed to a degraded solder trace in the rod control system, (
5 l ! which led to the event. (See IR 50-311/93-81) l l 1 l ; 4 e On March 16,1993, Unit 2 automatically tripped from 100% power due to a
- l
! low-low level condition on the No. 24 steam generator. A failed pressure l ! 4 control switch in the condensate polishing syst:m led to a low suction pressure l ! condition for the No. 22 steam generator feed pump and subsequent feed pump l ! l trip, which caused the steam generator low level reactor trip. (See IR 50- ! 311/93-08) l l f
- b. Performance Indicatar Data Units I and Unit 2:
e Performance indicators generally show good performance. Capacity factor numbers were low for 1993 due to back-to-back outages of Unit I and Unit 2 4 at d shutdowns for potentially generic safety issues such as rod control and
' diesel generator cylinder liners. No other significant trends are evident in the statistical analysis.
- l
- c. RKeatly Identified Technical Safety and Manneerial Challenoes l
l (oflast 12 months) l l
*
- The NRC Resident Office continues to monitor and evaluate the licensee's efforts to improve plant matenal condition, repair and replace service water
.., l j , l piping, upgrade the RMS system, complete actions relative to Appendix R l rquirements, issues maci=*M with fire watches and security guards, l personnel error reducuon efforts, and procedure quality and compliance l improve:nent efforts. l l
- Reviews were conducted and are planned for erosion / corrosion program.
l l
- Service Water (SW) Imks: Numerous SW through wall leaks continue to l' l occur due to erosion and microbiologic induced corrosion attack of carbon l
steel piping. De licensee has a seven year pipe replacement project that will , l l replace 95% (about 19,000 linear feet are safety related) of the safety related l SW piping with 6% moly stainless steel. This project will continue through 1995 (two more refueling outages per unit). Currently, approximately 90% of l l Page 7 Salem PSR 4
. - - - . g_.. _ ._-
; l the safety related portion of the project has been completed, including the l
! I l l majority of the SW piping in containment. Based on NRC inspection, SW pipe replacement project is progressing satisfactorily as scheduled. l i l ; l e Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) Problems: RMS problems have resulted i l in numerous ESF actuations and reportable events. Short term corrective l j -) i j l actions were completed on both Unit 2 and Unit 1 during the 1992 refueling outages. These changes include electronic upgrades and a new uninterruptible 4 l ! l power supply. Ionger term actions (1993-4) include a complete system l {
! l upgrade. Based on NRC inspection, the upgraded RMS operation to date has j l been satisfactory.
I r e Failure of Overhead Annunciators: On December 13,1992, a Unit 2 operator
- )
discovered that the overhead annunciators had not been updating alarms for l l i about 1 1/2 hours. This was the result of a member of the operating shift l l l entering a keystroke combination into a remote control workstation that, when l l input through the wrong system port, prevented the system from updating J. j alarms. An AIT was dispatched to the site and concluded: (1) the root cause l i < was a failure to follow procedure for proper operation of the overhead , l e l annunciator system; (2) the design of the OHA system permitted the operator i l to inadvertently emulate the password-protected software without warning. l- 1 ! l e- Rod Control System: On May 27,1993 Unit 2 operators experienced several l i- l problems with the rod control system. The most significant event tvas that I l during an attempt to insert Shutdown Bank "A", one control rod mually
- j l
withdrew 15 steps of travel. An AIT was dispatched to the site and l concluded: (1) the root cause was an introduction of static charges into the l l j'3- l solid state electronic components which caused system damage; (2) damage was also caused by voltage spikes originating from "back EMF in the l
. l system's electro-mechanical step counters (the suppression diode installed to
' mitigate this previously-known phenomenon was disabled due to a failed pin , l connector on the affected circuit card). l l -
- I l
; l
' At 5:12 p.m. on July 18,1993, Salem Unit 2 Control Bank D (8 control rods) l, j began stepping inward at a rate of 72 steps per minute, but only moved a few ,
steps before being detected by operators. At the time, Unit 2 was at 100% jJ [ power with the control rods in automatic. The operator, finding no apparent cause for the rod insertion, positioned the rods in manual control, which ,
, L ;
l stopped the rod movement. The operators performed all actions per their '
- abnormal rod movement procedure (AB-ROD-0003) and were still unable to l
l l positively identify the cause. The licensee installed monitoring instrumentation on the inputs to the automatic rod control signal summator and at 11:40 p.m. l l on July 18, returned rod control to automatic. [! l l
- j. At 11:24 a.m. on July 21,1993, the licensee again experienced the same l
l l phenomenon on Unit 2. As in the previous occurrence, the operator quickly
; evaluated the situation and appropriately placed the rods in manual control. In l
both cases the rods only moved inward a few steps (2 and 4 steps l l s Page 8 - Salem PSR
- ]
i
= = - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 1
- I -- l l
1
^
j respectively). Current traces on the signal summator input revealed no change l l from the nuclear instrument (NI) or turbine impulse pressure, but some spiking i l from the average temperature (Tave) and reference temperature (T ref) input. l l l Together these four signals are the input signals to the automatic rod control system. On July 21, the licensee placed additional monitoring instrumentation '} l l on the output of the signal summator, output of the " rod in output" signal l ; l comparator, and individually on all four Tave channels. I j
.) On July 22,1993, during 1&C troubleshooting, the licensee was able to i
l identify a fault in the signal summator, which erroneously produced a high rod l inward demand output for a relatively small temperature ermr input. l j l ) I. l .i l
- Switchyard Modifications: During the recent outage on Unit 1, PSE&G l
j implemented an extensive design change package involving modifications to j the Salem switchyard. These modifications irn.id voltage recovery on vital l i and group buses during bus transfers, provided load growth capacity, removed l the Salem circulating water system pump motor feeds from the Hope Creek l l
- switchyard, improved voltages in both Salem plants, provided margin for short '
l
- circuit capability, and improved plant reliability. Major components added l
included two 500/13.8 kv transformers, four 13.8/4.16 kv transformers, four
- 1. l 13.8 kv breakers, and 4.16 kv switchgear for the circulating water system bus.
j* l l e Unit 2 Sustained Operation of Greater Than 100% Power: Suspected root l l l cause is erosion of the feedwater flow nozzles resulting in incorrect online l calorimetric data. Upon discovery, licensee immediately reduced power for l both units, and began adjusting instrument setpoints to insure conservative 3 l . l l operation. Licensee is pursuing determination of the exact power level and the j effects on the UFSAR Chapter XV analyses. They expect resolution by mid-l 1 April 1994. l
- Emergency Diesel Generator Cylinder Liner: This caused Salem 2 to shut .
l down as a result of a cracked liner, and delayed Salem 1 to delay startup from l the refueling outage. 'Ihe licensee could not find a clear root cause. The l
- suspected root cause was dimensional tolerance problems with liners l
distributed by Canadian Allied Diesels. PSE&G determined that only two l I liners have ever failed, including the Salem liner, in a population of tens of l ; thousands of liners in use world wide (including locomotives and ships). l
- 3. ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
- The NRC issued a level III Violation on March 8,1994, documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-272 and 311/93-23; 50-354/93-25. The violation was
} based on multiple examples of PSE&G's failure to follow procedures and their failure to properly control safety-related activities.
Page 9 Salem PSR '
l
. i
?
1
- 4. IPE INSIGHTS
- The Salem IPE was submitted to the NRC in July 1993, and is still under !
-l NRC review. !
l 1 g i I l I i ;! i Page 10 Salem PSR
g III. ANALYSIS / ASSESSMENT
- 1. PREVIOUS SALP RATINGS AND OVERVIEW 1
' a. Previous SALP Ratings l Functional Area December 28.1991 June 19.1993 l I l Operations 2 2 ' l
. l ; l Maintenance /
Surveillance 2 2 l l l Radcon 2, Imp 1 Emergency Preparedness 1 1, Declining l 1 l Security 1 1 2 2 g l SA/QV I Engineering & TS 2 2 l . l I I l Current assessment period: June 20,1993 to December 10,1994. i
' b. SALP Overview (derived from the summarv nararraoh of each SALP sectiont ~
r
*i OPERATIONS On July 29,1993, the SALP board met to discuss PSE&G's performance at Salem during !
the period from December 29,1991 to June 19, 1993. The board concluded that the 1 iicensee had operated the Salem units safely and that operator response to operational 1 events was excellent. The overall performance in the Operations area was good.
- However, weaknesses were noted in the decisions to restart Unit 2 following the rod control system problems, in the failure to follow procedures resulting in the loss of Unit 2 annunciators, and in the inadequate oversight of the fire protection program.
Page 11 Salem PSR a i
e m: ."Wd ,! ) i ( i MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE l The board concluded mat the Salem maintenance and surveillance programs contributed ? to the safe operation of the two units during the assessment period. In general, a !I declining number of personnel errors in both maintenance and surveillance indicated 8 improving performance. However, the number of transients induced by component failures and the significant problems with the rod control system raise questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the maintenance and engineering support functions. i i RADIOIDGICAL CONTROIE PSE&G continued to implement effective radiological controls and ALARA programs [ during this period. The SALP board noted improvements in this functional area ! including strong management support and oversight. Quality Assurance audits in this l area were of very good quality. l EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS i The SALP board determined that PSE&G maintained a generally strong and effective o-i emergency preparedness (EP) program. However, the board was concerned with an j apparent decline in the ability of the licensee to make correct initial Protective Action Recommendations during training, drills and annual exercises. This concern resulted in I the board's assessment of a declining trend for this area. The board also concluded that PSE&G continued to maintain an effective and performance-oriented security program
- during this period. Overall, licenser performance in both EP and security remained i1* excellent.
! ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT i Engineering and technical support organizations provided good support for refueling and maintenance outages, and strong performance in addressing day-to-day problems. The SALP board noted that training programs for engineering personnel were excellent but
- l that weaknesses were observed in the licensee's non-conformance, erosion / corrosion, and
- fire protection programs. Although the root cause training program was viewed as a _
- strength, the board noted that the threshold for initiating actual root cause investigation was not clear or consistent.
PSE&G management continued to provide generally effective management support. 2 Significant Event Response Team (SERT) reviews of major events have been effective. However, the board noted that in several instances, PSE&G failed to initiate adequate i)J root cause evaluation or assessment of abnormal conditions. NRC interaction with ! PSE&G management was needed in a number of cases in order for full evaluation and corrective action to be taken in a timely manner. Once initiated, comprehensive assessment, root cause analysis and effective corrective actions were implemented. j Outage planning and training programs in all areas were considered strengths. Page 12 Salem PSR
- _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._. _m.__ _m l
- 2. LICENSEE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS SALP FUNCTIONAL AREA WEAKNESSES / RECENT LICENSEE PERFORMANCE TRENDS (in the last year) l l
- OPERATIONS '
l l PSE&G continues to safely operate the units. Operator plant knowledge and response to l events remains strong, however, operator response has been less than thorough regarding l indications of stuck-open RHR check valves, indications of a possible leaking RHR l pressure isolation valve, and a case of indeterminate hotwell level. . l j Recent management changes included the naming of a new Operations Manager in l September 1993, and two new Operations Engineers in January 1994. The licensee l intends to pursue full unitization of the Salem operating crew shifts. I I l
- MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE I
l Although maintenance and surveillance activities remain generally good, as exhibited by l strong Maintenance Department performance in response to the December 1993 EDG j cracked cylinder liner issue, the recent Unit I refueling outage was marked by multiple l examples of poor work control practices and multiple examples of failure to follow l procedures. l l In order to improve overall performance and response to emergent issues, PSE&G has l reorganized the Maintenance Department. Recent changes include replacing the single l Maintenance Manager role with three new positions: 1) Mechanical Maintenance _ l Manager, 2) Controls Maintenance Manager, and 3) Planning Manager. PSE&G is also l pursuing unitization in these dwiments. 1 I l
- ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT l
l Both Salem system engineenng and PSE&G nuclear engineenng have continued to 1 l provide good engineering support for plant opemtions. I j An NRC observation related to the Salem rod control issue was that the initial l troubleshooting efforts lacked clear leadership and delegation of responsibilities. 'Ihis resulted in the efforts narrowly focusing on the most recent system malfunction without l l adequate attention to the repetitive nature of the failures and the need to determine and l correct the root cause. The failure of PSE&G to determine the root cause of the failures resulted in numerous aborted startup attempts. The team did observe significant l l improvements in the control of troubleshooting and root cause determination during the l inspection. I Page 13 Salem PSR
l l
- PLANT SUPPORT i I
l The NRC noted that PSE&G continued to perform at a notewonhy level in the area of l radiological protection through the end of 1993, especially during the recent Unit 1 l refueling outage. l l The licensee's annual partial-participation emergency preparedness exercise was l conducted on June 23,1993. On-site response to the simulated emergency was very l good. An u.rcise strength was Emergency Response Manager command and control. l No exercise wannanas were identified. Significant areas for potential improvement l were maintenance team tracking from the Operational Support Center and public address l system operability in the Technical Support Center. l l The PSE&G security program continues to be effectively directed towards public health l and safety. A strike by the security force was narrowly averted when a new labor l agreement was reached in November 1993. I I l
- SAFETY ASSESSMENT / QUALITY VERIFICATION I
l In July 1993, the licensee formed a Comprehensive Performance Assessment team l
- (CPAT) which conducted a special assessment of safety issues and recent plant events l l
using an integrated MORT investigatory analysis. The CPAT developed comprehensive l l root causes for these events, and the licensee has formed task teams charged with l developing corrective actions. PSE&G has held periodic meetings with the NRC to l discuss CPAT findings, and the NRC continues to monitor licensee progress in this area. l l In February 1994, PSE&G Vice President of Nuclear Operation (VP-NO) assumed the l collateral role of General Manager of Salem Operations. The licensee also initiated other l management changes under the VP-NO and intends to pursue unitization of the Salem l units. PSE&G has implemented these changes in order to achieve sustained improvement l in the area of Salem performance. I
- 3. LICENSEE PERFORMANCE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
- Salem performance continues to be inconsistent. .
e Capacity factor has been low due to refueling outages at both units and forced outages due to rod control problems, and diesel liner concerns. Strengths: e 'Ihe licensee continues to increase resources for a material condition improvement program. The NRC has observed noticeable improvement in the material condition of the plant, indicating that the licensee has been earnest in the implementation of improvements. Page 14 Salem PSR 9
.__ - _.______. _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ __ . _ __m _
1
- The Procedure Upgrade Project (PUP) was closd out in September 1993. A large majority of procedures were reviewed and upgraded, and procedure maintenance has {
l been made the responsibility of the Technical Department. e Material condition
. J' l
e Procedure quality ; i :
- e Radiation protection prog am implementation 4
f i e When problems or conditiua are = elf-identified and self-detected, event response and ) root cause determination are through and compreher.sive, particularly when the matter l ) is the subject of NRC attention. In other cases, the licensee's performance is 7) l j considered weaker, as identified below, i e PSE&G has r*==ad-I to identified performance and management weaknesses relative '- to approch to problem resolution by initiating the following actions: 4 4 ! e Replacing the Salem General Manager with the Vice President, Nuclear Operations until the licensee's program changes are in place; 1 e Verifying the effectiveness of numerous supervisors and managers and changing the incumbent when deemed appropriate o Pursuing unitization of the maintenance, operations, and planning organizations, o Implementing the existing performance assessment tools to improve accountability from the highest levels of management down to rank and file workers, . e Forming dedicated teams to implement the corrective actions developed in response to the CPAT findings. . Weaknesses: Salem performance has been weak in: e Control of maintenance o Recognition of the need to due root cause determination, o Corrective action effectiveness due to inadequate root cause assessment e Inadequate approach to problem resolution (i.e., general tendency to fix problems or conditions without assessment or understanting of causal factors. Examples include, but are not limited to the licensee's initial response to cracked diesel liner issues, failure to identify elevated reactor power in 1992, and failure to recognize generic j implication of rod control problems Page 15 Salem PSR
.l t
= - -
. - =- -- - - - .-- -
i
. I
- 4. NRC TEAM INSPECTIONS WITHIN THE LAST YEAR Area /Date Findings EDSFI Assessment Licensee-contracted EDSFI has been '
l August 16 - completed. The NRC assessment of the 4 September 3,1993 licensee EDSFI identified a number of minor concerns; but, concluded overall i that the licensee's assessment was good. l k Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) An AIT was formed to review and June 5 - July 2,1993 evaluate the circumstances surrounding a j
- problem with the Unit 2 rod control system. The components within the I control circuitry that led to rod withdrawal when operators were demanding rod insertion.
I Appendix R Inspection Idutified concerns with Kaowool and 3-M May 17-21,1993 fire wrap material. Also wannaaas in safe shutdown outside the control room and lighting. Re-culuation to occur during July 1993. 4 5. PLANNED TEAM INSPECTIONS
- SWSOPI Date and scope to be determined. .l l
! i
- DET/OSTI/IPAT77 (Does this team exist yet?) .
I I 1 l 1 I i Page 16 3 Salem PSR
IV. INSPECTION PROGRAM STATUS
- 1. STATUS OF INSPECTIONS l
l The inspection program status is reflected in attached MIPS report #2. The data is l current as of the date of the MIP. The MIP indicates that inspection program is on-l track with the planned resource allotment; no significant shift in inspection activities is l warranted.
- 2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO MIP e Unit 1 A. DRSS -
B. DRS - C. DRP e Unit 2 A. DRSS - B. DRS - C. DRP -
- 3. SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
- There are eight open significant allegations at Salem. (two are common with Hope Creek)
Three allegations are related to harassment and intimidation of licensee personnel, up to and including allegations of promotion denial due to "whistleblowing." One of the allegations asserts that the Offsite Safety Review Group is not performing its function in accordance with technical specifications. OI is actively reviewing these cases. A fourth allegation asserted that the main security access center at the Salem / Hope Creek site was not manned as required by the NRC approved security plan. DRSS is scheduled to conduct a routine security inspection in March 1994 and will review this matter. Salem PSR Page 17 j
i~ - 4 . l i o l The fifth allegation concerns an operator wrongdoing issue. During and subsequent to ; 5 the Overhead Annunciator (OHA) AIT in early 1993, neither of the two operators in the j- control room at the time of the incident admitted to any manipulation of the OHA J system, even though clearly operator involvement was a contributor to the event. DRP is i ! reviewing the licensee's investigation and followup into this matter and will determine j this issue's resolution on the basis of that review. i' The sixth allegation involves a technical question that suggests that HVAC ductwork l i integrity may not be assured under dynamic loading of new fast-acting curtain fire , dampers. DRP is reviewing test procedures and results while DRS is scheduled to - review the matter during the next routine fire protection inspection. l i I i The seventh allegation regards evidence that the Rod Control problems experienced by
- the plant (and followed up by the AIT) occurred during startup testing at the Zion nuclear l 3
station, even though Westinghouse representatives denied that the pmblem had ever , occurred before. OI has opened an investigation into this case and is currently reviewing j ' the matter. i { 7he final allegation concerns 6 technical issues raised regarding the environmental ) qualification of equipment. Upon agreement of the alleger, this matter will be refe red to
- the licensee for resolution. Otherwise, DRS will followup it up.
l 4. OPEN ITEM STATUS BACKLOG /No. GREATER THAN 2 YRS
- (Unit 1 and 2 - Common) 57/6 4
NOTE: The large number of open items is due to the issuance of an Appendix R/ Fire Protection Team Inspection Report in October 1993 and an EDSFI Team Inspection Report in November 1993.
- 5. OUTSTANDING LICENSING ISSUES e GL 89-10 (MOV) - technical differences between NRC/PSE&G. (Hope Creek also) e EDG amendment - meeting held May 11,1992 to resolve issues.
- TS amendment to resolve AFW/ containment spray issue (see Section II.2.a).
- Increase in surveillance test intervals and AOT for reactor trip and ESFAS.
e Install new digital feedwater control system.
- Evaluation of Control Room Design Deficiencies that were not corrected.
Salem PSR Page 18 1 i
w , i E
~
- Bulletin 88-08 (Thermal JJess in Piping Systems Connected to the RCS) - licensee is revising their response.
i l 6. IDCAL/ STATE / EXTERNAL ISSUES ,' I I,
- a. NJ DEPE/BNE l
l l
- Now providing input / comments on all PSE&G licensing change requests.
l
- Letter regarding Salem RMS (see Section II.2.a).
l
- Provided comments on recent SALP report.
l
- High interest in resideat inspeen accompaniment.
l
- Continuing interest in Salem cooling tower issue: When Salem's renewable variance l for the use of the Delaware River as a heat sink came up for renewal in 1984, New Il l Jersey environmentalists appealed to the state to not renew the variance. In 1990, NJ l DEPE issued a " draft order" requiring PSE&G to build two cooling towers to support t l the Salem units' operation. PSE&G responded to the state's order with a 56-volume l comment, and the issue is currently under review by NJ DEPE. Recent NJ DEPE l decision not to require cooling towers.
l
- State inspector accompanied AITs that reviewed Salem 2 loss of OHA system and l RCS.
[~ l
- Recent letter (6/29/93) concerning digital feedwater modifications to be performed the i l next two refueling outages. ;
I l b. Other (Media Interest) l l
- Minimal interest in SALP Management Meeting. i l
- Large interest in AIT (Unit 2 TG failure) exit meetmg. '
l
- Smaller interest in two AITs (Unit 2 loss of Alarms and rod control problems) exit [_
l meeting. 1 I rl a1
)
L Salern PSR Page 19 ! m; i I
_ - . = = _ _ = _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ . - - . . . (_ . i ) I I; I l Public Service Electric and Gas
.' Company ;
i NRC VISIT MAY 25,1994
~
i i i SALEM
~
GENERATING STATION
\
... 4-
! /- ,
_. . = - .. - .... . .. . _._. - _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . I l: l !. SALEM GENERATING STATION NRC VISIT I i i AGENDA 4 i l Introduction [ i l Strategy for Improvement I! l[ j Comprehensive Performance Assessment 1 i l Communications i. lI i j Unitization , Improved Oversight
) .
Measures of Success M1 l i ] '.' . i I______--_________ ._. .. - .-
6
- j. l i
i SALEM GENERATING STATION ! NRC VISIT I l STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT ! COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE , ! ASSESSMENT TEAM (CPAT) l Charter Highlights l l e Full-time multi-disciplinary, dedicated team ) l e Report directly to Vice President and Chief ; i Nuclear Officer ! i
- Assess a defined set of 27 occurrences l
- Look for previously undiscovered, underestimated, or overlooked root causes, .
failed barriers, and contributing / causal factors ! 1
- Look for " threads" common to multiple -
occurrences e Identify responsibility for correcting the root causes, restoring the failed barriers, or . eliminating the causal factors e Act as change agents l u-2 l
=;_ _ _ _ _
1 I i
- SALEM GENERATING STATION
! NRC VISfr 'I I' l' STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT i. l l COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE
- ASSESSMENT TEAM I l Members Dana Cooley, Manager - Quality Performance l Tom DiGuiseppi, Emergency Preparedness Manager t
- E.J. Galbraith, Chemistry Engineer - Salem ,
i John Wilson, Nuclear Engineering Consultant - E&PB l Charles Manero, System Engineer - Salem Technical Greg Mecchi, Principal Nuclear Trainer - Operations
, Roberta Kankus, Senior Strategic Planning Specialist (PECO Energy Co.)
Craig Assimos, Nuclear Technical - Controls Special - i Salem Ron Sutton, Career Pathing Administrator - Human i 1 Resources !' Steven Spiese, Certified NRRPT Radiation Protection Technologist - Hope Creek Bruce Little, Former NRC Senior Resident Inspector / DOE Certified Accident Investigator
)
Judy Almond, Senior Secretary - Site Services 94ma4-3
1
~~T=- :. -
l1 g ! SALEM GENERATING STATION i NRC VIStr
- i
' STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I j COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE t1 'l ASSESSMENT TEAM l l '
!
- Senior Project Oversight Group
- Monthly report from Assessment Team li l' - Purpose l A Satisfy group that review was thorough and j appropriate
! A Ensure both short and long term buy-in from l l3 Senior Management ! A Provide impetus for timely action ! ! A Share experience with nuclear plant change j management e A Counsel Senior Managers and Assessment l7 Team i j ! A Foster external credibility i I j j -
^'
1
. . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
. _ . . = _ _ . _
5 1 ! SALEM GENERATING STATION l NRC VISIT j STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I i l COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ! ASSESSMENT TEAM , l Senior Project Oversight Group Membership ! S.E. Miltenberger, Vice President and Chief Nuclear j Officer J.J. Hagan, Vice President - Nuclear Operations i l l S LaBruna, Vice President - Nuclear Engineering l M.V. Butz, General Manager - Nuclear Human ' ! Resources & Administration ! R.N. Swanson - General Manager - QA/ Nuclear L i Safety Review i i S.P. Cohen, Director - Nuclear Finance l R. A. Burricelli, General Manager - Information l Systems and External Affairs l G. Rainey, Vice President - PECO Energy Company l J. Cross, Senior Vice President - Portland General Electric Company , J.S. Carroll, Professor-Sloan School of Management - 1 MIT . M. Peifer, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations P 94 mad-5 j < i i
4 .! i 4 COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM (CPAT) a 4 1 i l i l - ACTIVITY / PERFORMANCE STATUS AS OF APRIL 30,1994 ; i f I f r I i i i e 4 > i L
a 1 i, li I COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM , PROBLEM STATEMENT CATEGORIES i o L PEOPLE PERFORMING PROBLEM SOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FOLLOVTUP PHILOSOPHY, SKILLS THE WORK ' f AND PRACTICES t Access to tanely and accurate S-I Root cause dei =rnunation. W-1 h M-1 Supervisory practices that technicalinformation versus Corrective action follow through. y.vr ly support profesmonals reliance oninterpersonal S-2 U who enake decisions and I! contacts. Performance trending fo. systems perform work. S-3 and equipment important to rehability ' W-2 Effective use of work M-2 Management risk assessment and operational control. Action upon planning and schedules and pnontuation. resuks. W-3 Process work-arounds M-3 M1_:._ 'r actions and versus ownershap and S-4 Operating Expenence Feedbacic estabbshment of accountatnhty (OEF)dehvery and tracking that :; continuing improvement. meets thejob needs ofrecipients M-4 Content and delivery of for infonnation. W-4 Tanely and accurate part ; training to information and availabairy with effectively supportindividuals 3 appropriatelevels ofendw i and groups intervention. i M-5 Self-aw processes W-5 Content and dehvery of techocal trainmgto.~dd support i ! i.M;2i ' and groups. l W-6 Standards and methods of contractor performance t l
__ , _ _ 4 I , Kev Focus items Supported: Management Actions and Establishment of Accountability (CPAT M-3) Supervisory Practices that Support Professionals Who Make Decisions and Perform Work (CPAT M-1) Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Opertalons Sponsor Support Start Stop l Activity GM-SO Sta. Mgrs 1/93 12/95 l Implement Salem Personnel Performance imprc"3 ment Plan GM-NHR&AS l
. Develop and implement a supervisory monitorinj program STATUS: Program was developed during,1st quarter 1993, i p~.and itdocumented in SL-40. Improving implementation is an ongoing process. SL-40 Program is currently being reviewed to increase effectiveness.
Mgr-Nuc
. Significantly improve two-way communications comrn.
STATUS: 1. Letter issued by VP-NO in January stating expectations that supervisory spend 16 hours / week in the field. 2. Observation training given by VP-NO & GM-SO to all Salem employees at department engineer level and above during 1994. Being rolled down through organization.
. Provide 360 degree feedback to Salem supervision STATUS: Ongoing. As of 5/12,1071st line supervisors and above have begun the process with 72 having received feedback.
EWEGREh5ES24ssGMEtMGa3&252WaMan&GuiktssifaEG26@2EMruktutetuitiiliwJgE@hstijnseggggggggg 1
"# e e e
. t
=
- a f r Q [ Qg g
- f[ y ,
g ygf Sponsor Support Start Stop .. Activity f 3 Resolve long-standing equipment deficiencies and reduce number of significant events, to eliminate chronic drain on resources and morale. i Expected results are a reduction in the number of events and the elimination of significant events. p STATUS: Resolving long standing equipment deficiencies M is ongoing. The Salem OEF meeting has determined that two Salem events were " notable" during the 1st quarter of 1994. This compares to ten " notable" events during the 1st quarter of 1993.
. Establish effective vehicles for responding to station workers' issues, concems and productivity recommendations.
STATUS: This item is being met on an ongoing basis by NOIT teams. NOIT's have been in place since 9/93.
. Improve personnel accountability and ownership relative to:
. procedure compliance
. compliance to work standards
. self verification
. schedule adherence STATUS: 1) Salem transitioned to the Star Self-Checking acronym during 1/94. 2) Updated work standards handbook issued during 3/94. 3) Above beiilg continually reinforced through supervisory monitoring program.
tM&desguanwensts2!Si#uliMEEiii e G3Maesssir2Ed&!NailiMEsasi&MBEAEEMEn&M&fiEMMkaEh,R4 r-- , r, ny , , m - - ,
* ~. a , _ , _ ,
-- - a
- z
.W m
- A*^
^*NT
<pTtQylpFTT 7N P
'r4 epa wr unN"'u'**ct's""ie'N6WM""r*"t*me""nt"Jac'**c"a"*l"}*P'*ihW9477 s/ ?
ti n *?"'"T"E""M"'Mf- - 3h M""7MPS'2Pd)c^en.w.s@. xb Sponsor Start Stop Activity Sur+ sit VP-NO GM-NS&S ,, Deveion Descriptive Supervisor Behavior Model(CPAT Mil 2/94 3/94
. Describe / reinforce model at spring supervisors dialogue.
STATUS: complete 9/94 9/94 )
. Follow-up at fall supervisors dialogue All Mgrs/Supvr 1/94 12/95 . All managers / supervisors to spend at least 16 hours / week of their time in the field. i STATUS: Reported data indicates that slightly greater than j 16 hours / week is being achieved.
All Mgrs 1/94 12/94 9 Improve the Performance Appraisal Process (CPAT M31 VP-NO All Mgrs 1/94 4/94 'l
. Managers to review existing performance appraisals for all employees three ll levels down in their organizations to insure the appraisals accurately reflect individual performance j
STATUS: Process underway throughout the Nuclear p Department. All Mgrs 1/94 4/94
. Managers prepare and deliver new performance appraisals to employees, as required, to ensure a current performance appraisal (within 12 months) exists for all employees that meets standards (accurate reflection of individual performance).
STATUS: Process underway throughout the Nuclear Departhent. ERMMBEMMh2D2KaEaMEManiadTsM!!fS424Me&aMiMGMEM#r1GM4!ahkasGLdiMMEEniM
..-__.._.._____..____-___._____________._________-.._m_. _____..________m_-___.__.__.__--__.___.___._________..___..___._____._._____._-_--_______m._-
. . , . - m. m... . .. .
-l lEdN7!CM3550Cl'8T8 IEi}iSilm IibI~8dMINiaNDf5T%illIA$I(MdT5[N$$$$N Sponsor Su--;-:-rt Start Stop y ;
Activity c 1/94 12/94 V 3 Continue to reinforce performance appraisal expectations at manager l; dialogues I STATUS: Ongoing Compensation 1/94 4/94
= Review / revise guidance, policies, and rating definitions for performance appraisals STATUS: One to three months behind schedule, revised schedule to January 1995 for implementation. Based on inabiliity to present information during January & February at Managers Dialogue - due to weather conditions. ;
i l, r. i h
!C l
t L i b hh* 4.x K t
- -- ~~ r-, ,, y y
. . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _m- - -----, -, -- , . - n - . , . - . - ,, -
EMEEMIE!I@@@@WERERSEiWEWiMENViGjijif{fggg?"EP'3Fggggggggyggggggg ! M-1 Supervisory practices that properly support professionals who make decisions and perform work MEASURES: 1
- Business Leadership Development Content Applicability !
t
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by Line Management l e
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by QA ,
- Supervisory Face-to-Face Time Total Human Performance Events t
@ @ {$$j@$$fdM M}M M $$$D M 5!N$3!$$$ N N3A N 'kN d kYNII$$d$$$$$$IfIki$$$d$/5 MIN C A 255*$$$$
i I ** f1 g 7 M y .D
_. 1 TERIE@@$2R 7!3EffA55l@M NfffEPid$ff M 7 5 Q@ BR@!&%LW W 2!}$36!$$333lliEisi E i i M-3 Management actions and establishment of accountability f MEASURES:
- Business Leadership Development Content Applicability
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by Line Management :
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by QA
- Supervisory Face-to-Face Time
- Total Human Performance Events
- Licensee Event Reports (Personnel Error) (M-3 only) test 28WWERMMC~ -- 'T6212R$9E7256 2 6 E dEM M S W -m -- :!EifBidEBEd@EFuES
.4 - . r- ., , , ,,
BLD Content Applicability I Nuclear Dept 100 . Monthly YTD Target y/////n 80 - l D ! 8 j 60 l
.9 '
E r v> e E 40 e 20 I 0 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 1994 CPM 1 t .g 2 r , ,- r-, P= 1 m a my
i Work Practices & Standards Performance Line Management Monitoring Salem Station . 100 Monthly YTD Target-- txxx; e - - - - - - - - - -
= = . .
..- =_ . . . ... _ ____________________... ..__.____..............__. ___-__.
g / 3 60 a u 8 40 is !
- n. l 20 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994-55s r- P-* '7 gue 37
- - - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._____1_______.______________._____.-._____. _ _
~
~'
Work Practices & Standards Performance tl QA Monitoring Salem Station 100 Monthly YTD Target-txxx2 s----__--_-___-- t 80 . g . __. ... . _ _ _______________________________________________._______________.
.g 60 C
8 40 E 20 A M J J A S O N D J F M 1994 53s 9 Iri r t ' r": M ra y y
. 1 I
Supervisory Face-to-Face Time Salem Station 1 70 Monthly ~YTD' YTD Targ'et" , m . . . . . . . . . 60 m E
'5 50 3O -
W
----5-------------------------------------------------------------------
{40 a {30 E E 20 10 0 A M J d A S O N D J F M 1994 56s
. r.,
- - e- r-, sq mm gp
1 Total Human Performance Events W 25 l! r Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other i V_./ / / I IN N \ NI r//////A NNNNNNXN Target 7 0 Hope Creek ND K . 20 m ; __________. / 7 7 h k v I
/ / / g
---------- 4 ------ ;#Y-- < --------------------
15 / --------------------------------- 7 f - /N < , m - f /\ !
/5 X <
j - / / y# X j /\ < a /NZl
/ {4 X / L -
j /s /s < z js /s
/s /, 3 ,
' X /N <
/s
/\
10 /s X js
/\ X /N <
/s
/s /N X /\ ys X /N
/s
/s /N X /\ ><
#\ X /N
/s
/s /N- X y >(
/\ X g
/s /N X j\ ^ * /s
/s
\ /N
/s
/\ >(
^
/\
5 X- /\ X /s <
/s /\ X y
\ ^ X /s /s
/s /N y f\ ^ X /s
/s /N X f s /s ><
/ ' '
0 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
. 11 ., - .- r, p+ q yeu yy
i ti LER Personnel Related Salem Station , 30 1 I Monthly Year-to-Date Target - m : . . . . . . . . . 25 20 m W !
.O l E 15 !
3 ! z ! 10 g** yo yg g69* gegyW 8* q,g*** O - - - - J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 28s
' - r- w m
I LER Personnel Related Hope Creek 30
- Monthly Year-to-Date Target gm : ___--
25 i 20 m W
.O E
a 15 2 . 10
,e mmee66666 gM S
- g
,,... ~~~ p ge m** I
,,m.****
o y g**** y' , ___.....
..... I 1 I Mi T I I I I I I I O - -
O N D J F M A M J J A S 1994 i6 r
- r' p-t a g, ,,
WW ,
.AWW --
W' W-r v -- - -- y .-s t ''v,q':__l '
- la w~~- v =w, r s ,g n
W'r=r' ?!40 e v=,3!*eP -.le t'M.h med= >Ta ,Y" CPA W "Wt* M 4 @ $yP W Mga#'AM' isl's' h'4 3 Key Focus item Supported: Management Risk Assessment & Prioritization (CPAT M-2) Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Engineering l
'i Stop -'
Activity Sponsor Support Start Select M2 team and meet with CPAT representatives to establish clarity of issues VP-NE M2 Team 1/94 , and brainstorm actions. STATUS: Complete. Establish draft framework and plan to address risk VP-NE MAP Team / 11/93 PM-IP PM-IP STATUS: Complete. (MAP Team) Obtain acceptance of framework and plan from VP-NENP-NO and E&PB peer PM-IP Peer Group 1/94 group (approximately 6 separate sessions). PMA STATUS: Complete. Revise framework plan based on acceptance dialogue sessions PM-IP 1/94
""^
STATUS: Complete. Obtain acceptance of framework and plan from E&PB and station department VP-NE PM-IP 3/1/94 managers (THEY Bashers population). VP-NO PMA STATUS: Complete. Investigate the development of risk assessment policy to embrace key components VP-NE M2 Team 3/1/94 6/15/94 V"~"O STATUS: Working. igiermiusbeana0MalMBB2MB3!MN!2NR**MEE4AWMEi@M*1%MEM3ElaBBBigigtsmsg;eagggg;gefa i vi - > t ' P-? P-1 rs un sp _ _ _ _ - __ - =__________-__?____- _ _ ___ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________-_
i m~ v ~~~~~w~ ~ ~~wm --- - --mm m mm m nw=: : < BrrwenmermrmnnmmMiic~ e=m lear; Department 1TacticaliPla- gCPATiMI21c6nt'd)U nA m a w e e:3 t
#C Support Start Stop h Activity Sponsor VP-NO M2 Team /Nuc 4/1/94 6/15/94 ,,
Design communication plan through 1994 Comm Mgr STATUS: Working. VP-NENP-NO RC Mgrs 6/1/94 ongoing Implement Communication plan PMA/PM-IP PM-IP/PMA VP-NE 3/1/94 7/1/94 Set up Socratic Dialogue. (method to demonstrate framework application by VP-NO Nuclear Department Leadership) (Video session for roll down) STATUS: Working VP-NE PMA/PM-IP 4/1/94 6/1/94 Design mini tool, thought process aid as handout VP-NO STATUS: Working VP-NE PM-IP/PMA 7/1/94 9/1/94 Roll out framework and Socratic Dialogue. Roll out per communication plan (use VP-NO video as aid) VP-NE M2 Team 7/1/94 7/1/94 Design measures through 1994 to assess what changes have occurred in prudent RC Mgrs risk taking ll Prioi'tization .t VP-NE M2 Team 1/94 . Select M2 team and meet with CPAT representatives to establish clarity of issues and brainstorming actions STATUS: Complete. VP-NE RC Mgrs 2/8/94 Survey RC managers for work in department that can be a) stopped, b) given lower priority, c) emphasized less by management STATUS: Complete. 12S$5fMMWhM262iS&!KishnEMhfasMhs5#BMa!EMaadia!GMw2MBisistiaEEheEnBGEGand i t
- f dI Wfissss%MO 6fi@!NMEIMMhtTN0tidaielahMCPATWil!Ni!?
1 Suppc,-t Start Stop Activity Sponsor 10/93 6/15/94 Ops /E&PB NSM Team Review NDRAP projects to reduce workload on ND Mgrs STATUS: Working. VP-NE 10/93 6/1/94 VP-NE - Resolve NDRAP inconsistencies and insure use of system E&PB i l MAP team STATUS: Working (work control) 7/1/94 ! NSM Team 6/1/94 VP-NE Executive decision to cut work, reprioritize, de-emphasiza based on survey results VP-NO t VP-CNO Mgr-NED TBD 6/1/94 Perform collegial assessment on NDRAP process I 6/1/94 7/1/94 VP-NE ongoing Design Communication Plan VP-NE RC Mgrs 7/1/94 implement Communication Plan VP-NO M2 Team 7/1/94 7/1/94 VP-NE Design measures to assess what changes have occurred regarding prioritization effectiveness h - i I i ! .4 - ,
P* poi q 4 EF
.- , - .. - . - - , - - - ~_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ . ________-.-___.___-__.__.___m
I n-n - n~.
.g ru mmm '#^
m-m- n - w m'tp[NE', E$ iEh}$khhf/. v f k "d$ $ h hj ,d $ S N. nmm,skhlh[l
' E I nkh$$am[$$%$ -nm[mwn-A $!N NjIs 6ES UNS Nh d h hh M-2 Management Risk Assessment and Prioritization u
MEASURES: .
- Corrective Maintenance Backlog
- Preventive Maintenance Backlog
- Engineering Work Requests NDRAP
- Repetitive Equipment Problems (under development)
- DCP SORC Status Approval Total Human Performance Events
- Licensee Event Reports (Personnel Error)
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by QA
=_Risss5Esti!!S! Met hagasa;sgramiraarsssam3B&MmeasPAthsiz;E?dS25k% EMS &Enia----
r ' F- p, q M EP
k Corrective Maintenance Backlog
. i All Pn. ont.ies .
Salem Station : 2.000 Year-to-Date Target-- e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . r; 1,600 j F ft) C m E 1,200 O , ,,,,,_ E
.o E 800 -
a Z , 400 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 18AS L < v; e - - r: H ra ma p l'
i Preventive Maintenance Overdue i Hope Creek Station t
- l 50 us ,
O 49 3 ,
,ll c
o-O W wd j - l O 1 cy3 20 '
$C -
1 G) O g 10 ' D. 2.9 18 2.1 2.2 0 N " 1991 1992 1993 1994(Apr) 1990 5/23/94 2OO-4H i ..; - - r- >' r3 gg !La _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____._..-.____r- - - - - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ __________ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ ____ __ -
... _ - _ _ _ = _ _ - _
I Engineering Work Requests Nuclear Dept , 240 - 220 .. 2.Open , 200 i .E. Closed j 180 -
-Z Received 160 --
j 140 - l120 - 100 -- 80 -- 60 - 40 -- 20 -- 7-
/
J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 ENG7
;g - .- r- et a gas sr
= - .
i Nuclear Dept Resource Allocation Process 1000 800 i e 1 W E
,g 600 :
o
'm ;
.O E 400 a
Z 200 1:'- ll :. ;;g~ , d 0 4th Ort 1st Ort 2nd Ort 3rd Ort Age 1994 current 1 yr Z 2 yrs _ 3 yrs 4 yrs 40NDRAP I I
- F' p1
I 1 I i
'l l .
DCPs SORC Approval Status ; i E&PB tl 60
- 55 Target -Monthly - Year-to-date - l
__________. x x x x i e 50 - 45 - 40 ,
._ 3 5 ,_______ ,________________.
E , E 30 /
"3 ,
- 25 '
20 15 / i i i i i i i i I O J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 I.tf - ' C; M r"l m ar
r Total Human Performance Events 25 g Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other V///I l\ \ \ \l F//////A NANNNA\N H ND Target 7 k i 20 de xx, Creek ; __________. / r
/
7
/
j g e 15
/
/
-----------------------------_---h
- 7 y j --- --
p/k--g
/N ><
z /s
\Zl /
/,
4 3 ' 5- - h/
/\
X X
/s
/s
/N N
/N ' /N
/s
/N ><
10 X
/\ fs X
/N /\ <
/N X /\ fs X /s /N
/N /N X /N /\ X /s
>(
/s <
/N /s
~
/s X y /\ X y jN /s <
/s /N * /s /N 5 -
/N -
/N X
/ s\ ys * /s
/N
/N /N X / /s * /s
/N /N <
/s
/N X / ys *
/N /N X / ys s /N ><
0
$ d (N. /N X b b i i 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1993 . 1994 REAS3 12 month avg i .4 - +- # H : .1 peg gy
!I i
LER Personnel Related Salem Station 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target , ym : . . . . . . . . . . . 25 20 be a3
.O Es 15 ,
Z , 1 10 5 ,,,,,,........-
,g.
y..-** O - - - - J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 28s 0 4 - -
- . :-., w gg
i! LER Personnel Related Hope Creek t 30 . Monthly Year-to-Date Target i!- 1 25 20 b ! e '
.O E
a 15 t z 10
~~~~ ~~~_................
5 ........
........ i t I 1 L -tvrv1 T i i i t i O - -
A S O N D J F M A M J J j 1994 r - .. g, p., q , , I .n .
Work Practices & Standards Performance / QA Monitoring , Salem Station ! 100 Monthly YTD Target txxx; e - ---...--.
- g. . ..
t 80 ................................................................ y . ... ... ... 2
.jg 60 E
8 40 m n. 20 0 J J A S O N D J F M A M 1994 53s lW - . - r- r, q ,
,.n -,,,nnn. n.,,- - .g...-
n-r PlanKCPAtim 4. .. Ar:;
- W 2 M,.-s &...m y m y n -.
w WBNu,c, lear 1 Departmentctical Ta. ._-- xho G @. 1 i-Key Focus item Supported: Content and Delivery of Management Training to Effectively Support Individuals and Groups (CPAT M-4) Sponsor: General Mr iger - Nuclear Human Resources and Administrative Services Activity Sponsor Suppsit Start Stop GM-NHR&AS Mgrs 1/94 12/94 Develop and implement Four Business Leadership Development Proarams in l 1994 Consistina of: e Week one - group process and team building e Week two - leadership and personal impact e Week three --- the leader as diagnostician and change agent e Week four - the leadership dialogue and stakeholder analysis Week five - effective conflict management - the leader's greatest challenge g e
!l . Group #1 - 2/28-3/4, 4/11-15, 5/9-13, 6/13-17, 8/15-19 y . Group #2 - 4/18-22, 5/23-27, 66/20-24, 7/18-22, 8/8-12 h . Group #3 - 9/12-16,10/10-14,11/14-18,12/12-16,1/16-20/95 . Group #4 - 9/19-23,10/17-21,11/28-12/2,1/30-2/3/95,2/27-3/3/95 (
n STATUS: Program developed and implementation underway. . I L W % & n~mm.pmgg - U
i . Ij.',9ii, iI !l1 !,i ,If
*?4 i
n 3 P - w e _ n _ n _ o ' d e s a y b t i l r i i o b a v c a i l p h p e b A t w n )
%@. e e r
g,. n t n o r r i. p o E s . o C g . l e t l e n v n s n e e e t n n s . m o i e . d p e v s r d o E g . n l e e P e - wh a v c ( Mjw. e e n s 1 c D a t r
' n p m o R e i r p _
i r h s o e N e p r fr e R _ e t - x d P n
@m e a n e o e a v .
W t L E F t s m e u W n es s e H e s _ me n n W E nl u i s u l t a o e c R_. oa r v B T i L G i vp - - - ni
)R e hs :
S W. er E
- g. t e
. ad e R r a U
J. Cl e S Wh n0 4- A 2 E ei pf. M M i
1 i e i BLD Content Applicability , Nuclear Dept 100 Monthly YTD Target l
, wmn : . . _ . . _ _ _ . . .
9 80 ...........____... .......__......___..___..__....____ D o U
= 60
'S v>
N 40 e 2 20 0
~
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1994 CPM 1 vi r *~ r- - y< ry y y
Total Human Performance Events 25 ; Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other
- V///I l\ \ \ \l V//////A N\\\\\\N '
20 "??h?l f .. 5.9?.'..
/ >(
7
/
i
/
I/ k g , A #Y--g 15 / --------------------------------- ---------- /- ---- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lii / - 7 f / - /N >( L /
- j /X /s
/N /N <
/s Z r, '-
r , ^ X /N 10 -/s /\ X- f\ /s
^
X /N
/N /\ X /\ ^ X /s
/N <
/s
/N
/s X /\ ^ X
/N /N <
/s
/N X j 5
/N
/\
/\
/\ X X /\
\
k y '
/s
*X s -
/N
/\
>(
>(
^
/\
X / /s g
/s
/s /N X f\ X
/N /N
#s
/\ X / >(
/N /\ X / n N /\ >(
0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th
'1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
' xi r *'
& w r2 m y
.I LER Personnel Related !!
lI Salem Station 30 t-Monthly Year-to-Date Target w : __________. 25 h 20 p u
.O E
a 15 Z k 10 ~' ges># ,,. g**
,y ge***
,,eS
~~~~,,__...
0 - - - - A S O N D J F M A M J J 1994 28s i r ' ** F* M1 q g. p i Qi
{ 1: . I LER Personnel Related Hope Creek ' i 30 : Monthly Year-to-Date Target m --_ - 25 i i 20 ; 6. e
.O E
a 15 z 1 10
~~'~
5 - _........ T i 1 1 iM I I I I I I 0 - - D J F M A M J J A S O N 1994 c .4 - .- p- r, m q gp
nn~mne --w-n- .n . n mnm - myr ~3nF n-mmen .. e iWF4%jMNwildn- Departenent4 Tactical.iPlinUCPATiMgeyEMMMBr%BB. ac Ml4ysf ear < 3 ii il Key Focus Item Supported: Management Self-Assessment Process (CPAT M-5) Sponsor: General Manager - Quality Assurance /Fuclear Safety Review Sponsor Suppart Start Stop Activity A. Expectations for Self-Assessment and Corrective Action (Promulgate uniform understanding of Self Assessment and Corrective Action Process). GM-QA/NSR S-2 Team 2/94 2/8/94
- 1. Presentation to SEM/ Director Reports STATUS: Completed 2/8/94.
GM-QA/NSR Mgr-QAP&A 5/94 6/94 1a. Updated Presentation STATUS: Ready for presentation on 6/1/94. HR Plan & 3/94 7/94
- 2. Managers Dialogue Presentation Devel Mgr j STATUS: Awaiting Schedule Slot.
Mgr-QA P&A 5/94 9/94
- 3. Supervisorys Dialogue Breakout Groups: Self Assessment & Corrective Action 7/94 10/94 i Mgr-QAP&A
- 4. Revise Corrective Action Procedure (NAP 58)
Mgr-QAP&A 9/94 1/95
- 5. Define Expectations at Ke Managers staff meetings Principal Engr QA Staff 1992 8/93
- 8. Corrective Action Data Base Project Principal Engr
- 1. Test Module in Procurement QA Programs STATUS: Completed 8/93.
Mgr-M&S 9/93 5/94
- 2. DR, IR, DEF Inclusion STATUS: Implement 6/1/94.
IMcA%Esiinsa!##sa2s2Maa!!!I652tBinMi20M&Mian29EEiEE2iEEisk=35stdiiE;- CO3s$1digtgggggggs
- v r
- r- w q y ,,
- $=
l SiWEi#s@@CINU61sht!Dessatihenf72~t-!!!EssEMEAP_'5F
=*NeMNIE Activity Sponsor Support Start Stop
- 3. Training and Implementation Each Dept. Mgr-M&S 5/94 7/94 STATUS: On schedule.
- 4. Process Assessment and Adjustments Mgr-QAP&A Principal Engr 12/94 4/95 l QA Programs j J
C. Follow-up GM-QA/NSR Mgr-QAP&A 5/94 7/94
- 1. Modify QA audit process to include effectiveness review of line management self-assessment practices.
STATUS: On schedule. GM-QA/NSR Mgr-QAPA& 9/94 quarterly
- 2. Develop Trends Report for Corrective Action
- 3. Issue Corrective Action Trend Reports Mgr-QAP&A QA Staff 9/94 quarterfy
- 4. Strengthen Acceptance CriMria for Corrective Action Responses GM-QA/NSR Mgr-QAP&A 1/94 3/94
. Develop Criteria STATUS: Completed.
. Roll out to Senior Management 3/94 6/94 STATUS: Initial discussion at SEM's staff meeting 7/94 10/94
. Incorporate in QA Program 10/94 10/94
. Implement VPs & GMs GM-QA/NSR ongoing
- 5. Managers and Supervision accountable for the permanent solution to each problem
- 6. Increase integration of QA surveillances and audit activities. Develop GM-QA/NSR Mgr-QAP&A 3/94 12/94 methods to evaluate self-assessment prachces during surveillances activities. Station QA "9'*~
STATUS: In process, included in QA/NSR improvement plan. imik k .~~~. G RM M M Xeading sta RHilRB81R$MINIKdWen ixi r t- r"! H rg as v
Y -( d , +- -
'-D '*
i s2,ka kda *5**g- . ,,W = w meg: are MMeasureer%sr ~ i w[issg, . , g.Nq a s s e,i s, e w is'essd'"e' t inosa-s
- - ' a2~:, - --= ~
i M-5 Measurement Self-Assessment Process . t t MEASURES: I Total Human Peifom1ance Events ! Composites Safety Index Performance [ J s:, NRC Violations : o y 6 A I
'n
{ L 4 s -
't t h,, -
t
n 0 Total Human Performance Events 25 v s/\ nx xn v / / // xxh?!xn 9*t. 20 [E*[d'y I _["[__ ..
/ <
7 i h k 15 i --------------------------------- ----------
/
p/ Y--h -------------------- lii / - 7 y - N >< z /N Z /
/ ,
4
/
, ?- - h
,s X
X
/s y /\ g
/N /N x s
/N -
>(
/'\
1-0 js
's X /N >(
/s /N X / #\ X
/s /N y yN X /s
/
/N
/N
>( '
/N
/N
/N x /\
\
() * /s /N
's
/N >< i
/N X /\ ys * /N <
x /s 5 /N -
/
#\ X jN /N g
/s
/s /N y #\ X
/s /N y j\
\ #\ X /s
/N
/N
>(
/ s /N x / s <
0 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
'n - -
r- m a g y
' j i ,
d! 1[ wj,,.$4q[$3 s. 7, _ gg aN' . g. g g}jJW u_d. A!:Ng .G g, $ .
... w7
. v - j
[f.
. 4 q
$ '% u'm("
- v.
gY;f l
. f _
- O'- t-N' . J g' j '
'J
,1 g5 . :.. z .y 3
[ . p}. 2 , 7 q .
- f. .
3
- [:. .-
'a[
c. 3 , -- .
- . t s _
ns een _ (g . 5 ..- mk _ x e a t e . {.
.. ve o
- Q. p tw
, r _
d f~
.. [ -
mn
. ^
- n . Y n - ,
)
l '- W'_ ia sc 4a u ..: I
' i _
df g[E. . . . . ". _ h.3e , . .~ ;. )
,n .
ein eg y9t 4 w x.a s
- [-
y m
~
.s... y L- . - ni s
t /c 3 J p: :,. ; [ fe0A (
;9 -
- ? -
w _ a3 D f o
- , h .'.'
g~. f 7 . x ; l d
/ .
._ 1 -
y-f. l ee S 4TY %q YR
~
- 3
' . - g-
'1
[' p'[ _ ef / f :: :: y NJ y.. [
- ?' _
t iola Mi .O M
. g[& :
7 . s s o .' -. J.. N'- i. r 3 _ o Q l . 5- ;. ?[ - aG (. j .
. , . f, .
7';- p [ ::
.'J.
d [ - . msuE i . n % : v ': -
. ~
ot l a
? :.
,4 '
h ::. ;. .: ?Q - o . ._ - Cart a %? - :
.[
? t y :-
;y g
s . $ E
, ;:,_ n : '.: _l - ' _
,}
d e mSeY [$ e- : - .. :::'}
$9; e
%~.
(
- - p::)' c e %
9:
#. 3{.n. .
, y f,.
g37i x el a _ 7.$ l _ yo a ' .W h . s ; l t g f n s , S G.]. K J w : ,.F y s., 2.% a ce v f Q: ". ^ . . T.' i f e i
.; i L ' < ^ ~ h nh gc
)
.; } j i
sa
. ^
3 __
/
' ?; ,
{
^: :
o 1 d n nn [ ( . t u .
.h
,h Q e ee .
gee t g: A ... a s.y g
- 9. .. s r r LEGG d
e ' ,,'; n f~ Ny t p
. w, ghlG 1 . y lp i t i W
n
, .N-4 d n .
4 eU U . ic R [ 2
;h2 _
% s s
- (I < ,
,l l - ' ,i 1 if ,,t.
- y _
1 : p. y
]g s
g.y, NpMs.p,. p[';:W*u;4. _. ~ p v- _ hq
. ' . }% , &,.. e 4,, ' .
gm'1n&.i:z I.
^
x y
.- :,0zYh. ;..' m&
~- ~
- t. ::; , f g C ~< ,
?-
, g
- n;,3my;; 7 k -@"
/
.' U
- p . . ' . ' . ' x;W' ' ,.. . l'
- f. 3M.g%
e m; _ ~ . 9 ,?_ - m 4 a& Y t s ns
-w'. . 5 gm ,& : ;: een
_7.. g v.. e a.T
, ..=- mk e a
_ x . ;
. y .. ; ' , vo e e .
3
~
j % ,)). r p w - d .
;3 I.
t imna a n m sc r
. - _ ;- jM
[ . ' - I df i y
, gC S ,
ein eg
- . g
) a
-g ni s
t . e4l a , -.f&wg j - g i.g%a f9u w [ s 3-
.-__ .gghg'ggkp&
- 5. e.,
s: t lo d a/c +p D.
?*
m ; .m lee S03 A h: ,:' 7 - YR m.
- g. . g,-. - d -
H
? .~
z ( 7
'g3 te/D g ?~
'4 f.
y,L%6w;g i4T g .i A'
.. .- ' If g , .w- l.' -
3 f p G. s fY 7: G op o/ g
;Mng n
y-
.p -
8 l . a ;-
.. dH .
3 g'
+
mso 7
~
,yW-Ql o aG
.g'. h.
- . j l
... . :n e, a
- eWaQ o M Csd
, . 3g.Ww g
..'k un s 3 i .
s d ktE a r- Ag' ' ,;. _., '[' ,, hm 3+mM' l . y:g.;%x"s 9
.'13
,j3 yji . e e
c wg u . . 1. et a . 32
. u m
~
x e el
..: a rSeY
~' ; ..
.. yo g
- 4. . ,
'mMu
' ., l p;
t n a s C
.. n -
f tJ 2wg . ( , -. _ 4 ,. ~ e ic v E[ : f f e m. e . . .
..Qn,f .
inh i . p .
}p igc sa
- y4EnQ o '
.+..- .
. . c>;vQ U - -
H d p i n ee nn h }y .L g e ee
- pwm.<;e;y 2 .wf g r r m.
yi. 4 . - q: q W LEGG 3-'_ g.
?. 4 .
i
; i. -
^
g . gf. :. ~ . '^ g. - f
.v . -
.. J. . 1 n 4 r a '3;
,7' .
.s.. :7x..; &::.
,d
'y . , . z s
g g ;. x;y ; g v 7. - s f<,.ha.Q. .. .
,f v
- q. J; g ,~, f .. .
+
gw: . .-;s ; 'j< J,,;.i. ,
.; h'J.
a Q:Y. .b. v
- . . : [ 4 4
ic
..' qw. . , y ' r ; -
s
. w^ u_mFy.Wi.Q k' y; 2 :;,
e h u d '
v
.i NRC Violations ll Hope Creek Station ?
20 Level.1-3. Level 4-5. . Potential Year-to-Date Target 18 _ g, m : . . . . . . - - - - . 16 e E 0 14
+*
- h 12
.9 +o 10 u
e
.o 8 ,
E a z 6 4 .....
=
2 - 0 0 0 0 C J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 l 13H
'A - > p- ' yt r .~3 peg yy
.i i
NRC Violations r Salem Station . 20 t 18 . Level 1-3 . Level 4-5 . Year-to-Date.. . Target. 00000ggg w /////> - - - - - g. 16 E O 14
~ ,
5
+O 10 i
8
.8 ~~~~ .....
E - a ~~___. z 6 . ___ y g**
~~~~~~~
4 p# y-W/A o #A VHA 88&M WA J F M A M J J A S O N D ; 1994 13S Igj ~4
- r"' >=1 F.1 W LP
hk h k hh Y N MNNk f Kev Focus item Supported: iccess to Timely and Accurate Technical Information versus reliance on interpersonal contacts (CPAT W-1) Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operar ons I Sponsor Support Start Stop Activity , , I VenetorInformation Control NEStd Mgr CCG Supv. 4/92 6/94 '
. Re-enforce requirements for control of vendor information received from sources other than the TDRs or EDCC to all personnel.
i li STATUS: Annual letter on vendor information control process to be issued by 6/1/94. NEStd Mgr CCG Supv. 1/94 2/94
. Confirm adequacy of procedural guidance for control of vendor information Mgr - NP&MM received from sources other than the TDRs or EDCC. Mgr-QAE&P STATUS: Completed - (ref. STN-94-0111)
NEStd Mgr CCG Supv. 2/94 2/94
. Confirm Salem Revitalization Project is correctly processing vendor information l Mgr- Sp Proj received with shipments.
STATUS: Completed - (ref. STN-94-0111) i Mgr-NP&MM 2/94 2/94
. Retrain stock handhrs to the procedural requirements for processing of vendor information received with shipments. I STATUS: Open - awaiting verification t
kN k d$jlhdhfh![;$ $ k k k k $$$ d h h d kNy$bhbhMkbb$ bh bN $bb kNhbkkkkkbNN$t. t I P
- N >~! r*3 g gp 9'5 f
. _ . _ ~ _. . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ .
n FN%s M W WNuslear D$65i6dintTistIERiaHMCFkVW4(adbrW@$$RNiMsE Se;-;-::t Start Stop i Activity Sponsor MMIS Maintenance NEStd Mgr CCG Supv. 2/94 6/94 4
. Confirm that no gaps exist in the DCP process to assure that database impacts are recognized & irn.cipersted.
STATUS: In process as part of BOM collegial self assessment. t NEStd Mgr CCG Supv. 1/94 12/94
. Complete BOM Validation Project (1994 Scope)
STATUS: BOM collegial self assessment for assessing BOM Control and Validity in process.
. Assess BOM Control
. Assess BOM Validity
. FDR/FDDIimpactReview(HC)
. Solenoid Valve Verification (Salem)
. Recommend future needs NEStd Mgr CCG Supy 2/94 7/94
. Communicate MDF Resolution Status to Nuclear Department i
STATUS: Communication plan under development. Rolf-cut dependent on collegial self assessment results due 6/94. NEStd Mgr CCG Supv 2/94 7/94
. Communicate MMIS Control & "Get-Well" Process STATUS: Communication pian under development. Roll-out dependent on collegial self assessment results due 6/94.
NEStd Mgr NME Mgr 5/94 8/94
. Develop ASME parts / Component Spedin.duuri Sheets NESci Mgr
. Screen established, never populated
. May be able to drive completion from CJP process STATUS: Collegialself assessmentinitiated. Resultswill address this issue and are due 8/94.
- <- .. r -, ,., , ,,
h$ ~ [ Y 3 h N [hlh3 )h hhhhhhhhh(Idc"g}hjl[$lh}{% D N ATg [ Qg M g ff[ jY @ [ kg[ [ j r. Start Stop l Activity Sponsor Support TBD f Mgr-NP&MM NEStd Mgr 1/93 g;
. Establish standard construction materiallists and inves. tory levels NME Mgr NEE Mgr
. Technical Standard (TS) under consideration NESci Mgr STATUS:
t Computer Hardware and Software Control Mgr-M&S All ND Mgrs 2/94 ongoing
. Support NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0036(O) policies regarding the procurement of computer hardware and software STATUS: No activity started - may be deleted once NA-AP-0036(D) requirements are clarified. See next item. 2/94 6/94 Mgr-M&S N/A . Clarify NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0036(Q) requirements regarding the procurement and development of customized computer software and hardware STATUS: Communication plan under development. t" Enaineerina Document Control and Distribution Mgr - NED CCG Supv 1/93 12/94 . Provide " Working Copies" from EDCC (DCPIT Task #30)
STATUS: In process
.t Mgr - M&S DMS Proj. Mgr 1/93 12/94
. Provide " Working Copies" from DMS (DMS Project Scope)
Disc STATUS: In process. Mgr - NED CCG Supv 1/93 7/94 i
. Bank Changes to Drawings other than OWDs (DCPIT Task #32) - DUTT activity STATUS: In process. t Mgr - NED CCG Supv 1/93 12/94
. Post MCRs against DCP CDs and MDs (DCPIT Task #31)
STATUS: In process. Mgr - M&S DMS Proj Mgr 2/93 12/94
. Access scanning MCRs into DMS Disc i STATUS: In process. ;
lesssR5nisinM*HdsignmW&grairaisammEMaedasL42inaniMGMilMMhMMBeMEBRMilssMWasssmm3 ; j ~4 r
- r" ~ w v.3 g 5p
.______________________________1______.___________ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _
f. I' Nra g-k b bhb$i
- S-;-:5.sor Se;f=t Start Stop- !;
ActMiy Mgr - NED CBD Proj Mgr 1/91 ongoing [
. Communicate CBD Development Plan / Status for Salem - original plan S&A Supv STATUS: Communication plan under development. .
Mgr - M&S DMS Proj Mgr 1/93 6/95
. Communicate DMS Development Plan / Status - original plan "*
f STATUS: Communication plan under development. : CCG Supy 2/93 ongoing f Mgr - NED
. Communicate DCPIT Task #30,31,32 Implementation Plans STATUS: Monthly reports generated through Mgr- NED NEE Mgr Salem l&C 6/91 12/95 ;
e Complete Salem Setpoint Project Supy 1: STATUS: On schedule. Mgr - M&S DCG Supv 2/94 4/94
. Communicate Current TDR/EDCC Services and responsibilities CCG Supv STATUS: Communication plan under development.
Mgr - M&S DMS Proj Mgr 1/94 12/94
. " Baseline Reference Documents" identified and input to DMS CCG Supy DCG Supv STATUS: Assessment of which documents are considered !
" Baseline Reference Documents" in process.
Spare Parts /Compenents and Construction Component Availability Mgr - NP&MM Mgr- P&MC 2/94 5/94 ,
. Communicate the inventory " Write-Off" strategy to the working levels of the Ping Mgr- l impacted organizations ;
Salem STATUS: Communication plan under development. Maint Mgr-Salem Mgr - NED
$ 22$$fN525I$Id$ $ $ E3Al ,
M$$$@sjhTI!d$$$EE@DNEdiA@$rN1$$b0ldN$fdNh532SI$$$lil$hA$dsd6N<2bES=A[ i
'"*' * *
- r-* w m y y
- -_..,,y
i
--- w ----ww y -
g ._. ...
-7audidRenEF vatsNm.asclearDepartine%I,ac06al&nsCPATeWMMa_d*#%aMiuEfMeEP,dg ^ --pmme - - - .
f Spcasor Support Start Stop Activity Salem Maintenance Procedures Tech Mgr Tech Staff 1/94 TBD
. Eliminate procedure revision backlog STATUS: Reducing backlog to meet planned maintenance needs. i Tech Mgr Tech Staff 1/95 TBD I e improve turn-around time for procedure revisions I!
STATUS: The long term goal is less than two month tumaround l depending on priority. Tech Mgr Tech Staff 1/94 TBD
. Develop "New/Old" procedure cross-reference for repetitive tasks STATUS: Cross reference index developed.
EsMWisefa2ini$isu2HsMisC&L%MiBSEE!REEMih%f31Z3A*FiamE2!itifR$$$!if&%8!IRNM8lEPaik2sait% .
- d '
- r~' @ r3 gg gp
. tMf$[WMi@T8l@Ql$$3BlRRllrisi W-1 Access to timely and accurate technical information versus reliance on interpersonal contacts MEASURES:
- Number of DMS Work Stations installed versus Work Station Installation Plan
- Number of Documents Scanned and indexed into DMS by Type 1
- Average Hours of DMS Availability per Week
- MMIS Work-in-Progress Load l gammexwa m a%Z2ELalLa N MF/MidkabsEm i
'" ' ' r* m e3 m yy
_._____________________________________~l__________________________________________
Document Management System . Workstations Installed Nuclear Dept , 200 i
- Month -YTD - Target - i 180 m ; ...................
. 160 C ,:
3 140 g 3 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
.E 120 ...- l' u #
O - 3 100 ' o a u 80 ; e
.o E 60 a
Z , 40 i 20
' ^ ^ '
0 M J J A S O N D t J F M A 1994 CPW1A t l i
.t*J P '
N' Mi q g g ~ ~
i' Document Management System Documents into System t Nuclear Dept 300 Month -YTD- Target' m : .................. 8 2s0 .........................- o ........................... e-X e 200 t E e E . 8O 150 V so-O m 100 m
.O E
a z 50 0 A M J J A S O N D J F M 1994 cPW1B
- - - - r-~ p, q
1 i Document Management System Time Available L Nuclear Dept 300 0
- Month - YTD' - Target - ,
m ; .................... y 200 m (D 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
} .... . .
E s O 1 100 50 0 M J J A S O N D J F M A 1994 CPW1C i
* *' F P*r1 pq g y ID I
I MMIS Work-in-Progress Load j Nuclear Dept 440 - , 400 --
- 4. Backlog--
i 360 -- .-N . ji . Received -
. s s 320 -- ..\ F f.. Resolved -
N t\ p 4;\ ... Work-in-Progress 280 -. . (N m 240 -- ,
;$ 200 --
ls\ [ - 160 - - l S h -
,20 3- y ; j; jR 80 -
y :
\
s h X N N
- s s %N 40 --
s js Sl '! s 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 ENG6b
. ..; e .- r-- w r, sun sr
h$it hbb ' ES$kh N $ hdhk N k! NN khk* k b bk d *1 b b M iib b b b b h i I Key Focus item Supported: Effective use of Work Planning & Scheduhng (CPAT W-2) Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operations Stop ! Sponsor Support Start Activity , Implement Recommendations of Corporate Maintenance Performance }' Enhancement Procram ; 11/91 i GM-SO Corp. Perf. o Salem Phase i Salem Staff p
. Implement productivity enhancement recommendations g
STATUS: Recommendations approximately 2/3 implemented. L PC based software to onsite manpower (supvr & worker) F availability to work schedule currently being implemented. Stewart communications is on-site faciliation, installation and use. 11/91 e Salem Phase 11
. Share transferable practices from best-in-class plant visits ,
STATUS:_ Complete. Included in Phase 1 recommendation. GM-HCO Corp. Perf. 6/92 12/94
. Hope Creek HC Staff
. Layout and implement assessment plan ongoing 9/95
. Continue work on 30 day outage initiative i
STATUS: Ongoing i i R;_. . th hh;f lh ( h hhk w l I
*N ~ >
- W' pus m y
[
$$$[$!dMh5 kIk k [ M k_ NsNMM[hMNkkkfk3($1MIUS$fEWON Oh Activity Sponsor Suwert Start Stop Nuclear Procurement and Material Managernent Mgr-NP&MM M&S 7/92 e
S/HC-Maint Planning
. Assess and optimize newwarehouse productivity STATUS: Complete .
. Optimize utilization of WAMMS System i
e Performance indicators
. Management reporting
. Parts availability to clients STATUS: Ongoing, performance indicator in place.
GM-Mat Mgmt Mgr-NP&MM 3/94 ongoing
. Implement corporate material management personnel development (Corporate) MMSO (Corp) program STATUS: Working - bargaining unit (3rd quarter 1994), Material Control (2nd half of 1994), Procurement (1st quarter 1994).
Sta Planning - 1/94 ongoing e implement Work Packages Mgr Salem
. Work package standards monitoring
. Realign customer focus with work departments STATUS: Working ElL amERM E;;kdW"2:222J@ EEN # C21:E Z_ J ~*!?'"i@ C r ._1_ilegp3retaggssig! ,
I i
- ..; e , ,. g. g, g g
~
(;Y N k h k ( h fk h @ } M M d@h 3I $N$[; h @ @$h , Nfh h hhhhh!E5@$N b k N Su;-;-:-rt Start Stop j i Activity Sponsor
. Worktowardsincluding:
[ ,
. Why is job being done
. Tech Spec Action Statement
. ALARA j
. Heat Stress ,
. Plant Conditions
. Workimpact
. Contingency Plans
. Tagging Requirements i STATUS: Working implement Salem Unitization Plan STATUS: On schedule.
Form a process improvement team to " Work Contror and implement activities. STATUS: Full time team assigned, process on schedule. 3 ammastremassassaammmmeaum*memensmunammaamc=:x==mmamessaaear i - +- H ri r.3 g g
i I$$$$fE$ dI!3N!M1lI@$ 3 E E E $$$t E M M f D IIIfSA M isliL adEdH E$3 W-2 Effective use of work planning and schedules , i i MEASURES: ,
- Corrective Maintenance Backlog and Aging
- Preventative Maintenance Overdue
- Schedule Achievement (non-outage)
- Outage Window Performance Shutdown Rx Disassembly Drain RCS Midloop Core Reload Mode 5 Mode 5 to 4 Mode 4 to Unit Synchronization ea -
+ .< m m u
I h U1 NON-OUTAGE PREVENTIVE MAINT. TREND , STATION DEPT *S ONLY (EXCEPT AS NOTED) EXCLUDES HISTORY, REJECT. RDYRT & RTCPT 2ee t u y 1 . . . 4 ctoso Past oo
% PaST out DaTE O eva no m i
-' -)l(- ison era oo m
-{- sta co m HE
-*- sta co m e se -
* *
- w *
*
- m m m m m m a
$ $ Y~ M e
V. , 2e men 2 m., emay to an., 2smar 11 m te m 29 28 1e 21 22 23 ctos.Paef oo te 142 162 192 105 151 pany guE DATE 122 134 17 19 21 20 26 STA co ,84 to to 32 32 31 32 SS 32 32 esose sta oo rea 2 2 3 3 1 gia co ped peg 2 1 e
- e o e
.va oo ,m w 1 1 (MfMNO May 23,1994
i e
*-e w ~~* .. , ..
j U2 NON-OUTAGE PREVENTIVE MAINT. TREND STATION DEPT'S ONLY (EXCEPT AS NOTED) EXCLUDES HISTORY REJECT, RDYRT ta RTCPT S 109 1., .. . . 120 -- I
$ cLosePAsT 00 1,. . . .
% PA4T Dut DATE O eT A 00 Pts ,
~'
% mom 4TA ce rte >
+ .T A o. = =
- STA 00 944 04P se ...
gg . . . A -A-
- x. -
gq . . , . e e a w y I 1 L n i 1 1 ' a T T I T 0 ' 940AF 1G MAT 2344AT 26MIt S assy 11 m te m 19 18 14 17 IS TS 118 24 118 117 122 CLOGO PAST 09 139 tot 1M 18 17 17 PAST DUE DATE 14 16 19 21 12 14 ST A OO f4A 14 12 15 15 1 15 9 9 9 feess 4T A O9 75A 1 8 4 1 0 0 ST A OC FRA M # 9 G G ST A OO rt4 88P
+
U2PMNO May 23,1994
' .n ' - ,- g, g
t i f! U1 MAINTENANCE W/O BACKLOG NON-OUTAGE CM/PL WORMORDERS STATION DEPARTMENTS ONLY ['
-*-- TOTAL WO'S : CM/PRI A.B.1,2 -6F- CLOSED -O- INCOMING 1000 t 800 --
1l 800 --- i l. 400 ---
- : : : +
200 --- w- - -
.,m i
O
' ' ' ' 8 8 ' I 18-Apr 25-Apr 5-May 9-May 16-Mey 23-May 30-May 6,Jun TOTAL WO'S 761 750 770 785 821 853 CM/PRI A,8,1,2 284 292 303 305 320 297 ;
CLOSED 169 134 141 168 50 81 i INCOMING 233 204 210 213 106 89 UICMNO U1CMNOA/5/ClNOC1B May 23,1994
;xj - '
r: P-1 rg M D
a . i' U1 NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE MAINT. W/O'S SORTED BY DEPARTMENT /OROUPS/PRI A.8,1,2 EXCLUDES HISTORY, REJECT, RDYRT & RTCFT 13e h
,se . . .
es . . . b 4AefilNeK Q ecu g M* a E23 m [) O ere Gl emo - es . .. ime, wem eco Se
, -l s
m e e Y 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 'Y e e e ND e e o M Ed C e e A e e e o e e 4 e e
. .m.
'7 7 e
e Em 4 e o e e : a $ $ e s er see a e i i a e i e i e e e e a are s : i i 2 3 1e et 73 44 22 7 9 3 2 1 1 enIO et 27 se e e a a e e as rotat se se se si is RIoetTHS OLD tee 4 UICMNO2 U1CMNO2-1 May 23,1994 IR5 r t ' e r1 pa g g
- W M w ~* ea .-
l l' l U2 MAINTENANCE W/O BACKLOG NON-OUTAGE CMIPL WORKORDERS STATN)N DEPARTMENTS ONLY l CM/PRI A,8,1,2 -*- CLOSED -O- INCOMING
--*-- TOTAL WO'S 800
- : i.
600 -- i: 400 - l l l 200 -- b $
- e '
0 23-May 30-May 64un 25-Apr 5-May 9-May 16-May 18-Apr 688 690 689 745 TOTAL WO'S 677 677 290 293 382 279 CM/PRI A,8,1,2 273 275 164 163 63 50 CLOSED 167 148 141 102 180 78 68 INCOMING 130 U2CMNO U1CMNOA/B/C[NOC1B May 23,1994
._________"1_____.___________..___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
sa ._., a w.s ow .~ -- Am l U2 NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE MAINT. W/O'S SORTED BY DEPARTMENT / GROUPS /PRI A,8,1,2 6 EXCLUDES HISTORY, REJECT, RDYRT & RTCPT i M se -- gg . . . NI E a oc i a - - M eco O mes E23 e.
= - -
E5SI emo 3 . .. b MAS SAS M MAD WAS teRBO 193A0 13nIO 313A3 RAAY 1980 SAS MAS 4 RAD
. l l ',' :
~ ; *.
- l l i ; ,e b $ $ $ b b !
5 !!!$!!$ U2CMNO2
- May 23,1994
il 1 SALEM NUCLEAR GEN NON OUTAGE SCHEDULE ACHIEVEMENT ; I. n
% il 100 u
~ *
- l' 80 --
,'
- W s '. = .=
t
, . 3,
"" ~'"' *~'s' 60
~ ' "'
~ ~"
40 s.
-++*+++*"+"+
=
4-l .a. ,
+ ,
- 20 t *-
~
f+++4" W +t+ t f, j+TEL , ,+ _
+
i,,,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 0 . 92 93 i gi
=
SCHEDULE COMPLETE
- EMERGENT WORK t
1 i
' Y
*' V W G p y i
l i MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON SHUTDOWN THRU RX HEAD ON STAND
~
HOURS j l 485 65 464 375 k-i* j
@~
, $g,
'. SALEM's BEST 270 q.i 228 8't 220 s g341 -
379 g i A. 1_ ;
, }'(( _
, " ~ ('d*- ,,
D . p ff: . 5 3 '
'.M .
- 114
'///!! L i ?ic ?. ; .
9
/ $.? '.
/' /
DIABLO 1R8 2RS 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 IM 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE CURRENT SALEM TARGET , i e, r - P-' H r+a agg gp
__.-.________________z_ MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON REACTOR DISASSEMBLY THRU CORE OFFLOAD HOURS -i 5-208 po ,, 7,,n ,,,, System Delay D Fuel Transfer sy.t.m o.emy 137 j! SALEM's BEST 91 isk t I l 33 8' , 9 _ 96
- l 2RS 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE DIABLO 1R8 CURRENT
. . SALEM TARGET -
A:\ COMPARE \003 r- . c., w p
.. _. 3 i
MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON r DRAIN RCS \ HOURS i 84 I i l ' 68 g,.. ,
- i M .'.
' 49 l SALEM's BEST J'T .' p-40 39 - r.p. , 7, .
I . . b .-
'/.
%9 i 2 ',M-Q '.;; .. $ j; [
I j E f'j , c; . ,
. %Y' !'
18
~
,jggiyjI , . ]I'c 18 a_: +1 3, ly -
..s.
~
/
2RS 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE DIABLO 1R8
-q CURRENT a SALEM TARGET .g.
~
- W - . r-- ~ e, g 5g
MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISC)N k I MIDLOOP OPERATIONS 5 i HOURS 1,782 i?l'U
!$ i-
- $1 r
;+ _
~
t i 865 784 s y lt i .1
?
.;y f?-
r
-F .
520 504
- 430 SALEM's BEST '
~
g . , 344 12
,/,/f (/ l. 3is g ..- ,
F ' 2
/,// /- ' -
218
~~
1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE DIABLO 1R8 2RS CURRENT SALEM TARGET . A:\ COMPARE \005 ' r-- t y-, .q , ,
'i3
MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON : CORE RELOAD , HOURS ; 80 I?*,6%E 72 T.jgALEM's BEST
$ffIp.' [
8 ss 8 se sa y k
~
' /I ' -
E.}q.h;
.y.
'///; ih .?'l?i '
a
//,/.$ , C-'hi ., e . .
i,;,
%Ig.r
~
,::i. w V-q$i :
fi,c.
. ', '!!/ ) ,;
'///l 0 :
' ,/, 1 { 'tyy
'/ji .i }^ t,. ,%.
5 .ji[
'//// \ _
2R7 W ,.i.W L 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE DIABLO 1R8 2RS 1R9 2R6 1R10
' : CURRENT
-.. SALEM TARGET _g. .
,,,.. ~...-.-., . . .
MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON 0 COMPLETED CORE RELOAD TO MODE V HOURS . p T(? 220 b 221
- i
- e. . . .
k?$h! V 181 .i[f '! I : t j :N .[ SALEM's BEST h h' h Q j i i, / ,. (?.
- 127 127 'l
/. . }.'. .;" ~ 3:17: I I t,h .: ^E
//)h/
l' 3A
$y,.,ff; i
l ', .,i i :. (g .. ].f4 a ;. 66 l, 'l.' f'l,'
/g, .j, lh.?
hp,),! i 1 c', / ' ' - il 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 1R11 2R8 VOGTLE DIABLO 1R8 2R5 CURRENT l'
' SALEM TARGET .
67-A-ACOMPARE\o07 r - r- y, r.3 g y
' 9' ;
1 6.,,, s a .. . MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON MODE V TO IV \ HOURS 1,515 I i
?T '
4
.~ 1,243 y
D- 956 7 a-=='- ,o o,o
- 4. neuv ,
6 3 SALEM's BEST 460 471 310 W '1', 251 251 1 .59 #. 2R5 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 1R11 VOGTLE DIABLO 1RB e CURRENT
- SALEM TARGET -
i l vm r - . . r- r1 q g g
MAJOR WINDOW COMPARISON ! MODE IV TO FINAL SYNC HOURS I 1,011 noo corit ros 663 429 -
' ' ' *i 305 VOGTLE DIABLO FSALEM's BE 1R8 2RS 1R9 2R6 1R10 2R7 e N1 1R11 2R8 i
4, CURRENT
.
- SALEM TARGET -
A.\ COMPARE \009 .
jy q ap@ $ligy!gyj{g g h g g gggg g g g g gggggggjggg g g Key Focus item Supported: Process work-around versus ownership and continuing improvement (CPAT W-3) i' Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operations i Sperisor % ===t Start Stop '; Activiti 5/54 GM-HCO W-3 Team 1/94 e Combine NAP 1 (Nuclear Department Procedure System) and NAP 32 (Preparation, Review and Approval of Procedures) into one procedure. ! STATUS: Completed 3/94 3/94 S/94 GM-HCO W-3 Team
. Review NAP 59 (10CFR50.59 Reviews and Safety Evaluations) for simplification, followed by the approximately 40 NAPS which are sponsored by Nuclear Operations STATUS: NAP 59 issued 5/17/94, others by 12/94 GM-HCO W-3 Team 3/94 12/94
. Further simplify NAPS by separating those procedurer which directly impact
- plant safety and are more subject to regulatory scrutiny from those which are not, permitting more simple processes for writing, reviewing, and implementing administrative procedures STATUS: In progress 5/94 12/94 GM-HCO W-3 Team
. Roll out lessons teamed to RC Managers GM-HCO W-3 Team 6/94 12/94
. Evaluate transition of station procedures back to responsible departments Identify and Correct Work-arounds VP-NO GM-SO 2/94 ongoing
. Evaluate work-arounds during field time and/orwork monitoring GM-HCO STATUS: Working GM-HCO W-3 Team 11/94 6/95
. Include lessons leamed in SL-40, SD-16, work standards handbook Dir-Pl Work Control 2/94 12/94
. Review work continue process to eliminate potential for work-arounds PIT
. Review development of software on LAN's Mgr-M&S Staff
# N M 7 7 ._ _____ _.2__- J dinsipj!!@lBDM Isl!dB$!FSs!EihMUd$MINEdddElIR$ 1 Z Z. ~ E Z~" T E
- -; - - s- , r .' W u
DI %d \Q,. w
,.* - s,
*.. A% - - ,,
.,l'
-- 'T-'O .
- -- # 4 . - - +=
,1 as' u'te'"lk.
4W % %,W&gi&'m%%&-A=D6- y8%s- RQ&d%%%!&d'[hmsh._ O-
- Y T '
Li d'C*.A', M'F"%.W"- ' Mi'Re'Q 4q t t%MT %fMM*W'+8-' %- - i i 1 W-3 Process work arounds versus ownership and continuing improvement 1 MEASURES:
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by Line Management
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring by QA Total Human Perrformance Events c
- Licensee Event Reports (Personnel Error) i.;
li b Y: W4 '
'A .4 - . p- - p. q g g
i, l Work Practices & Standards Performance Line Management Monitoring Salem Station !, 100 Monthly ~YTD- Target - txxx; e _-___-_--_- a . 1
& 60 a .;
E 8 40 m n. 20 O J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 55s
'xi " '
F"' P"1 F1 M 9
Work Practices & Standards Performance QA Monitoring Salem Station i
-Monthly YTD- - Target 4 100 -----------
cxxK)
- : "C~
b 80 , y . ... .... . . . . 2
.y 60 E
E 40 20 0 M J J A S O N D J F M - 19Q4 53s
'd r -
r- p., 4 r3 g g
d t Total Human Performance Events 25 i Salem 1 Sdem 2 E&PB Other ' V///I EsW V//////A l\\\\\\\N ND Target 7 k 20 H.o$e xxACreek
. . . . . . . . . /
r
/
?
/ y n
g 15
/ ---------------------------------
h
------- J pyY--'g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ 7 y - /N <
E -
/N
.A . j <
y /9 -
/ 3 x / f /N <
a /xI g x y L - X /s /s
/s z /s r, 3 , j[ ><
, X .
fs .. 10 /s /N x -- y
\
js X / /N <
/s /N x /\ fy X / s\ /N <
/s /N X /\ ys X /s /N <
/s .
/\ x /\ '\ X /s /N g
/s /N y f s
$ /N
~
/N ) ) Ns ><
5 -
/\ X
/
/N x /N ><
/\ /
s ys * ' /N ><
/N /\ x /s fx N
/N
'N /\
/\
x /s fs ( NN /N
/\
^ ^
X
/'s ys * ^ ^ " ' '
0 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1993 1994 REAS3,12 month avg
-' m m og Q
h! LER Personnel Related ll!: Salem Station . 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target m . . . . . . . . . . . (l . 25 I 20 m W
.O Es 15 Z
10 ...- y d* y d* m e eO Y g g** ym mO** p g*** gg*** O - - - M J J A S O N D J F M A 1994 28s
t e LER Personnel Related Hope Creek ; 30 g l' Monthly Year-to-Date Target ; txvvN O 25 i 4 20 ; i n. b W
.D E
a 15 Z 10
. t
- "~~~ ,,,,,__ ....__..
5 - ,________ -
,,ome****",,,,,,______-
gW
- g og_O*
1 1h T 1 1 I I i 1 1 I O - - J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994
?.d T ' ' P"' F*1 rm = .
o
- ~ - -
n.n E ,A *
--,,nen c : *iNucle,ar DepartmentT,actical PlarWCPATsWWh,, AFT,@?!
h 8 Key Focus item Supported: Timely and Accurate Part information and Availability with Appropriate levels of end-user intervention (CPAT W-4) L' Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operations I Sa-;-g-:-rt Start Stop Activity Spc,r,sor Mgr-NP&MM Mgr-NTC 1/94 ongoing Formalize Trainina Proaram (Codes. Standards. Hardware. Forklift. Safety n Procedures Mgr-NTC 1/94 ongoing e Continuing training MMIS, PDIS, VPNO, AP-18, AP-19, AP-09, AP-38 i : GM-NHR&AS 4/94 7/94 e Conduct training needs survey (W4, Buffet 6) STATUS: Work started - formed NP&MM Team & J. Samson is doing client survcy. (5/24/94) J. Samson is still developing client network for WAMMS and APPO Training issues /Concems. Mgr-NP&MM 11/93 6/94 Implement Recommendations of Process improvement Team on Obsolete , Spare Parts (W4, Bullet 2,8) STATUS: Complete implementation - procurement engineering , is tracking status of pes & OSPs. (5/24/94) NP&MM/Per are actively developing tracking process / client feedback and status ; tool. Mgr-NP&MM 1/94 12/95 . Alian Nuclear Procurement & Material Manaaement with Corporate . t Ornanization Structures STATUS: New NP&MM organization announced on 5/16/94. Now implementing. GM-NHR&AS 1/94 4/94 ! Mgr-P&MC 2/94 7/94
. Conduct organization review j . Implement new organization STATUS: Working - expect implementation May 1994.
bs!&2!!!EBEE!!E@ Mis?R&MiMEE#sBsWa!EFdifdMF4iEEEE!MnBASL638EGhiniGEMEt3!n
- * ' H- r q ag gp id
. ~
hk hkb bi . Spensor St- ---:-et Start Stop A;tidi e Monitor NP&MM effectiveness by client perception / service and specific performance indicators Mgr-P&MC 3/94 7/94 e Conduct client survey & implement client feedback mechanism (W4, Buffets 3, S/HC/E&PB 4,5,7,10,14) "'" STATUS: Per Salem Maint. Planning - report on CM/PLS hold D ts. for parts >90 days old w/ priority 1,2, A or B. (5/24/94) Client survey completed. Feedback of results to NP&MM 5/1/94 (still l evaluating comments). Mgr-NP&MM 1/94 ongoing
- Conduct periodic self assessments (W4, Bullets 3,4,5,7,10,14)
STATUS: Specific strategy working - not yet finalized. Mgr-NP&MM Mgr-M&S 1/94 12/94 Implement On-Line Purchase Reaufsitions with APPO (W4, Bullet 14) Dir-NF
. Develop Nuclear specific programming Corp IS
. Implement on-line System
. P3/B3 Services
. P2/82 inventory
. P1/B1 Direct Charge Material STATUS: Current - P1, P2, P3 and B3, needs B1, B2, Material
& working. (5/24/94) Phase I APPO implemented 3/28/94.
Phase 11 Project Initiation approved / funded by Corporate Business Partners. Scheduling still being developed for 94/95. Reduce Current inventory Level Mgr-NP&MM 1994 Ongoing
. Absorb inflation / supplier price increases 6/93 1996 Dir-Nuc Fin . . Obtain funding (including co-owner approval) to support five year reduction plan NEStd Mgr STATUS: 1994 goal $107m - current level (3/31/94) $111.5m.
(5/24/94) New year-end 1994 goal is =$102.5M 5/23/94 value
=$110.3M.
igggggg isE G3!satuad M PsB M!!2AMBRE&26s n L &PJ E %iam i h ; M a R . 'A ~ ' n--' w. m . p.
;_______._.m__-_
aman mm w A. nnpWpmM
- , - , n n ~ ,7 - m rw- +w Psxximnm=mwmghvwmvoe~p~artment1T,acti~csiTelan%
cieart C PATMK(cciifdiER.- , Stop i Activity Sponsor Suppset Start h GM-MM 1/94 12/95 e implement corporate material management process improvements ! Mgr-NP&MM Mgr-P&MC 9/94 7/95
. Common coding (W4, Bullet 2,11) GM-MM 1/94 10/94 i
. Inventory consolidation Mgr-Nuc Purch 9/93 6/94 STATUS: Still in process /$2M Inventory Reduction so far. Mgr-MGP Corp 1/94 1/95
. Supplier performance iW4, Bullet 1) Mgr-Res 1/94 1/95 STATUS: Supplier performance - Implementation plan to be Recovery 9/93 12/95 issued in June 94. Contact M. Rosenzweig.
. Material & resource planning (MRP)
. Resource recovery STATUS:Paulsboro First Surplus Salem Nov/Dec 1994.
Mgr-Nuc Purch 1/94 7/94 .; e Continue to develop supplier partnerships STATUS: Working L Mgr-P&MC 1/93 ongoing l e Continue expansion c' JPC (Joint Procurement Corporation) activities STATUS Master Purchase Agreement - 1. MCCB's,2. , Limitorque Parts,3. Bearings - PC2 and PC3. Still development with bearings. MCB's/Limitorque parts in place. Mgr-P&MC 1/94 5/94 e Develop / communicate corporate inventory reduction strategy (W4, Bullet 9) Dir-NF STATUS: Common Coding - started 1/94 inventory gu.yg consolidation on track, supplier performance - corporate PIT - finalizing plan - target 6/94. (5/7.4/94) Consolidation Project in progress. No action on common coding at nuclear - scheduled Nov.1994. . L 4 a ' vi r - r p., . rg g g ,
- 4
_s m ,_. .,
.#xmm. . _
... ..,...) .s yn. ..nr hhw.,h_ e.c. b 'i'$2 hb- .+
.m)' Ys k!k 4 hh
-._ ..,,; - g,_k f(hw%dt waw-$:48%$[kfh
[h6f- . . . - fkh
. . . _ . . .- % ,... .,...:,..,h(h[5.5.(,55g S
[e s' w i W-4 Timely and accurate part information and availability with appropriate levels of end-user intervention ! MEASURES:
}
- Workorders on Hold for inventory Parts l i
I i i 9; r - . - p- p.i p3 g g
L t Workorders on Hold for Inventory Parts j Nuclear Dept j Hope Creek . Target. Salem. 20 - __________.s.. % h 16 0 CD o 3c 12 i G O i t s N D. f 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i k
. .:.: +
i 4 a .
=
- m. . ,
, !b 4:3 m Ik ;
g'.s;' s-p'[ ..m$ k! .
- w. - ydj; y m A. __
M A M J J A S O N D J F 1994 i PROC 1 i I H. p., n g g
$$$$$$h5Shh 5$$$$5Wh h&$$(&?$$$$$? E$_ D $ $ N b b Key Focus item Supported: Content & Delivery of Technical Training to Effectively Support Individuals and Goups (CPAT W-5) .
Soonsor: Vice President- Nuclear Operations Activity Sponsor Support Start Stop j interarated Total Quality initiatives into initial and Continuino Technical Mgr-NTC Trainina Procrams
. Assess Mechanical Maintenance program 5/94 complete i
. Assess Controls Maintenance program based upon results of above 6/94 12/94 STATUS: Process improvement Team named, first meeting 5/94. Postponed due to HC SERT involvement. Plan start 6/94.
. Continue to integrate increased awareness to work standards and managemer.t 1/92 ongoing expectations in all training programs. (Train-tne-Trainer on Quality / Diversity conducted Jan/Feb,1994)
STATUS: Working
. Assess value of on-the-job refresher and/or increased use of "Just-in-time" Dept. Mgrs 4/94 12/94 training
. Implement enhanced outage plannerischeduler training Sta Planning - Mgr-NTC 1/94 ongoing !
Mgr Salem GM-NHR&AS
. Planning skills and technical knowledge Mgr-M&S
. Scheduling skills and project management Supervisors
. Computer
. Rotational Assignments
. Job Observation (Planners) -
. Work Control Center (Schedulers) !
STATUS: Working gggggggggEggsiiBRE% MET %VMiWSMiEZ i i+T7##2N**"""""*NEN#5a i
- .' P- ri d g g
_ _ _ _ _ . ______________ _______________ _______ z u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. -. - __ _ __ _ - - . _ - - - ._________ _.._
r~9 TW *- TV3Mgy'Q"RQ cg
~~~r mv ~ rv mesmsvnympqnmq(N0clearDe:w*artmenteTactical w.s. .. .
u-w* m m yrr*r Plan..;,
.. es AT4 ~C"P"'#'~^""~W"~ s Ew 4(" con'fd)simmW@gsa l pm r 7c a p I.
Su,t et ' Start Stop t Activity Sponsor OPTIMlZE REFUELING OUTAGE DURATION 1 1/94 ongoing i Sta Planning f improve " Planned" Outane Schedules Mgr i l l . Develop long range "3 outage plan" ;
. Ouiage gtimization with Westinghouse STATUS: Working SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE SALEM UNIT 2 8TH REFUELING OUTAGE Achieve Kev Milestone Dates for 2R8_ n STATUS: Working n
b t i i
~' "
* ~ % s S b b M i
i t V*
- TR3 6
Mj]F%F:'gsf $ shy;Q fpfy[gj[hgggejggjsggggggggggggggggg W-5 Content and Delivery of technical training to effectively support individuals and groups MEASURES: i I i
- Total Human Performance Events i
- Licensee Event Reports (Personnel Error) ,
t f f INEGGJiB18rR$$21BBG6aC,2 CME &MitA%#sE'~Carsigi22n$FMsR6511 __. ;;;;;ig3gggggggg
~ - - . -, , .. _ ,
v - e
i i-Total Human Performance Events [ 25 t Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other V///1 LA N N Al VNNNA NNNNNNNN Hope Creek ND Target 7 ><
----------- / ,
20 rxxXA 0'
- / >(
' A N / /
)/ ---------- /- -----f ;#Y--h ---------------------
15 --------------------------------- 7 fy / /N >< E - X / /N ><
/$ /N x /'\ ys /s 10 X /N >(
/N /N X / \ fs X /s /N ><
/N /N x /\ fs X /s /N <
/N /N X /\ # * /s
/N /N x /\ f ) * /s
/N
/N
/s
/N /\ X ys
/\
5 X /N <
/N /N x /\ '\ X /s /N <
/s /N x f\ '\ X /s /N
/s
/s . /N x f '\ X /N ><
/s
^
/N
^
x y
^\ ^ * ^s ' ^ " ' '
0 4th 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd 1 st 2nd 1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
- ? * . ,- - g. q
k LER Personnel Related l l Salem Station j 30 : Monthly Year-to-Date Target ; 25 20 u e
.O E 15 a
Z , 10 g... g** g O*
,g***
gag .. - ~~~~ yg** ppeO# og&* y pO** I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I O - - - O N D J F M A M J J A S 1994 28s
'd Y
&' W en m 5y
l LER Personnel Related !!
.n.
I Hope Creek [ 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target ( e : ........... 25 il 20 m W
.D E
a 15 z 10 t 5 ..... .._. _._.....1 .......
-rvrv1
, i l i i i l 1 1 1 i 0 - -
J A S O N D t J F M A M J 1994 l t vi
*' r- n, Q g g ;
e
{;lgg;gF (siQg;g$fEf g g] Q Q } g gi g g g g g gg g ggg g g Key Focus item Supported: Standards and Methods of Contractor Performance (CPAT W-6) I Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Engineering ; ActMty Sponsor Support Start Stop GM-SO 1993 ongoing j Improve contractor industrial safety performance throuch: ~ GM-HCO , l Mgr-NEP ' Nuc. Med Dir. Contractor Mgmt.
. Monitoiing previous safety compliance problem areas (safety team) Mgr-Site Pro.
STATUS: Fully implemented f Mgr-NEP Mgr- Site Pro. 1993 ongoing f
. Conducting safety talks with all contractors prior to the start of outages, emphasizing safety priority and performance expectations STATUS: Fully implemented Mgr-Site Pro. Mgr-NEP 1993 ongoing . Including contractors in Safety Dept. " Safety / Professional Recognition Gift Program" STATUS: Fully implemented I
Conducting special training for all contractor management and supervisory Mgr-Site Pro. Mgr-NEP personnel in the new " Confined Space Permit" program STATUS: Fully implemented L CC40SEC i~~ MMj!S@sjis$iMa&d [?M 7sWSanB3M!!h!Bfdinds h w=Z%2 b Z G T C I Z Z T* I ' ' P'a f h g Q
n.- ,.
--, ,,m~
7_UB@ wn.n cmn uclear:DepartmenttTactin
' @nRde nn,.,,.-,mnw,m cali P,an1CPATMMn l ( a
- m_ it d,. s hn W_ h- g , ,' ~ 9 a q Sponsor Suppset Start Stop !
Activity ImJrove overall contractor Derformance ' Station 1/14/94 ongoing Mgr - NEP
. Maintain adequate supervisory - to - craft ratio. Maintenance, i STATUS: Complete for HC outage. Nuclear Support &
Services Mgr- N EP 1/14/94 ongoing
. Increase supervisory field presence ,
STATUS: Complete for HC outage. Mgr - NEP Station 1/14/94 9/1/94
. Evaluate the need to manage and train contractors with single group "*i"'*"*"'*
STATUS: Open - discussion & negotiation with Station Maintenance Managers required. VP-NE Mgr-NEP 1/14/94 ongoing t
. Complete job observation training for ITEs and PMs STATUS: Complete and implemented in HC outage Mgr - NEP 6/1/94 ongoing . Specify training manhours separately in proposals Mgr- NEP 1/14/94 ongoing . BrinD foreman/non-manuals in earlier for DCP familiarization STATUS: Implemented for HC outage. .
Ops Mgr- Mgr - NEP 1/14/94 ongoing
. Implement initiatives from Safety Tagging Review Team Report Salem Ops Mgr- HC STATUS: Recommendation No. 2 Implemented for HC outage and ongoing for future outages 12stmeMRimRimmEBn2Es2EEssitaa!BMi!Esf#AB@2ERMalaMSFRiS15EMG?EilitRMG
~
- t** M g Q
~
~
i i l iN Ai? N A M M EiEI ? $00 E l$fN M E?t W ik iti M % M k i W-6 Standards and methods of contractor performance
;\
MEASURES:
- OSHA Accident Rate (Contractor)
- Work Practices and Standards Monitoring (Contractor)
- Number of Contractor Related incident Reports (under development) .
- Outage Performance Goals (under development)
- First Aid incident Rate
- Hold Point Rework
- Cost Performance
.?$
** p. g9
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ____.-________1__________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a Work Practices & Standards Contractor Performance, QA Monitoring Salem Station .. 100 Monthly ! vvvvi
/ .YTD .
80 ~ { ,. iii
=
a
't t
e 40 E 5 j 20 0
~
M J J A S O N D J F M A 1994 53sc I
' 4 r ** H' >-i r fi g g
I n OSHA Accident Rate ,! Contractors 25 20 , 15 ! e lii e q 10 , 'l s q t i 5
~ - ~" ~'
O J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 Bechtel UE&C Stone & Webster i P.T.I. 2 Lukenwath 4 b Y
- YI &
- _ _ -- _ .- _ . - - -- --- - - -- - - _ __~ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.. r hlfh h [ ,k$$ $ h [ b k h M hY d C EIf h NI N N M M khh h khI b h b h h h [$$$hh I:
L Kev Focus item Supported: Root Cause Determination (CPAT S-1) Sponsor: Vice President -Nuclear Operations i Stop I Sponsor Suppart Start Activity , GM-HCO S-1 Team
- 1. Develop and implement process for identifying and documenting root cause(s) i for all corrective maintenance work orders, and preventiYe maintenance Work i orders which result in some corrective maintenance. A graded approach would j insure that root cause determinations are made when appropriate, and at the properlevel of detail.
1/94 6/94
. Develop process and describe in appropriate procedures.
STATUS: in progress 1/94 12/94
. Aligned CM work handling with Maintenance Rule implemeting group. 11/94 5/95 e implement on balance of Salem and Hope Creek systems CM-HCO S-1 Team 3/94 6/94
- 2. Develop generic Root Cause Analysis (RCA) procedure for use within the Nuclear Department. This procedure would provide guidance for conducting appropriate RCA on a variety of problems, from low level of significance and complexity to those highly significant and/or complex problems requiring extensive investigation and STATUS: In progress GM-HCO S-1 Team 3/94 12/94
- 3. Develop measures of effectiveness.
STATUS: In progress reiUMERMsmMEBa&2'#dM###MMsiSih239E5iii2MsEeMaiski;@NE&hWsiELMelWahE9ha2MM hu - > - H- >. ; m 4 9 u - -- - .- - - ---------------__-wu-.--------- - - - - - - - - - --------+mA
p wi;;p % gif g g7 : % ljp"T7geiggjugy?Egggg;gggggggggggggg;gt;gp 35g) S-1 Root Cause Determination i i! MEASURES:
- Repetitive Equipment Problems (under development) .
- Time Between Events
- Total Human Performance Events
' $ Ot5,5ff' -
'$ iN D k -
's 4r
' : - . , - - . e ., , g
= _
Time Between Events Nuclear Dept Salem 1 Salem 2 Hope Creek Target , N x x xi v / / ei - - - - - - - - - - - - j u, g140 m j 5 120 L 4 E'100
; 80 i
> c 5 60 -------------- -------- -------- --'
--5(
o> , y k 40 5- h -
\
\ _
O 2ndQrt 3rdQrt 4thQrt 1 stQrt 2ndQrt 3rdQrt 4thQrt 1 stQrt 1993 1994
- REASSA "Y " N' P1 r*3 g y
i Total Human Performance Events . 1 25 Nxdxd, v e ei ix ree f /A , 20 "*& h .?. [.9'.'...
/ <
7
/
i h k '
/ / g 4
/-----------------------------------A ' &--g 15 - ---------- - - - - - - ---
fy / lii / _ 7 - /N >( i
/N f /% -
f X / / < \ 10 /N N -
-/N fX y,f
~ -
N j
- X -
f)s
/
/ -
/N
/N -
>(
\ X /
/N
/N
/N
/N X
X
/\ f ys
) X /N
/N
/N
>(
/\ /N X /N
/N /N X /\ ys X /s
/N /N X / ys * /s
/N <
5 /N -
/N X
/ (
fs *
/N
/N >(
/N /\ X / ys * /N
/N >(
/N /N X / ys * /N
/N <
/N /\ X / (s
\
ys N /N >( 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg 96-i vi ' ' P~' H F3 uld U
k D D $f h f s k h k k k = N M [T[ M SIE$h h k @d $ dh fgiJ$$ h l hbhkhhhh kbM!k ti I Corrective Action and Follow-Through (CPAT S-2) Kev Focus Item Suooorted: Soonsor: General Manager - Quality MsuranceINuclear Safety Review Sponsor Sug-:-rt Start Stop Activity GM-QA/NSR ,{ Manas.. ant Exoectations for Corrective Action (Promulaate uniform I understandina of the Corrective Action Process) I Presentation to CNO Team (raise standard for corrective action thru existing 2/94 6/94 'li
. t-process)
STATUS: Presentation made 2/94. Decision made to combine roll-out of S-2 (Corrective Action and Follow-through) with M-5. New presentation to CNO Team will be ready June 1994. 6/94 6/94 l
. Manager's Dialogue presentation (combined with self-assessment)
STATUS: Modified schedule to deal with issue of prioritization. ! 7/94 9/94
. Supervisors Dialogue breakout groups G M's TBD l . GM quarterly meetings Mgr-Nuc TBD . Follow-up Communications Activities Comm j GM-QAINSR Corrective Action Data Base Proiect 12/92 12/93 . Phase I (Procurement Module Pilot) implemented. The consolidation of complete various independent processes for identification of discrepancies in receiving, warehouse, vendor programs / process, procurement documents, and QA into a single " problem report" system using the Corrective Action Database (CADB) is underway.
STATUS: On schedule. a.m-a=maaammamaamaa==mmama i
)2 W..,S%n,d. ibr @ %
MM M *QNh M&Q, _ , _ 1M %% ..,._g
%%Mrgeg]WM ,+ - -
c -
.g.-g ,s_MW IWv * ,- , ,
'WWO%kM'e a rr DepartnentK'%"M4%ictical!P"9*lan RC' W%Q%%w4*We%*.PATcS-2l(conPd7 p
Reme" % !v aN'A ucl Support Start Stop Activity Sponsor 1/94 7/94
. Phase Il currently under development for consolidation of Hope Creek, Salem and E&PB corrective action processes (DEF, IR, DR) 4 t
STATUS: On schedule. 5/94 7/94 :
. Training and Implementation GM-QA/NSR ,
Follow-up ! 5/94 7/94
. Develop indicators to trend of corrective action 7/94 ongoing . Develop indicators to trend corrective action database contents
[$MillWihefens@$$iss@l! sed 1NEi!!23fE5dfdSf$$E05lONE@3EMIO$ddN3dE$iN$Ediddd3IEufEE
.N ei\
he.\,+_ ag'K!t'k"a',kg-'e.' tam'bh' gg r a:' L%se, an%41
-l ,g
~ i@SW *> Measureteg-r@-'.VFkc V
%, , c Wsg&gh l'
,- ,C ,,E -
$Pc '2'@b! Jp3 ai@- ( s i I S-2 Corrective Action Follow Through I. MEASURES: .
- Time Between Events 1 ii
- Total Human Performance o
ii iI l 4
.i i!
i: 1: 6' b t t
$$ l. ' ,
i 1 4
Time Between Events , Nuclear Dept S"'*'" ' S J"I 2s;geggek Target . s l*
$140 4 s l l 5 120 I l
l l ._E ' ' 80 o 60 -------------- 4 , (R h i t I 1 stQrt 2ndQrt 3rdQrt 4thQrt w 1stQrt Ort 3rdQrt 4thQrt REAS5A
-100-
- ..: - . ~. ... - ,. y
Total Human Performance Events j 25 i Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other r / / fu ix x x xi vmma Nmmy ND Target 7 k
- - /
20 Ho$e xx9Creek . . . . . . . . . . . r ? G
/ / / g 4 ------
p # Y---< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 / ------------l7 ----------
, -------------------- 7 y - /N <
e -
/ g, '
/ 5- /
- /N <
/N /s z r, 3 , js
' X /N
/s
/N -/N 10 /\
X g X /N <
/N /N x /\ /\ X /s /N
/N /N y f\ ^ X /s
/s <
/s /N x f\ ^ X /s /N g
/s /N y j /s 5 -
/N
/N
/N
/N X
x
/\
/\
\ - -
ys X X X
/s
/s
/N
/N g
/N <
/N /N X /\ ys X /s /N <
/N /N x / s 0
h $ $ X \ $ 3rd i 4th i 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 1 st 2nd 1993 , 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
-101-vi '
- P"' H ra g Q
h$4355Sd[!N!!$5@Nk!$5$hNM5DdMMNhYM(hdhENITI@M$@$IAD$$ IDEM Key Focus item Supported: Safe, Uneventful Operations / Performance Trending for Systems and Equipment (CPAT S-3) Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operations i Sponsor Suppart Start Stop i. Activity r-Mgr-R&A 1/94 12/94 Optimize Preventive Maintenance (PM) throuah Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) effort 1994 1994 , e Complete RCM implementation at Salem 1995 1995 STATUS: Analysis Complete, implementation by mid-year. 1995 1995 6/96 o Perform RCM analysis on 8 Hope Creek Systems STATUS: Ongoing Sta. Mgrs Eliminate Scrams throuah identification of Desian Channes Mgr-NSR STATUS: Ongoing Mgr-NED Mgr-L&R Sta. Mgts 1/94 Continue Technical Specification improvements to Reduce Risk of On-Line Surveillance STATUS: Ongoing Sta. Mgrs 1/94 Centinue Procedure improvements to Reduce incidence of Personnel Error Sta. Mgrs Mgr-R&A Improve Use of Operatina Experience (internal / external) e Continue OEF trending program STATUS: Improvement plan is in progress. NOIT effort has . started. NAO 1
- r. g y , g
4 k bikb k h bN k bh bb
- f f b b hb Ti NNNfb Sponsor Se;-;-:-d Start Stop : f Activity .
improve Maintenance Effectiveness Maint. Mgr. Sta. Mgrs 1/94 .d o Perform maintenance self-assessments as part of NUMARC commitment by NE/QA/NSR 1994. STATUS: In progress. GM-SO Continue Focus on Work Standard & Compliance STATUS: Ongoing process continually reinforced through , supervisory monitoring. , Performance Trendina for Systems and Eauipment (S3) complete HC Tech
- 1. Break down performance trending information subactivities as follows:
. Data collection 3
. Database input
. Graph generation
. Graph and database monitoring & analysis
. Negative trend actions
. Identification of trend parameters, goals, and action levels
. Setup and revisions to database and graphs
. Configuration of database (software)
STATUS: Software upgrade in process (Cumulus) HC Tech HC/ Salem: 3/1/94 1/1/95
- 2. Analyze each subactivity, implement solutions. One subactivity each month T ni '
M ,enance STATUS: Same as above - database upgrades first subactivity. Operations R&A hiMinMM$$niBisie@AnddEsiliBaiFS$fAM1Te%EGEdsBRENs8$$$$98l NEE $$ER$!$$$
" r- w q m y 'n - ,.' ,,
[#@$lkn#AiiB536 Sis %iei&dM n @%$1WinsudisiQME/$3M;E!E*" i&W8 Bas'"""~""93 S-3 Performance trending for systems and equipment important to reliability and . operational control action upon results MEASURES: ;
- Capacity Factor ;
I
- Licensee Event Reports (Equipment)
- Repetitive Equipment Problems (under development) [
- Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical
- Number of systems which have a prepared list of performance indicators (under development)
- Number of workorders generated as a result of trending performance indicators (under development)
- Number of parameters trended (by group)
(under development) By manual means By electronic means
- .. e, m m , ,
- - - - _ - . ___.__I_________ ___. _ _ _ _
Capacity Factor Salem Unit 1 9
- 1onth. Target .YTD YTD Target... Projected.
100 mm e .................. A . j N \ ~
~
N N A a N N N \ (N xs N N N N N N \ 4 \ f60 Q \ N \ (N (N ' N N N N , e . N \ N N \ 2 N \ N N N N 40 N \ -
\ -
N N N N-N - -
\
N N \ N k N N ( k\
~
~
}k (
k / N
\ k k k N
\
20 N - N N N -N- N -
\- - -
\
\ N
\ N N N N N N. N \ N. N. N N N N .N N
Oh J F M A M J h J b A b S b O i-N D 5 O 1994 3s1
-105-
- a r . s . H. wi n.3 g g
Capacity Factor Salem Unit 2 - l
. Month Target.- YTD ..YTD Target.. Projected . l 100 txxx3 e .................. A
.,,,,,,,,,,, 5 '
80 -N
-g
\
~ e.
N N N N N.. .....,.;.................; N N N N 5 sNN N a N so N sN N
-N g \
. N N N N e
N . - N N N N \ 2 N N N N N N 40 N - -
\ -
N N N \ N N N N N N N . N . N N . N \
\ \ \ N N \
20 N N -
\ N -
-N
\
\- \ N N N T. N
. N. N .
N. N.. . N \ N N N N o _h_i_i_s_t N h_\h_ M A M J J A S O N D J F 1994 3s2
-106-
- d -
- r' el r3 M D
Capacity Factor p r Hope Creek Station ! 120 Month Target- YTD . Target-Projected L, m, e . . . . 100 7"' V 5 .( Q .] { .. . [
"~
\
60 '- . N' -
\~ ~
N x x q --\x \ 20 x x x x o J F Ebs_s_k_b_b_S_S_S_s_ M A M J J A S O N D i i 1994 3h t
-107-
* N1 Pwl F5 g Q [
.75
Licensee Event Report l Salem Unit 1 1 30 Il Monthly Year-to-Date Target - m : ........... 25 20 i I u e .... ,
.o .-
+
E a 15 . . z ... 10 . . y '.- 5 0 [ J F M A i M i J i i J A i i S i O N i D i i 1994 28TS1
-108-t, - .- r- r. q g g l
I Licensee Event Report ll Salem Unit 2 l 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target m : .. 25 20 u e '
\
.D E 15 2
z t 10 .- i l 5 - ', , i
t M i i i i i i
' i i i 0 -
J A S O N D : J F M A M J l 1994 r i 28TS2
-109-
' * " E ' Pi par'1 q
-~ '- --
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ c _ -__________ _ L _ _ c : _ __ _ _
i Licensee Event Report , Hope Creek Station 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target . m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 25 20 - .. p#
.o '-
E3 15 - Z ,
,#s-10 ,-
5
,g**
1 1 FvlM I I i l I I i 1 0 - - J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 28TH
-110-
' W r ' P-' W q aqq gp
t t Unplanned Auto Scrams /7k Hours . [ Salem Unit 1 ' 10
.12 Mn. Rolling. Avg . INPO. Median .. Target.. . Scrams.. ,.
i lb 8 , 6 4 l
= = ,.
2 Om
=.===.m... ---- =---===========--------- n=. . _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _,- _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
==- _____
0 - MAM J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S O ND J F 1993- 1994 45s1 ,
-111-
~
Unplanned- Auto Scrams /7k Hours i Salem Unit 2 14 12 Mn Rolling Avg 'INPO' Median Targ61 ' Scrarns~ Pr'ojectsd' l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ................... - A . 12 10 - 8 . i 6 4 0 0 - 2 X , , ,
.....=...=-.................................................
i i t i ; I it i I I I A I I I I I I I A 0 - - - J F MAM J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S O N D 1993 1994 45s2
-112-
- q.] - *
- r' H Fa W D
1 Unplanned Auto Scrams /7k Hours Hope Creek 10 12 Mn Rolling Avg INPO Median Target Scrams __________. .....................m 8 i 6 4 2 ______________________________2______________h-- _ l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 1 1 m l l 0 - --- MAM J J A S O N D - J F MAM J J A S O N D J F 1993 1994 ,
-113-I Yi
' ' ' &' pat q g g f
.i hdd5kO!ENe6$4 'd? lNT@WSMVhliepWWEMireisusissi!BERHil il C
Key Focus item Supported: Operating Experience Feedback (OEF) delivery and tracking that meets job needs of recipients for f N information (CPAT S-4) I Sponsor: Vice President - Nuclear Operations Activity Sponsor Support Start Stop Salem Review operatina experience on an onooina basis GM-SO Mgr-R&A 1/94 ongoing
. Hold small group meetings to increase familiarity with OEF program Mgr-R&A 5/1/94 5/1/95 l STATUS: Requires data base to be available for island use - in development with other departments. l
. Provide personalized distribution of Daily Nuclear Network Mgr-R&A 5/1/94 7/1/94 STATUS: Complete
. Provide individual access to historical OEF information Mgr-R&A 5/1/94 5/1/95 STATUS: Working with methods tied to first item.
. Improve decision making at weekly OEF for those events that need in-depth root GM-SO 3/1/94 12/31/94 cause follow-up STATUS: Complete. Station managers adhering to NAP-6, discuss each IR to determine root cause analysis depth.
EgnandsstnassagesfaimisPAiWMMi22ial3REME S50MHitnERWelatM4289lEE_LJunilletsmisicisegg
-, - *- r' w ta in yp
t 3930 $5'5752$ ed AiiihidEYsEMI shWCPA%$Wl6MMMMifseadDEKiO3 Stop 'I Sponsor Support Start Activity ( GM-SO 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Set expectations for timeliness of completing incident report close-out STATUS: Working.
t l GM-SO Station Mgrs 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Improve accountability for close-out of extemal OEF documents l
STATUS: Working. GM-SO 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Improve Manager accountability for review of responses to intemal and extemal .
documents STATUS: Working. GM-SO Station Mgrs 3/1/94 12/1/94
. Provide more in-depth review of re-opened extemal documents based on intemal event trends STATUS: Working.
GM-SO Mgr-R&A 3/1/94
. Increase frequency of management review of causal factor and event trends (present quarterly)
STATUS: Ongoing. ! GM-SO Mgr-R&A 3/1/94 5/1/94
. Re-assess station NPRDS coordinator function STATUS: Station coordinator assigned. t GM-SO Mgr-R&A 3/1/94 9/1/94 . Increase priority of preparing operating experience reports to share with industry based on intemal event experience STATUS: OEs to be prepared for notable events,4 OEs shared w/ industry 1st quarter.
15F2nstiai!EsE!:stmMi2EnfnBaM$si! REEKS 3Ri&!sisMMi!EEMWM2EE2Mnis2E!SE!22iMTEilhDRth$iK@ktsgaisen!Mampigs F
1 i I
-~n gy m:f,f g A s M &r d. hc o W n MM*N-Om 4 M e t W d.- )g A.c s-ASm**MP!w % %]pNew WE %"*g"s*41 ear Depa?m:wwww l!Riinnn meembietw"-wrwr-,"CPAtw$-mw%.
rtmentiTacti Sponsor Support Start Stop Activity Hope Creek ! GM-HCO Mgr-R&A 1/94 Review operatino experience on an onaoina basis 4/94 5/94
. Implement NOIT OER improvements 3/1/94 5/1/94 GM-HCO Mgr-R&A . Re-assess OEFRDS coordinator function within R&A STATUS: Working E&PB GM-HCO Mgr-R&A 1/94 Review operatina experience on an onooina basis i . Hold small group meetings to increase familiarity with OEF program 5/1/94 5/1/95 Mgr-R&A STATUS: Requires data base to be av tilable for .island use.
Mgr-R&A 5/1/94 7/1/94
. Provide personalized distribution of Daily Nuclear Network STATUS: Complete.
Mgr-R&A 5/1/94 5/1/95
. Provide individual access to historical OEF information STATUS: Working.
Mgr-NED 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Set expectations for timeliness of completing incident report close-out STATUS: R&A to provide list of all IR open items.
Mgr-NED Station Mgrs 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Improve accountability for close-out of extemal OEF documents STATUS: Working Mgr-NED 3/1/94 9/1/94
. Improve Manager accountability for review of responses to intemal and extemal documents STATUS: Working RENfd&EndBFAMi M2232nMERMahaGSSB1%Ms2EniMdMDBMnhWJiBse&EdBsMESH7aEZM
- r - r-- r, r,3 , g
m my w wgggy w mmm,tmapw%JgetNucioar: n W MF = - y wm-se-m- m w- ,mr,--- -- - - Department 7actic<wlPlanhyCPAT a --4d 8y 7R=erdtV sa igypdimaiketamed ! Spensor S w -t=t Start Stop ii Activity Mgr-NED Station Mgrs 3/1/94 12/1/94
. Provide more in-depth review of re-opened external documents based on intemal event trend STATUS: Current trend being developed.
l Trainina Mgr-NTC Mgr-R&A 1/94 12/94
. Provide " Train the Trainer" program for all instructors by the end of 1994. l STATUS: Working I-I Mgr-NTC 1/94 12/94
. Present OEF Training twice a year rather than the current four times per year to allow greater preparation time.
STATUS: Working Mgr-NTC 1/94 12/94
. Perform a " Validity of Commitment" check to determine value added in training on SOER's in the Controls area on a repetitive basis.
. STATUS: Working i
I 24we ME $b ' h hhh!NhhIb 4 h'hI l i o4 -
+
- p' s i r*3 g gp
~~ .. ., , ,
r o M ISEIIUillisEEEE5Isssif$Es$EEES$$$$$52$EM .;i S-4 Operating experience feedback delivery and tracking that meets job needs of i I recipients for information. t MEASURES:
- Licensee Event Reports i
- Licensee Event Reports (Personnel Error)
- Repetitive Equipment Problems (under development)
- Time Between Events
- Total Human Performance Events eneegessidatammanteEtitellBAme226WA2mAZ;2C;Z:25timw#C -Amast24MaMM D
i ..; . .- r1 "' r5 unu
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__ __ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ . - - . - _ . _ _ .~ . ~
t Licensee Event Report l Salem Unit 1 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target l m ; - - - - - -. 25 20 l
'..- p d
5 ,,
.o ' .
E a 15 '.- Z . . , 10 -
'~ 1 5 .
o
.- i i i i i t I 2- i i 0 -
O N D J F M A M J J A S 1994 : 28TS1
-119-54 - *' H- r, ey g g ,
Licensee Event Report ! Salem Unit 2 4 I 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target e : _ _ 25 20
'~
g , , I
.D E
o 15 ,...',"" . l ,o*
,0*
'y*
10 y d p O 5 - . 0 - J F M A M J J A S O N D 1994 28TS2
-120-I vi -
- r' p' ra W D
q Licensee Event Report . Hope Creek Station 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target m __________. 25 20 .. .. . - a u , e '-
.o E 15 z
o 10 . 5 ,
- y
' M NAA i i i i i i i i 0 - -
O N D J F M A M J J A S 1994 28TH
-121-
" P' k-1 ra g gy
i LER Personnel Related i l Salem Station 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target i m _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ . 25 20 4 m e
.D E
m 15 z 10 t 5 i i i i A A A A i i i i i 0 - - . - D J F M A M J J. A S O N 1994 , 28s
-122- r
~ ~A r r- e. ' r.3 g gy I
M
.I LER Personnel Related j e
Hope Creek 30 Monthly Year-to-Date Target m : ......--- 25 ii 20 u
.o E3 15 Z
10 5 _......... _ ........ T i 1 1 1M I I I i l I 0 - - N D J F M A M J J A S O 1994
-123-
** r"' y-1 rd gg [p id r
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ = - - 9 Time Between Events h r Nuclear Dept q (1J - - - - - - -
- L 140 E 120
,E 100 80 a go - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --.
0 ' \ \ ' 1 stQrt 2ndQrt 3rdQrt 4thQrt 1 stQrt 2ndQrt 3rdQrt 4thQrt 1993 1994 REASSA
-124- ;6 7 ** H' >-i r3 gg g3
Total Human Performance Events =. Salem 1 Salem 2 E&PB Other V///I l\ \ \ \l V//////A NNA\\\\N Hope. _ Creek ND Target. 7 . k. 20 / . 1xxxy : ----------. 7 i h k 15 I Y--h -------------------- e 7 s /N < D g V / k 5 / h 3- - A'X / /N z /N < c 3 '
^ X / s". /N
>(
/N x y /s
>(
10
/N - - -
X
/N /N /N g X /\ g X /N /N
/N /s X / ys X /s
>(
/N /N X /N <
/ /\ /N ys X /N g
/N /N x \ ^ X /s /N 5 /N -
/N X -
/s
^ X
/s
>(
/N /N <
/N X y N ^ X /s /N
/N /N x fs ^ X /s /N
>(
/N /N X y '\ X /N
>(
/N /N
^
/N
^
x
/^N jN X ^s ^
>(
0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1993 1994 REAS3 12 month avg
-125-ic4 r
*~ &- w m g g
~
- - = .. .
_._ 5" -
, ..e.m..
l l W i l 4 1 l l 1 l l 1I i 1 Y: L 4
=~ 1 1
1 e O b
*ra
H B ! ) I 1 l ! l l SALEM GENERATING STATION NRC VISIT Ul STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT E , i i I ) I i COMMUNICATION OF EXPECTATIONS l 1 i , i l P i
- 3 VP's meet with all employees on Island (completed l 1993) l l - Reinforce standard of quality and barrier model !
> 1 l - Salem /HC status and progress to date i !; - CPAT rolldown (completed 1/94) i l
- Salem employee meeting with new VP/GM (completed 2/94) l l
- New vision rolldown (completed 2/94) 4
- , o Status of the department year end meeting (completed .
L' l: 2/94) j e S. Miltenberger meeting with Salem employees . !
- Management time in plant to observe and enforce
- standards
- Expectation that all personnel will self-identify errors l: .
j - Establish standards which strive for mistake-free performance { ! - Create climate in which all co-workers honor good faith l efforts
- Culture supports owning up to mistakes l) j l
I u i V
= = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i a SALEM GENERATING STATION NRC VISIT STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I UNITIZATION OF SALEM l l
- Objectives E
- Keynote: Focus - Ownership - Teamwork
- Improve at all levels
- Position individuals appropriately - skills match job .
1
- Provide time to do right thing (proactively solve problems)
- Minimize challenges (single unit focus)
- Provide opportunity for significant changes .
L
- Less overtime per person
- Improved quality of work life
- Scope
- Operations ,
- Maintenance
- Station planning and scheduling
- Outage planning and scheduling L
1 - 4 m.ms-
'E
=.. . - - . - - _ - _. - - . _ _ - . . .
I 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION NRC VISIT I STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I UNITIZATION OF SALEM E
# Implementation
- Requires additional staff
- Rannme Management / Supervisory team
- Re-bid Supervisory / Management positions - as .
needed 1 ) - Hiring methods (Targeted Selection) l A Behavioral component , 4 i j A Supervisory as well as technical skills ! - Hire from outside - opportunity to raise 'l ! qualification / standards l 1
- Schedule
- - Interim division of Maintenance Mechanical and i Control groups - completed February 1994 .
l - Planning and Scheduling - Spring 1994
- Mechanical Maintenance - Summer 1994
- Controls Maintenance - 4th Qtr 1994/1st Qtr 1995
- Operations - based on license classes - 1st Qtr 1996 l
'. _I
i l PSE&G SALEM INTERIM ORGANIZATION ; VP NUC OPSI 3ENER AL MANAGER SALEM i i 41A1 ENANCE 41A A E TECHNICAL P&FC OPERATIONS l PLANNING RP/CIIEMISTRY 3 AM MANAGER E bB MANAGER l E MANAGER m l l l l l l Ot AGE OUT GE d MECH CorfTRots CONTRog3 N u mir en I I LMTI LMT2 SCHIIR'tJRS SCHf1MURS I LMTt LMi2 FRIM ENG PRIN FNG rusa L sesm PueG L SCHD FLAr NtJth PLANMPR$ SCI M ETE E SCHI2ja sus a 94MM8-10 i e ,w-j P '
- M!
n PSE&G SALEM UNITIZATION ORGANIZATION ' 3ENER AL MANAGER , SALEM RP/ CHEMISTRY PLANNING TECHNICAL 4IAINTENANCE PAFC OPERATIONS
^ MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER ADMIN I I I I I LM i LNIT 2 LHITI LNIT 2 Emil i E Il - tJNIT I LWIT 2 !i O_PS O_P5 OLTAGE OLTTAGE btAINT ING btALVT ENG MAINT ENG btAINT ENG i ENGG ENCE kN nsANAC52 Cf DNTRf1I8 CONTROIS biFrH hWrit i I I I LM1I LNIl 2 opg ops LHIT I LNIT 2 tm TI LWII LWIT N .
ORG ORG ENE 8CNN c b
= - - c . -. _
BN BEH ORG BN BFG ORG , I I ' LNIT I LHIT 2 PRIN ENG FRIN ENG I etNo a scud etNo a sCur> 6 M" INN PLAD 6 AND AND SCHEDt'11RS SC192WilRS j l i 94 MMS-11 !.7h I 2 ' N* F*i Q M N '-
1 i _; SALEM GENERATING STATION ! NRC VISIT i STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT IH IMPROVED MANAGEMENT / SUPERVISORY OVERSIGHT i Organizational changes E
- J. Hagan - Vice President - Nuclear i Operations and (acting) Salem Station General l Manager
- Reassigned other duties to VP-NE and VP-CNO 1 .l H
e Station management enhancements
- Maximize effective management time in field e Improved monitoring / assessment / feedback
- Enforcement of standards of performance i I Supervisor / Manager oversight ,
e Increased time in field ; Maintenance - Controls e Additional management oversight -
- Controls troubleshooting
- Mid-level management personnel provide on-shift reviews of I&C troubleshooting plans Work standards monitoring .
- Performance indicators 94eam8-7
'E
- , m SALEM GENERNITNG STATION NRC VISIT STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I IMPROVED SAFETY REVIEW / QUALITY l ASSURANCE OVERSIGHT U l
- Implemented four barrier model l - Role ofindependent and self assessment
- Rolled down through organization
- Findings and corrective actions include barrier I assessment
- QA an safety philosophies
" Safety is our first priority" !
- Roles of QA and nuclear safety i,
- Risk based assessments ,
e Reorganization of NSR and formation of Nuclear Review Board (NRB)
- Focns to more global assessment of nuclear i '
safety
- Independent NSR effectiveness review performed by outside organization l
94 MMS-12
'C
~
l I I THE FOUR LEVELS OF DEFENSE OF QUALITY FULL SCOPE ' SAMPLE ON-LINE " OFF-LINE REAleTIME AFTER-TffE-FACT I i i I i l l I l I l INAPPROPRIATE l l l EVENT ACTION O l I ' i l l ' l I l i l l
- I DEFENSE FAILED (ASSESSMENT INTERNAL EXTERNAL DEFICIENCIES !
THE INDIVIDUAL > SUPERVISION / AT ALL LEVELS) ; WORK GROUP MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT 2ND LEVEL 3RD LEVEL 4TH LEVEL IST LEVEL OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE OF DEFENSE i INCREASING OBJECTIVITY, INDEPENDENCE, BREADTil OF m y PERSPECTIVE, AND INTEGRATION CAPACITY. BUT ONLY COVERS A PORTION OF TOTAL PROBLEM SPACE W R. rammen. Ph D . P E
"
- F** ' H' q
= : 2.:- .
a e l SALEM GENERATING STATION ! NRC VISIT l STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT I 4 l AUGMENTED ON-SHIFT OVERSIGHT i l Purpose e Provide additionalindependent management E l oversight of plant operations Scope e All plant operations with the potential to impact plant reliability and safety . I Responsibilities
- Monitor / Observe plant evolutions to assess compliance with work standards, procedures, and professional conduct ,L e Typical evolutions to be monitored
- Reactor startup and shutdown
- Low power operations
- Special tests .
- Selected surveillance ~.
- Selected major system evolutions
- Shift turnovers and Plan of the Day meetings
- Key maintenance evolutions
- Material condition walkdowns
- Control room demeanor and conduct 94Mh45-13
. C' _ ,
= _
- == = = _ _ ; - -
1 3 SALEM GENERATING STATION 4 NRC VISIT l STRATEGY FOR IMPROVEMENT - E 1 i i 4 AUGMENTED ON-SHIFT OVERSIGHT p. l
- Implementation '
1 - Initiated May 17,1994 ) - 5 people covering 5 shifts ! - Senior, well-experienced people - respected, _ ! high credibility 1" l - Free reign to look at anything
- Provide daily feedback to Station GM and i Managers -
! - Provide weekly feedback to Chief Nuclear i ,
^
i Officer u i 94h048-14
'k 1
i
,= -.. ii ta i I - 1 SALEM GENERATING STATION NRC VISfr I
.I MEASURES OF SUCCESS i
i l MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS OF .n i PERFORMANCE THROUGH PEOPLE l Performance Indicators { e Work practices and standards monitoring by i line management and Quality Assurance _; ! L !
- Supervisory face-to-face time ,
4 i e Human performance indicators l l
- Leadership feedback results l 8 Personnel error Licensee Event Report t' l
- Composite safety index performance ,
~ 1; l
l l i 4 94neds-15 ! c-
= -- - - -------- - - - - --
( ,. ! i e i
- j. SALEM GENERATING STATION i NRC VISfr i I
SUMMARY
i e PSE&G's commitment to continued ., ! improvement has been demonstrated by a j comprehensive self-diagnostic assessment i I e Physical changes occur more readily than .. cultural / people changes I i e Focus on Salem improvement i
- Nuclear Department Priorities for 1994 l ;
l - Emphasis on people and performance -
- Safe uneventful operations l
l - Successful refueling outages .. i ~
- - Results oriented, cost effective operations l
l I l i $ 94 mms-16
'I__ .
== ; - . .. ----- - . J ,. ENCLOSURE 10
- o i OPEN ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SURVEY Licensee Vl1ls $f v6 S WfN + h0S l Facility Saf e r i EA H - 112 -
l Date of Enforcement Conference Presiding NRC Official 7, m 7/2&[W
- m 4g.r,4 i
- Impact on The NRC's Ability to Conduct an Enforcement 2.
Conference and/or Implement The Agency's Enforcement Program
- 1. Was there a delay in the enforcement process due to holding h an open enforcement conference?
{ Yeh b. No f If yes, what was the cause for the delay? ! a. Providing sufficient public notice of the conference.
- b. Licensee requested additional time to prepare for the i open enforcement conference.
I c. Other. Explain. Ha4 h seul domwusas [$pe ./o caf ygd
- l k is Ope Lernu of hM1'ahreV -
If yes, how long was the delay? dov/le vecM/
- 2. Were any members of the pu sruptive to the '
proceedings? a. Yes (3. No i l i ] e Impact on Licensee's Participation During the open j Enforcement Conference i ) 3. Does the staff believe that the licensee's communication i, with the staff during the open enforcement conference was ! less candid or more guarded than in past enforcement ! conferences or in other meetings where the public was not l present? In answering this question, consideration should i be given to whether the licensee tended to answer staff l questions more narrowly or whether the licensee volunteered ! j additional information or whether the staff had to be more ' persistent f.n questioning the licensee to gain full 2 information during the open enforcement conference.
- Consideration should also be given to whether there was any change in practice in the licensee having an attorney present at the conference.
- a. No difference.
] b. Little difference. j c. Big difference. Explain, t ! k 1
\f g n m- y
, . _ _ . . . _ -___ .__.____._,___m._.. _ _ _ . . . .
o "g i i
- 4. Did the licensee propose to respor d to a staff question at a i i
i later time, either verbally or in writing, in lieu of verbally resaanding during the conference?
- a. Yes ,
j If yes, explain, i l ! 5. Did the licensee provide a thorough explanation of the root ;
- b. No j cause(s) of the violation? (C-~TDs)
No ! 6. Did the licensee admit the violation (s)? h. Yh b. 4 7. Does the staff believe that the licensee's presentation 4hfi l ! during the open enforcement conference was more formal than i in past enforcement conferences? fq. No difference. i
- v. Little difference.
- c. Big difference. Explain.
4
- 8. Does the staff believe that the open enforcement conference I was significantly longer or shorter than other enforcement conferences? j 1
- a. No difference. '
- b. Longer. Explain. Nr4hb [04de [* [ # *% l
- JLan M X, t nte& w 'okh , ;
t
- c. Shorter. Explain. l
. I -! l l I e Impact on NRC Resources 1
- 9. Was there adequate seating capacity for all persons ed in attending the open enforcement conference? .
- a. Yes b. No
- 10. Was it necessary for the NRC to arrange for a public meeting room outside of the regional office? a. Yes ('{b. No])
If so, what was the cost?
- 11. Did the regional office need to purchase any 4
equipment / services as a result of hol -- tt open i I enforcement conference? a. Yes b. No f If so, what was the purchase and what was the cost? i
t i i 12. Was substantially more staff time spent in ng for the , open enforcement conference? a. Yes (b. No If yes, explain. N/Mavr,d /MN /gle (4MW In answering questions thirteen through nineteen, the staff should give consideration to such issues as the need for certain staff members to attend the open enforcement conference, the need to provide escorte, the need to make copies of handouts, the need to answer questio.w from the audience after the conference, the need to respond to the open enforcement conference survey, etc.
- 13. Was a higher level of management involved in the open conference than the level agement typically involved as b. No inclosedconferences?{.
If yes, explain. SeeAntA Almnok no(M ' lxt 11* f AMuJ Eh, LuFUaW w . J&b ma
- 14. Were there substantially incre demands on the public affairs staff? a. Yes j. No If yes, explain. A /-/(4.< ., f, a[e f ek malth 5 heu de/
- 15. Were there substanti increased demands on the legal staff? a. Yes .
If yes, explain.
- 16. Were there substanti , eased demands on the security staff? a. Yes b. No If yes, explain.
- 17. Were there substantially increased demands on the enforcement staff? a. Yes
~
(Q If yes, explain.
- 18. Were there substantiall increased demands on the technical staff? a. Yes - . No If yes, explain.
0
- 1
)
- 19. Were there cubstantially increased demands on the administrative staff? . e b. No If yes, explain. [up 6 (_ f # 4.'< 4 c.rcer Y A x
- 20. If not specifically addressed in the responses to questions thirteen through nineteen, estimate the additional demands on the staff in staff-hours.
- a. Zero to five staff-hours.
- b. Five to 10 staff-hours.
(T-~ c. Ten to 20 staff-hours D Over 20 starf-hours. Specify. Public Interest /Public Benefit
- 21. How many members of the media attended the open enforcement {
conference? /3 '
- 22. How many members of the public attended the open enforcement conference? 74 -
- 23. en How many State enforcement Government re resentatives/,nc conference? [ f n z,b.< attended 1 #1st. fthe e-r op/
o bM7
% i
- 24. Were any interested individuals denied access to the
/ fedre 1 enforcement onf nce due to conference room limitations? fg((
- a. Yes b. No
- 25. Did the majority of the audience tay for the duration of .
the enforcement conference?
. Yes b. No Als/so
- 26. Did members of the media or public ask the NRC questions be fy Y,m' i after the enforcement conference? a. Yes
- b. No ,j ,
Oy lt& .: Please provide any additional comments based on either positive /ps.Sist or negative impacts of conducting the open enforcement conference. gf, PtW6ay
/t'esstr4 Please enclose the attendance sheet with the completed survey.
+ +.Mww-h*w fs t sf ! st i t :
a , l i l l s! n! ef ri ef i l i l s e.s f ', c er 1 l e a t .
}e l)s fst [O a
- 3 I !>! l .l5I hj.ff
/b055 f ! $ [ F 9 > @$p a g a s # # -
4
; ? ;ck
- f. UW ) n %gD P1 e ,t 18t'l (sti ui t
; q h'
; i u s t.
+?g E y k w?lyh:? b k '5 $ ; if *l ph
% [: uh l e y ; f) a
/ t 2
f ,g , [g, r rV 5 se N I. k s-
- ['l ,l r' f
rp 5 ~
,f rs s .-
It s c- a. e
- e. .. s.
a,,a *e,i r 5c u s - s c b M U 8 7 ese A 4' s f q h)
> r j SI e~ . j51 i
< g' 4
- l. ! j j c T 2 ; R 3S y 8l
"' ~
l_-ll-
,7 I fIk -
=
\ O
/T r- s I ;l eI
\_/ / g i
s j .\ j s v y _. a g e
,.g -g I
4 E I ,\. .,,, c.
<t" E20 "Ik
% e a N
b f . 5 s e
> I A
g 9 m m I f* 1 s 4 sl - E l f k
! g .
3 d c. 3 s h ~
- w 1- '[ h D M
h k.h ' d
\,,3 4
L'l [' X CI y q % % fl<5 f, e i
- 0 e
h a.- Es I, , ggg 7 ll ..
1 . I
^
3 E 3 e 1
'! 2 ;; 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 e I t y
'j ! j !! ! f I f!f !
! ! ! ! ! ! f! !! ! f! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! J ,{g
! ! k 5 ! $ $ ! ! ! ! if .! k 1d k if -
g [3 g"'[['f r 5 33 l grr c; 3fb ph s g
'J So?'
e g gi ,3 I's l' 'I
~r' hh Nh !A f i ft ht S
- > L2 pt t@ E h g) R -
E E {E f' el g > g c g i .[. e s t it i t , y gr > g
")
t) E I
) [
? S h E 1D [=5!I JO' r9 2 *n I Es
#\
N i W
% R f r k[I '
$$ [! "! 'k i !"g 8
- l. i N
C r C - e e I(.- [ <:
- v. ; - C n
- gen As
~
! l}l
\ ..-
'~'
- ) J
~
[s l 2
'l.g
( .y-
/ 4
\[ /
N 7 w
.""*,5
< ~ o g p=
- -s' ) N %>
% E :
s d -
~ ._
~ ~
%% s, ..l) {
. ti ]
o I %. .,;/
^ b / N v v h, 2 <
'- fi '
o,' 6- R 2
% = c
! !n =
s
= E
~, 5 4 a g g u.
$ , p r $ $
l [ 1 21 D E D r
.0 i
% K 2 llis
= sA lk D
\
D e N
~
~
I Si a h,- I. h T I i , Ill n s
" " ^ ' ' '"^^ '~~^ ' ' ^ ^ ^ ' ~ ^ ' - ' " " - - ' " " ^ ^ ' ' - ' ^ ' ~ ~ ^
..-'..i"
'1_..
4 I e 3 lR 3 e 3
~
3 K 3 3 K 3 3 '" 3 3 K 3 3 3 g I 3 k [p g ;&
! ! I j ! ! ! !_ ! ! ! I l j ! ! ! f ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! r ! {e! [ ,3g l, ;
! ! ! ! ! ! i s o!ib t ! p rz; isse ltip l J'fW g 1
wkh LN qpf . V'zpr Lp ?g * # P j f , !. ! Y r I Q s U p,p , l f f, , [I
~~ -;p, t gw e l s .
,a
(# h N h p D j l ~ k 6 [ > b E f* gI d[I
- r. 1
! g i
- a pr
= r a ; i tiIF i e -
5,
- s
- -
w 3 i g f ,'gf g i ri ) ss b
- a k
~P m!E
! a
'I e.
s s _ a n lIl l ,;
.% f s. r- r ~
/N y ,
y
- g i' EI
((Je'p,,,,,
'N 'N <S" I
N N ' x x /w x
/wNJgN jjj 9e A i ig
_ m 8 C i
- l 5
is
$ s t
F n R k i
-
- e r R 2 l <? 4 '
B lli1 r> % -
! l ig & i p C i *
- I i I.lla
"+h'+M.._
f . 2 2
- 2 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 e $ 2 e 3 3
- 3 e 3 5 3 R FJ
*I
' ! ! ! 5 !! ! 5 5 5 s,,, s,,, s. s
. .s s
. .s s s
s
. .s s
. .s s s
. .s g s ee.f lgfj i
~
! 't gtr ta I f,s;.,f[e fi i s~
{s i! ifJ mE it st,J,
, m fr ,!
! {II I [ [
l0
- I-e,l s[
f.FI lr l gen 85 g 8
! a
! lIl
~
/ -
/.-
.A -
% lg 5 ef
] .
j j .*,,, I
\ m -
s E3 e!
! g i B3 yy
%, .y 4N %IN NdD Nd \d N N N
$$ I Nj J 3lh l w
=iC a s
,P l, E. ,
3D $ ! $ 1 e 5 s l E. E k .
! i, I
t.i.l 1 m i 5 g I i Ili sa
^- ~' ~^ ^ ~ ~ ^
I , . -
$ I $ I
$ $ $ $ I 3 $ $ I I E 3 $ If
[ ! ! 5 5 5 5 j ! ! k 5 f 5
!5 k 5 5 5 3 h 5
( !
! 5
{
=
- a 8 pid w i p iosw it s , a ri?!3! , s .a s o pi d{ i{ ,-
p e _ e s_f. 5 y E,s Ifh hAeg
,s <t b
1 e.s ~j-p 5, [
.~
E q,I[,, h h,.I k ll' ffl r ! h, i s rF r s A [ p
! r
= f. ,hp hg EP ? E2 g ;. g ej .!h
,;;Jlr;!
8 s { j
- . (* C ( q C.
- 5
= *
- x jp g v te g- n
>r gis
<- a gg b } * ?' !
ni [- f I g (i a
-f
- r. j[ p,,
~ A 2 7 g j ? J M,
i s;w ; !g !r .em s" , z u
= P ~%
c n a ; i i
%. ,:. I o
CN y rx < -- x ->R FN IN P. g N <%g N N N y x 3 s.7 [ a <
- l!
i 7 ii w e e -o 3 w .9 % w ;p c, A e
$ is :
2 F e 5 S D & O R w F iE E '
- is I ,:
$ 5, 2 "
a b s h d a 3 : 7 7 '
; I
'A s@ a
+
. n
- to
-o @ g v w + ~ 6 s e p + + w e llig
. t
. 4 g
4* n* S w - l, t 4 s l I.gi i a
5 i d o - l ! Last Day Briefing w/PSE & G I. Purpose of the AIT: l
- i l A. Verify the circumstances and evaluate the significance of the following event
- The l j Salem Unit 2 OHA system was lost without knowledge or response by the operating staff for about 1.5 hours. i
[ B. The Charter gives the scope of the inspection. This scope included detailed fact- ! finding, identification of generic issues, determination of root causes, and examination of PSE&G opemtional and managerial performance. 1 [ II. The inspection included document review, over 2 dozen interviews, observation of a ; simulator demonstration, extensive discussions with OHA system vendor, review of test ; and troubleshooting, equipment examination with walkthru's, and observation of i operating crew performance. l III. The team believes that the OHA system is now performing its function to ' provide ! information to the operating crews. Current system checks and admin controis ; adequately verify system status. ! i IV. The failure of the OHA system was most likely initiated by a person frorn the control ; room operating crew making the wrong key strokes on a computer workstation for the j OHA system. This error, coupled with a panel switch in the wrong position, placed the i OHA system CPU in a mode where it was waiting for additional commands that never ; came. This prevented the OHA system from displaying alarms in the control room. l V. The team determined that the root causes for the event were as follows (please note that i these are only.prelimianry conclusions and subject to additional team and NRC l I management review):h l A. Procedure SbP-SO. ANN-0001(Q) was not followed. (switch, keystrokes) ) B. Operators were not trained to recognize system problems. 1
)
C. Poor Human Machine Interface (failure not readily detectable, workstation - keystrokes & lack feedback & black box sw) f D. Design Yulnerabilities (response to annunciators overridden by lower priority task. VI. Observations - A. Failure to notify the NRC within one hour of the event. D, Operations had concerns about some system problems before the event.
< s: /
. . . . . . _. _ _ , -4
C. Delay in notifying senior management of the event. D. Knowledge LTA of OHA system coverage by technical and operations. E. Communication LTA about A45 window between Eng and Ops. F. Lack of technical understanding of the detail operation of the OHA system through understanding of the software. G. Design vulnerabilities exist in the system that make the OHA system susceptible to errors (data link to the distributed logic cards, workstation) i H. Operators were not sensitized to the complexity of the system. ! I. Lack of Abnormal Procedure for partial or total loss of annunciator systems. Also, individual abs don not contain alternate indication for annunciators. l
! J. No simulator training on loss of annunciators.
K. No operator classroom training on the OHA system. L. On Unit 1, there is no alternate continuous monitoring of the RWST tank level in the control room. (May affect ECCS system operation during post-LOCA injection phase). M. Operations personnel did not observe precaution 3.1 in ANN-0001 concerning unauthorized personnel trying to gain access to password protected features of the OHA workstation. N. Vendor manual was LTA. No top level software description. The word " lock-up" is used but not defined or discussed. 1 4 O. Routine test of redundant components was not in place (was planned). ; P. Software review of DCP LTA. Q. System not designed to aid troubleshooting redundant components. 1 ! l R. No systym virbs check. S. NCO actions to deduce the OHA loss w/o training showed a good questioning attitude. 4 T. System engineer responded well to the event (showed ownership).
- U. PM process looked good.
r_ _ . . _ .. q
;s l o
V. DCP was well documented. W. Installation of the OHA system went smoothly and was well planned. X. Use of OHA system to enhance trending a plus. Your staff provided outstanding support. Formal exit date TBD. Thank you. Merry Christmas. b L 1 t t l l t; t:
SALEM i 4 'oneral Activity and consee Re'sponse History General Occurence and l Event History ; 2 . ; e 2/83: Salem ATWS ovent. (included due to significance) i I i
. I fh.Y
,j 'y f e 10/88: Outage Team inspection identified multiple i e
examples of inadequate management oversight and [ control relative to design change, modification, and ine'.allation activities; and lack of attention to detail
.i relative to 50.59 evaluations. QA audits noted deficiencies but management response was weak or O 3/89: Licensee response to ineffective. (included due to similarity to current :
Outage Team inspection -
- 1988 pwformanceissues) indicated plans to take i
~
strong and effective action 1 resolve findings, including
.nproved design change e 6/89: SALP 88-99 (1/88 - 4/89) OPS 3, RADCON 2, ;
processes and improved -
-1989 M/S 2, EP 2, SEC 1. EITS 2 imp, SNQV 2 '
personnel training. 1989/90: Due 2 pow material condition of M e 4/90 - 5/90: Maintenance Team inspection and Integrated Performance Assessment Team identify longstanding - ti s id on weaknesses in management oversight and control, sus 2 address moufficient supervisory presence in-field, ineffective ; i procedures, material 1990 corrective action implementation, inadequate maintenance I cindition, corrective and ases and W, insuffM ovwsight of contractors, i y t et o i ude root cause analysis and dWwminWion fu a ; some events, and weakness in procedural adherence. (includes SW pipe l r:pt:coment and procedure e 9/20/90: SALP 89-99 (5/89 - 7/90) OPS 2, RADCON 2, , upgrade program). M/S 2 dec, EP 1, SEC 1, ETTS 2, SA/QV 2 O 1991/1992: Licensee l"I ' discovered that several
~
contractor firewatches had 11/9/91: Salem Unit 2 Turbine overspeed event caused by filsified documentWlon insufficient preventive maintenance and surveillance, stative to firewatch failure to follow procedures, and inadequate root cause setivities. Subsequently, analysis (AIT, Severity Level lil, no CP). sever:1personnelwere terminated. Licensee " 1992 performed comprehensive X # 4/92: SALP 90-99 (8/90 - 12/91) OPS 2. RADCON 2 imp, 5 investigation. General X M/S 2. EP 1, SEC 1, E/TS 2, SA/QV 2 e or n et X
, X e 6/18/92: Salem Unit 2 shutdown due to feedwater pipe wall sanctions for other opwmor x thinning caused by erosion / corrosion.
i e other # 12/3/92: Harassment and intimidation of two SRG members facilit':s- by senior Salem managers occurred as reported by subsequentlicenseeinvestigation 01 investigation activities were initiated. XXXXXXX Refueling Outa0e 3 11/9/91 4/19/92: Unit 2. 6 12/13/92: Salem Unit 2 loss of overhead annunciator event ! 414f91 8/18/92: Unit 1. caused by operator failure to follow procedures for Remoto l Configuration Workstation; and LTA design specifications 1 1983 1992 fw OHA alann and warning features. (AIT)
- . - - [b
. .t o I e
. _ , . , ,..s ..n , - . - - - .
SALEM General Activity and General Occurence and
- . Licensee Response History Event Histwy i
March l X i-fX XYYYYYYYY 3/18/93 - t/30/93 : Unit 2 refueling outage 7 X X X O 5/93: NRC rnet with licensee and X e 5/24/93 - 6/4/93: Several aborted Salern Unit 2 startup
*scussed recurrent programmatic X attempts due to rod control problems inadequate root ficiencies tnat contributed to the previous AITs, and the licensee x cause analysis was a principal contnbutor. Poor
'j.. inability to understand and resolve X problem msolution technique and ability was X demonstrated. (AIT) cause of deficient conduct and performanos X y _~ X X X , June e 9/93: SALP 91-99 (12/91 - 6/93) OPS 2, RADCON 1 M/S 2 EP 1 dec, SEC 1, E/TS 2, SA/QV 2 , O 7/93: PSE&G initiates # 10/12/93: Salem Unit 2 shutdown due to creded EDG 5' Comprehensive Performance cylinder liws. ' Assessment to assess Artificial i Island events, incidents, and # 10/93 - 11/93: $50,000 CP & Severity Level lil violation f occurmnces fw prehy undiscowed, underesM, w numerous examples of inadequate procedure adherence overlooked root causes, with personnel safety implications (live 125VDC cable cutting incident severalincidents involving failure to adhere to tagginD procedures, , etc). O 10/1/93 - 1/24/94: Salem Unit i refuelin0 outage (1R11), extended due to EDG cylinder liner problems (crack 1 liners attributed to procurement deficiencies); Aux Foodwater pump problems (attributed to replaced parts i that were of a different design than required); and, Main Foodwater pump problems (attributed to design changes implemented to support later digital foodwater ' modifications, i.e., the licensee did not fully understand the cause of oscillations, consequentl restored to original confguration.) y the MFP was - b , 1993 I
SALEM '
.. General Activity and General Occurence and Licensee Response History Event History :
O 1194: PSE&G concludes comprehensive # 1/27/94 -2/13/IM: Salem Unit 1 was sutgoct to ! assessment, concludes there are sionl6 cant 2 reactor trips (1/27/94 trip from 10% due to i dancionales in root cause 2 a..;, = ., and food reg valve problems attributable to
- the performance of offelle and line QA previouslyinesective trar""+Ms vofforts; or0enizations Subsequently, a complex 2/10/94-trip from 100% due to coincident ioes Strategic improvement Plan is established that of both 15 VDC control power supplies to EHC identires conective measures and schedule system due to uramandad actuation of over-for -,u . ,. volta 0e protechan (crowber), ="=f='*=d to be 0 2/94: After being at power for 3 days, unit i caused by maintenance actMties. On 2/11/94-tripped. licenses discovered that the modo switches to both air compressors for 1B EDG were in the 2/94: CalVondra, GeneralMana0er-Salem off position due to work centrol problems; and Operations reassigned to non nuclear on 2/13/94, while the unit was in Mode 2, en posistion in PSE&G. Joe HaSen,Vice I&C technician enor involving a pressure
' President-Nucioer Operations assigned as transducer ===ar4*arewith tne atmosphenc Gener:1 Manager until permanent replacement steam dump system caused the steam dumps is appointed.
to actuele Conesquently, excessive cooldown 4: Salem reorganization initiated, including occurred and power increase from 2% to 5.6%, *
.dnt unitization, and establishment of new causing an unplanned modo chen0s i
department rnanapers for System Engineering / Tech Support, Maintenanos, and Outage
# 4/7/94: Salem Unit 1 trip from 25% due to operator -
2/4/94: Salem management took both units off m( perators reduced pm to 10% to line to dredge grass and mud in front of the - E'***
- Salem circulating water intake structure 25 Wowe@ @ TW m h than normal Tave, operators withdrew s. yw control 2/24/94 Management % to h r ds which increased power in excess of 25%, .
CPAT findin0s andlicensee plans and which resulted in trip. Trip was complicated when ulos Wpmorarn @h g ggy, g g g ggg go close; and two turbine driven feed pumps failed to . trip. 81 ar*"aeari PRT rupture disk blow out, and ' the licensee declared a UE followed by an i o e/24/94: Salem Unit i rapid shutdown from ALERT. AITdispeiched. Conesquently,
**** j 75% powerdue to condensate audion * ***
- I4 '
header overpressurization and water Severity Levelllis with a 8500,000 CP). General hammer' cause involve ineffective corrective action for pre. existing equipment deficiencies that provided t challenges to operators (MS10), ir=dartoda ! operator comrund and control, and ineffective management communicebon of expectations to the staff, and poor operator performance issues. l
-(AIT) ' '
Precursors to this event (grass affecting plant operation) occurred twice in 1993, and once in 2/
- 94. Subsequent problems with grass occurred in 6/94 and 12/94.
S 6/14/94: Salem Unit 2 rapidly reduced power from 100% to 70% due to grass intrusion. Jan.-June 1994
, ss .pg ****"*
i . t' d s
+ - ,----
^ -
====r-- - - --"-- - - - ~~ - - -
- 4. ,
SALEM b t General ActMty and General Occurence and Licensee Response History Event History J O 7/94: NRC Commissioners receive PSE&G . 4 - - presentation on April 7, event. Chairman informs PSElG that Salem performance (4 AITs in 4 ,, years) was unacceptable. l 7/11/94 - 8/25/94: NRC conducted a special Performance Assessment of Salem. Generally the
- assessment team found that there was no
. aggressive quality oversight of activities, and no '
' proactive effort existed to correct existing system and equipment deficiencies that had the potential t) challenge operators and system performance r; Weakness were also found in maintenance i i Programs reistive to procedure adherence, post-maintenance testing, and control of work activities _. In operations, a significant number of M-around" issues were identified that 4rators had accomodeled and accepted as normal. Though engineerin0 activities were generally assessed positively, weaknesses were noted in engineering oversight of vendor designed ,
. modifications. Plant support actMties woro
, acceptable - 7/30/94: PSE&G executive mana0ement, as part of an overall performance improvement effort ! (which involved assessing the performance of all personnel assigt H to support Salem), termineled or otherwise forcea the resignation of about 55 personnel that were deemed to be low-level performers in the Salem orgainization. The terminations mainly affected supervisors and 010/13/94 - 2/16/95: Salem Unit 2 refueling . . technical personnel in non- bergoinine Positions, outage (2R8). Prosocied 77 day mfueling and included L Reiter, General Manager-Quality outape deleyed due to lealdng pressurizer Assurance and Nuclear Safety Review and other code safety vehes and single failure , managers in that organization. s'WNiity of the Solid State Fiw. System. 14: EDO informs Miltenberger, LaBruna, and 10/29/94-11/4/94: several ineffectively Hagan that he will not be able to defend _ controlled M related maintenance continued Salem operation in the event of actMties, including near miss cuttin0 4160V another AIT. cable. , O 10f94 Steve Mittenberger. Vice President and Chief Nucieer Officer was repieced by Leon Elisson. Subsequently, Elleson presides over the reorganization of PSE&G's nuclear division intoo subsidiary reorgenlaationofNuclear Division Nuclear Businses unit. Eliason is named President of NBU. July Oct. 1994 4 t
. , . , _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . ._._.__._m._
_ _ . _ ___ _c - <w-. SALEM e General Activity and - General Occurence and Licensee Response History Event History e 11/18 -28/94: the Salem Units experienced O 11/94: As a result ofir.;::Y=. of a four electrical transients including two Hope Creek matter involving insufficient losses of 4160V station power staffing of the control room in 1992, the transformers, one loss of a 13 KV liconese determined that some similar substation, and arcing of a 4KV supply staffino issues occurred at Salem over an cable to safety related busses extended period of time. Olinvestigation is progressin0 e 12/11/94: rapid Salem Unit 1 power reduction from 100% power to 51% power O 12/13/94: John Summers named as new in response to grass intrusion. General Manager-Salem Operations; Joe Hagan resumes normalduties of Vice # 1054 -2/95: Unit 2 outape. planned to be Pr:sident of Nuclear Operatione 60 days but extended due to extensive problems involving leak-by on pressurizer safety relief valves. O 1/95: PSE&G named Jeffery Benjamin as new Gonwal Managw-QueHty Assurance and a 1/95: Salem Unit 2 replaces no 23 RCP Nuclear Safety Review. A new manager and seal due to seal leakoff valve failure, new supervisors were =Wantly appointed
' to the Salem QA organizabon. 1/95: SALP 93-99 (6/93 - 11/94) OPS 3, M/
S 3 E/TS 2, PS 1 1/30/95: Leon Eliason announced functional realignment of Nuclear Business Unit and e 2/2/95: While unit 1 at 100% and unit 2 in Performance li..p..;:n ,; initiatives NBU Mode 2, PSE&G determined that SSPS functionalareas were estabhehod as vulnerability existed due to design Opwations (Hagen), Support (l.aBruna), de6ciency. Requested NOED to effect Assessment (Sw$emin), Human Resources daign change NOED granted by NRC. and Administration pohnson), Extemal Affairs' On 2/345 licenom ddwmined that poww (Burricelli), and Strategic Planning and supply problem existed relative to expected Financial (Cohen). Reorganization to be functioning of SSPS circuits and announced later. commenced troubleshooting activities. NRC =W =gtly rescinded NOED. Both O 2/13/95: Leon Eliason announced units were required to go to Mode 5. reorganization of NSU to support previously announced functional realignment. e 2/94-3/95: While shutdown, the licensee . experienced difficulty in relative to MS10 2/17/95: Leon Eliason informed the EDO that pwfonnanos on both urds. Extensive he has commissioned an independent team of I'"#22 1" 'ii and root cause analysis 3 senior nuclear industry executives to perform a sevwaldesign and ! Organizational Effectiveness Review of Salem component de6ciencies existed on in an effort to determine why program controller cards and modules associated improvement has not been realized. with MS10 operation that were not previously revealed by other licensee 2/27 - 3/10/95: INPO Plant Evaluation and efforts to understand and resolve MS10 ! Accreditation Team (28 persons) in progress. perfonnance issues that contributed to the 4/7/94 Unit 1 trip. 2/95: Enforcement Conferences were held i with PSE&G and three former mana0ers (Cal e 2/95: After start up of the unit, within 3 Vondra, former GM-Salem Operations; Vince days Salern Unit 2 was shutdown again to
- PoHzzi, funnw Opwations Mana0w-Salem, replace No. 21 RCP seal. Seal failure ,
and L Reiter, former GM-QA/NSR) relative to l resulted from low lealeff flow apparently harrasment and intimidation issues stemming caused by a small arnount of crud. from a 12/3/92 incidert involving two SRG i engineers. Enforcement pendin0 l O 3/95: John Morrison, formerly Managw-Technical Department is reassi0ned. ; Licensee is currently considering outside replacement Nov.1994 - Present
l
... {lI
. j I
j' 1
}p($
Y f
) .
b)k pfh j. Mr. Leon Eliason
')' [, .
l Chief Nuclear Officer and President ) f I l Nuclear Business Unit Public Service Electric and Gas Company [ l[ g $ F yD f J 1 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey, 08038
/Q y I
7 i
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC PERFORMANCE OF LIC EPERFORMANCE(SALP) {# N\ r l REPORT N0. 50-272;50-311/93-9 I ' 6
Dear Mr. Eliason:
- This letter forwards the SALP report for Salen Generating Stations, Units 1
, and 2, for the period between June 0, 1993 and November 5, 1994. The SALP i was conducted in accordance with t e Nuclear Regulatory Comissions's revised process that was implemented July 19, 1993. This revised process assesses . I licensee performance in four f ional areas: Operations, Maintenance, _ Engineering, and Plant Support ( ich includes radiation protection, ica j plant protection and security, emergency preparedness, fire protect 1 ,
- chemistry, and housekeeping).
1 ! Operators generally responded appropriately with good command and control to j the many p' ant trips and operational transients that occurred in this period g " j except during the April 7, 1994, grass intrusion event. However, the
; operators did not effectively assure that plant systems and equipment were ,
4 always sufficiently maintained to perform as designed. Toc often, the t operations organization accommodated long-standing equipment or system i problems that 9sepmMy challenged the operation of the plant in normal and , I upset conditions. Further, the general lack of a questioning attitude by I operators resulted in anomalous indications or conditions being unnoticed or not ur.derstood, and consequently, ineffectively resolved. Weaknesses in l operability decision-making resulted in some determinations that were not ; conservative or otherwise lacked a solid technical basis. This functional l area was rated as Category 3. gm She maintenance organization was weak in the implemefitation of programs and activities. Consequently, there were frequent :::f:7 x.x; involving procedure adherence, procedural adequacy, and control and oversight of work. Some improvements, such as better comunications with the operating organization, 15 improved prioritization and scheduling of work, and improved material l condition have been achieved. Notwithstanding, weaknesses still prevail i relative to the effectiveness of corrective actions, troubleshooting and resolution of recurrent equipment problems, and management oversight of work activities. This functional area was rated as Category 3. The performance of engineering was inconsistent. The quality of design and modificat< activities was generally good. However, engineering priorities M did r.J reflect the needs of the plant. Significant problems were fg hW ' 7 k '
1 . I ll *
.- l
. I 1
Mr. Leon Eliason 2 l
- evident in the quality of root cause assessment activities and resolution of 1
-
- repetitive equipment problems. While the quality and technical ability of the l 1; Engineering and Plant Betterment organization appears good, the organization !
- did not effectively engage itself in the diagnosis, root cause assessment, and l resolution of the chronic plant system and equipment problems that have i
adversely affected overall plant performance. This functional area was rated j as Category 3. 1 l Performance in the plant support area continued to be strong. Well trained , l and capable management and staff contributed to the effectiveness of radiation i
- protection and ALARA efforts, and the radiological environmental and effluent i, monitoring programs. The performance of the emergency preparedness
> organizatLon improved in this period and was effectively demonstrated in
- dr 11s and actual event responses. The plant security organization performed j well, notwithstanding problems with assessment aids and occasional weaknesses
- relative to supervisory oversight and personnel performance. Performance j relative to fire protection program and activities improved during this period. This functional area was rated as Category 1.
4 ', In summary, the NRC is concerned with the performance decline in three of the j; four areas during this period. The NRC is particularly concerned with the j frequent challenges to plant systems and to the operators caused by repetitive ; equipment problems and personnel errors that had the potential to, or actually ! did, adversely affect plant or personnel safety. We recognize that your l organization has, within the last year, initiated several comprehetsive j actions that have the potential to improve overall plant performance. While ! we acknowledge some recent incremental performance gains, these efforts have not yet resulted in any noticeable overall performance improvement. k *ff**"* In arriving at this a essment, our staff determined the following apparent contributing factors- (1) The tendency of your operations staff to accept and accommodate system rformance that was not in accordance with design, or g j otherwise, less th n optimum; (2) The tendency of your organization to oestmeEhW ' vs i th a t p : 1 .tI =n of degraded conditions or unexpected system performance, and dismiss or not adequately consider other possible Wda' ! contributors or factors without substantial technical basis or rationale; (3) of 45 " } /mThe reluctance 3of maintenance and operations organizations to solicit ^ ff Technical support from the engineering organization for the resolution of { '3 plant system or equipment issues; and the engineering organization's reticence to engage in the diagnosis or resolution of plant technical problems without j requirement or request; (4) The lack of value attributed to, or expected from,
- on-site safety review and quality assuraree activities, and the consequent
- l. ineffectiveness of the function; and (5) Insufficient critical self-assessment
! initiatives to evaluate the adequacy and performance of personnel, procedures, l and hardware. h nc w F !\ i' I c#ph ^b, a- wt eh ! i yW / ,/ q l r pN s $ S i fy fp
- s ,
_. _ , _ _ _ _ _ , . . . , _ . _ , . _ . , _ ___1
~ ~~~^~ ~^- "'~~~~
' = = = = = ^ = = 2'
~~
is . . ir
- Mr. Leon E11ason 3 l
\
i
- We have scheduled a management meeting on January 12, 1995, at the Salen i ., Generating Station Access Processing Facility to formally present this
! Systematic Assessment of Licensee performance. The meeting will be open for j public observation in accordance with NRC policy. Following that meeting, we
- request that you provide written comments, including any correction of factual l information, within 20 days of the date of the meeting. The enclosed report i and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
i
- We appreciate your cooperation. j i
sincerely, l I l l ! i ! Thomas T. Martin j Regional Administrator
- , Docket No. 50-272/50-311
Enclosure:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Report No.
- 50-272/93-99 & 50-311/93-99 i I 4
I !4 l b > i J i
- j 4
4 1 4 c
- . = . _ - . - - - - . . . . . . . - -..-- . . - . . - . - . _ .
i ji l
- Mr. Leon Eliason 4 cc w/ enc 1
- J. J. Hagan, Vice President-0perations/ General Manager-Sales Operations
- S. La8runa, Vice President - Engineering and Plant Betterment l C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
- f. Thomson, Manager, Licensing and Regulation J. Robb, Director, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrt. tor A. Giardino, Acting Manager, Quality Assurance B. Hall, Acting Manager, Nuclear Safety Review R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire P. J. Curham, Manager, Joint Generation Department, Atlantic Electric Company Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township Public Service Commission of Maryland The Chairman Cossaissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque .
Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) K. Abraham, PA0 (24 copies) NRC Resident Inspector State of New Jersey State of Delaware k i
g .. . i . 4 9
- Nr. Leon Eliasen 4 I bec w
- RegionI /Docket enc
- Room (with concurrences) l 1
J. Taylor, EDO l J. Nilhoan, DEDO l SALP Program Nanager, NRR/ILPB (2)
- J. White, DRP i
- 5. Barber, DRP l l K. Gallagher, DRP 4 l bec w/ enc (VIA E-4IAIL):
- L. 01shan, NRR W. Dean, OEDO J. stolz, PDI-2, NRR N. Shannon ILPB N. Callahan, OCA W. Russell, NRR i R. Zimmerman, NRR i J. Lieberman, OE C. Holden, NRR/RPEB l
- A. Thadani, NRR j 1
bec via E-45 ail: Region I staff (Refer to SALP Drive) i
\t i
,g ,
i 4 + pk:.L' Eh DOCUMENT NAME: A:5ALN9399.5LP eW To semelvo a espy of eds aloownent, buenas k se bec 'C' = Copy wNhout ^^ ' _:J]enclosum T = Copy \'
- em hm.ny.neio w = No copy I 0FFICE RI/DRP _ _, l 6 RI/DRP , , 16 RI/DRM ,l NRR/PDI]2 l NAME Barber /k)' p4$ Wh1te (/// V Hehl / # 9 18' Stolz /
! 0FFICE MRI/DR:
b 5 RI/DRP u/ h - mmm
. RI/DRA RI/RA NAME Wiggins % ) CooperF/ ". Kane Martin DATE l1AM\A4 #2/2 /(4 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY J
a
m._ _ l jg'. ,
. l l .
Mr. Leon Eliason 5 ! bec w/ enc: i Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
- ,; J. Taylor, ED0 J. Milhoan, DED0 4
SALP Program Manager, NRR/ILPB (2) i J. White, DRP l S. Barber, DRP j , K. Gallagher, DRP l bec w/ enc (VIA E-MAIL): L. 01shan, NRR . W. Dean, OED0 J. Stolz, PDI-2, NRR M. Shannon, ILP8 M. Callahan, OCA W. Russell, NRR R. Zimmerman, NRR J. Lieberman, OE ! C. Holden, NRR/RPE8
. A. Thadani, NRR bec via E-Mail:
Region ! Staff (Refer to SALP Drive) l 00CUMENT NAME: A:SALM9399.SLP l To rece6ve a empy of tils document,indlemas in tie bouc *CT = Copy without attachment / enclosure T = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy 0FFICE RI/DRP* RI/DRP* RI/DRSS* NAME Barber /kig White Hehl ! DATE NAME Stolz RI/DRS* Wiggins Cooper E/D E Kane
~
DATE ummmmmmmemammmmmmmmmmmmmnum nummmmmmmmmmmins mim umm man 0FFICE RI/RA / / / NAME Martin DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
m_____.._ p, . i i SYSTERATIC. ASSESSMENT OF LICDISEE PERFORMANCE (5 ALP) ! SALEN LAIITS 1 Am 2 ( ' REPORT NO. 50-272/93-99 & 50-311/93-99 I. BACKGR0t25 l The SALP Board convened on December 1,1994, to assess the nuclear safety
- performance of the Salen Units 1 and 2 for the period June 20, 1993, to e November 5,1994. The board was convened pursuant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Counission (NRC) Management Licensee Performance (SALP)" (see NRC Adm Directive (le)inistrative Letter 93-02).Board i
members were Richard W. Cooper, II (Board Chairman), Director, Division of i Reactor Projects, NRC RI; James T. Wiggins, Director, Division of Reactor j Safety, NRC Region I (RI); Charles W. Hehl, Director, Division of Radiation
- Safety and safeguards, NRC RI; and John F. Stolz, Director, Project Directorate I-2, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The board
- developed this assessment for approval by the Reg' on I Administrator.
l The following performance category ratings and the assessment functional areas l are defined and described in NRC fB 8.6. i 1 1 II. PERFORRANCE ANALYSIS - OPERATIONS l The Operations functional area was rated category 2 in the last SALP period. j The licensee's performance was characterized by excellent operator response to j trips and other operational transients. Supervision and management oversight of refueling and day-to-day operations was very good. However, the operators' j attempt at several startups of Unit 2 without sufficiently determining the
- cause of repetitive rod control problems and effectively resolving the problem, was identified as a significant management control and oversight l weakness.
1
- Throughout the current SALP period, operators were often challenged by plant i trips and other operational transients. Operators oxhibited generally :to;;
command and control of the response to these events. For example, on June 10, i 1994, operators demonstrated appropriate command and control in response to an ! automatic trip caused by failure of a main generator potential transformer. Likewise, on August 30, 1994, Unit 2 operators responded well to a condenser water box manway failure and reduced power to 75 percent. However, during i the April 7, 1994, grass intrusion event, shift management personnel did not J remain free to survey and analyze all operating parameters and, for a short period of time, lost control and perspective of the overall operations in the midst of attempting to stabilize plant conditions. pmily lod b
- Operations and plant management 6d7 opera in decisions that dititd
! conservative operation of the plant. For example, in June 1994, plant staff l performed a methodical, controlled, safe startup of Unit I following the April i 7,1994 trip, after delaying startup in order to repair small leaks in the reactor head vents and a pressurizer safety valve. Additionally, operators ] l i
' - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ - - - ~ - - ~ -
d i - l j 2 i I exhibited proficiency in making conservative, proper, and timely emergency i declarations for six actual events that necessitated consideration of entering
- an emergency action level.
I Notwithstanding the perforrance noted above, overall operations - l performance during th1Vassessment period was characterized by significant weaknesses in several areas. Slow or inadequate resolution of equipment . problems by other plant departments caused operators to become accustomed to ;
- working around or livinii with problems that created additional challenges to -
! them in operating the p' ant in normal and upset conditions. For example, the licensee provided inadequate training, guidance, and procedures to the j operators to cope with plant transients resulting from grass intrusion events ; ! that had occurred frequently at sales and that had caused numerous safety i 4 system challenges, reactor trips, and significant conditions adverse to ' l quality. Operator response to the April 7, Igg 4, grass intrusion event was also complicated by a safety injection that was caused by a spurious high ! steam flow signal of short duration that had been observed during three i previous reactor and turbine trip ut had never been fully investigated and - i resolved. In addition, during t ransient, the atmospheric relief valve
- control system exhibited a recurring problem in which it had to be shifted to
- manual, then back to automatic after a short time delay to ensure proper
- operation. This problem existed for many years with no management action to
! correct it. Operators also did not aggressively pursue correction of l longstanding problems with the rod control system that caused numerous i occurrences of rods stepping into the core in half steps without appropriate Process demand signals g pw ,s,/u/*< y /u l ~ } Some events that urred during thi ssessment period demonstrated udk d# i questioning att ude by operators For example, in April 1994 the plant ##O ! shut down, Un 1 operators di t question a reading of g3 the reactor i vessel water evel indicati system (RVLIS). When br to their attention i by NRC, o ators attri the reading to a calibra problem instead of , an actual reactor vessel . Subsequently. - -' was confirmed t h ; .;n 4 d;nt:1y eliminated by venting. Earlier in the SALp period, a cold leg 5 Y j ! accumulator's level was recorded in the control roos logs as beinil above the
- upper technical specification limit without a corresponding techn' cal
! specification entry. However, this was not ident by either self checking <l or supervisory review. g p, . Operability decisions made by the 0 ations staff were often weak due to a l 1 poor understanding of the design b is of safety related equipment and 1 systems, as well as, a lack of c1 r guidance and training on Generic Letter j 91-18. The engineering organir ton was not consistently consulted on many of . thest more difficult operabil determinations. For example, an initial operability evaluation for did not involve any consultation with the " i i engineering organization and ailedtocopsiderthedesignbasisrequirements i valve. Other noteworthy exampleslthat occurred during the SALp period NM gy@71surrgency .. v;1=1 weak _ operability determinations;4ee degraded performance of the 1A diesei.!)enerator, closure of the power opera g* I and safety inject < on relief valve leakage. In addition, there were several 1
! examples over the assessment period in which operators took a non-conservative :
l approach to entering and exiting Technical Specification limiting conditions i i 4 f
- . - . . . . . . - - - - . ..=.-
= = .=. = - - _ _ - . - - - - - . - -
i . n- .. y 3 l for operation (LCOs) f r the same underlying problem. For example, in Ray
- i. 1994, during a Unit 1 startup, operators made repeated entries into the
! Technical Specificati (TS) LC0 for the pressurizer vent path in response to i minor leakage throus two head vent valves, but inappropriately re-initialized j the LC0 entry each me. Operators also entered and exited a containment
- isolation TS LC0 fo the service air system twice in the same shift to perform i
maintenance that - Id have exceeded the original LC0 time period. Operations also e ibited difficulty managing and controlling outage , activities. For xample, operators created or contributed to a number of i tagging errors. se included an operator who removed tags from a bleed steam coil drain ank pungghich allowed steam to escape through an unsecured ----- i drain line, and n operator who erroneously opened a boundary valve that allowed water to a downstream valve that was undergoing a maintenance activity. Subsequently, the licensee established corrective measures and , similar occurrences have not been observed. Also, during the refueling outage in October 1993, with the spent fuel pools cross connected, operators did not : identify that a pre-existing high level condition in the Unit I spent fuel l pool masked further increases in pool level which, when such an increase
. occurred, resulted in an overflow of the spent fuel pool water into the fuel
> handling building ventilation exhaust ductwork.
Inspection activities late in the SALp period revealed that Quality Assurance surveillance of Operations was not performance-based and was ineffective in ; ieentifying significant previously existing weaknesses in the Operations : department. The lack of self assessment activities within the Operations organization, coupled with ineffective independent oversight by the Quality , Assurance organization, resulted in little or no feedback to the operators and ! their management relative to the existence of significant performance problems i in Operations. i In summary, operators generally responded appropriately with good comand and .t control to the many plant tri ps and operational transients that occurred over !
'the SALp period. Likewise, tsay demonstrated good proficiency in making !
emergency declarations for events for which such declarations should have been i considered. However, performance over the assessment period demonstrated ; significant weaknesses in several areas. Operators did not practice ownership . j of the plant and aid not aggressively enlist other plant departments to 1 resolve longstanding equipment problems which frequently challenged them in h normal and upset plant conditions. A lack of an appropriately questioning l attitude by operators resulted in anomalous indications, or contitions be' ng i unnoticed or not understood and not being acted upon. A lack of guidance for ! and training of operators on operability decisions resulted in some decisions : being nonconservative or having weak technical bases. Examples of l nonconservative approaches to entering and exiting LCOs occurred over the i period. Some difficulties were exper'enced managing and controlling outage > activities. A lack of self assessment within the Operations department
) coupled with ineffective independent assessment of Operations by the Quality :
Assurance department contributed to the continuation of performance problems i throughout most of the period. The Operations functional area is rated as Category 3.
,\
i - ! 4 s 1 j g* 1 l III. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS - RAllfTENANCE k i i i*
'? In the previous assessment period, the Sales maintenance and surveillance j functional area was rated Category 2. Personnel errors had decreased, but !
, still caused three reactor trips and four engineered safety features d actuations. 4 ---tr e7 t=:1- indi;eted ; ; tin;in; i ;=- rt. Three - 1 i y refueling outages were perfomed with strong planning and implementation. - i i Improvements were noted in the preventive maintenance program, procurement, ,\ j material control, and surveillance procedures quality through tte procedures j k( upgrade program. k) During the latter part of this assessment period, management improved its safety focus in prioritizing and scheduling maintenance activities. In the I 5 i plan-of-the-day meetings and other work planning meetings and activities involving both operations and maintenance personnel, the emphasis was on safety rather than production. Interdepartmental communication, especially 9 0( between maintenance and systems engineers, improved. However, supervisors did Tt not always communicate effectively with workers while they were in the field and during pre-job briefings as evidenced by maintenance error volving the - governor gear box oil change and turbine overspeed trip test d "-
------ 7 during preventive maintenance work on the Number 23 auxiliary f er(AFW) e ;
pump. The AFW pump tripped twice during post-maintenance testing before appropriate supervisory guidance was obtained for returning the to service.
.....uw._,_. ..a. J ..a. ..,.u.._..
MSaEen had a high recurrent equIiEEEfaii $tSindicatingthat corrective action effectiveness remains a problem. here were several examples of the licensee's inability to resolve longstanding equipment and system deficiencies. For example, inadequate root cause analysis and training contributed to the delay in correcti long-tem deficiencies in the various radiation monitoring systems; inadequate root cause analysis also contributed to repetitive failures of the automatic control of the steam cenerator feedwater reculating valves (BFig) over a two year period. Supervisory control anc management oversight was also lacking for
- numerous)
--an and orcanizattant that nerfom maintenance work on sitefPersonnai errors, problems with procedural adherence, and excessive reliance on " skills of the craft" contribut,ed to inconsistent implementation of the maintenance program. Most recentiy, the licensee found that a contractor electrician cut into the wrong 4160 VAC cable. A fatality was avoided only because the affected cable was tagged out of service to support other unrelated work.
In the area of problem identification and resolution, the licensee implemented an effective way of tracking equipment problems using a process called the equipment malfunction identification system (ENIS). However, the feedback process regarding problems that occur during maintenance activities was not effectively implemented by field maintenance personnel. This primarilyr ae/+u/' eMecteddha. correction of deficient procedures and work packages. Feedback A. did not always get into the planning system and in some instances the initiator of the feedback form was not informed as to the resolution of the w,
I - o h 9 f , pnJl problem. oubleshooting ano livlementati of the root cause program was
; inconsistent, even though the license 6 ablished a good root cause i capability. For example, the licens id a good job of troubleshooting and determining the root cause of into tent rod stepping and oscillations on the AFW pump. However, in additio to inadequate root cause analysis and failure to resolve longstanding oblems cited earlier, the licensee performed .
inadequate troubleshooting and oot cause analysis on the four electro-hydraulic control power suppi failures before determining the fundamental root cause of the failures. Jose of the maintenance performance problems were related to conducting troubleshooting without a procedure such as the example where the ability to capture as-found defects was lost during removal of a -
. failed emergency diesel generator cylinder liner.
The material condition of the plant improved following the licensee's establishment of the Sales Material Condition Revital' zation Project. However, there remains evidence of degraded conditions in the service water intake structure and the residual heat removal pump rooms. In general, surveillance testing activities were effective with respect to
; meeting the surveillance program objectives. However, the licensee failed to demonstrate the design basis capability of the emergency diesel generators to start on a single air start system while performing maintenance on the remaining air start system. Also during this period, a surveillance procedure
- deficiency resulted in the inadvertent discharge of a safety injection '
t accumulator into the reactor coolant system whole at low pressure. I Although the licensee completed a formal procedures upgrade program (PUP) in Igg 3, procedure adequacy continues to be a problem. For example, an excellent troubleshooting procedure was developed and implemented in the controls area, - but a similar procedure in the mechanical maintenance area was not implemented. There were recurring maintenance problems that needed specific procedure changes which were being delayed because of an excessive procedure . change backlog. In several instances, there was a planning failure to spec < fy appropriate post-maintenance testing requirements in work order packages. This was attributed to the inadequacy of the controlling procedures for the planning process and training of planners in post-maintenance testing requirements. The Sales in-service testing program was adequate. The use of spectrum 1 2 analysis for vibration and high quality procedures were noteworthy. However, several shortcomings were identified in program oversight by station management,, Many program weaknesses were ' dentified by comprehensive and self-critical audits, but were not acted upon. The programs for inservice inspection, erosion / corrosion and steam generator leakage monitoring were adequately implemented. 1 In sumanary, weaknesses were evident in the implementation of the maintenance j' programs and activities, such as procedural adherence and adequacy, the feedback process, specification of post-maintenance testing requirements, and control of work activities by numerous onsite groups. Management improved its safety focus in prioritizing and scheduling ma' ntenance actuvities. However, management oversight of corrective action program activities was weak as
.- --- . ..---.~.
s . ! 6 1 l evidenced by the high recurrent equipment failure rates. Inconsistencies in l troubleshooting activities and root cause analysis contributed to the delay in l correcting recurring problems. Material condition of the plant continued to
- improve, but there were several areas that still need improvement. Although i the in-service testing program was adecuate, management did not effectively l
resolve associated self-assessment fincings. Programs for inservice
- inspection, erosion / corrosion and steam generator leakage monitoring were adequately implemented.
[ The Raintenance functional area is rated Category 3. IV. PERFORRANCE ANALYSIS - ENGINEERING In the last SALP, engineering was rated Category 2. Engineering provided good support for refueling and ma' ntenance outages and strong performance was noted in addressing day-to-day activities. The training programs for engineering personnel were excellent. Weaknesses were noted Ln handling of engineering-related nonconformances, in the erosion / corrosion program implementation and in fire protection programs. Also, while the root cause training program was found to be strong, the threshold for initiating root cause analyses was not clear or consistent. During this period, the quality of engineering activities was inconsistont and varied significantly from activity to activity. Quality depended on the issue involved and the perceived importance of that issue by engineering and plant management and staff. Management expectations for engineering performance were clearly articulated but were implemented inconsistently throughout the organization. Communication and coordination among the Engineering and Plant Betterment (E&PB) organization, the Technical Department of the plant staff and the . balance of the plant staff were not always effective. While there was good communication and coordination of highly-visible problems, day-to-day interactions were ineffective in resolving some repetitive equipment problems that continued to challenge the operation of the facility. While close interactions occurred between the Maintenance organization and Technical Department system engineers, the engineering expertise of the E&PB organization was not always effectively engaged. Engineering did not always proactively seek out and correct system and component deficiencies before they led to increasinq1y challenging plant events. Further, E&PS did not effectively invo' ve itself in support of plant operations as demonstrated by the fact that, while backlogs of its activities were well controlled, its work priorities were not well-integrated with those of the operating organization. For example, the " Engineering Critical Issues List' did not match the plant's
- critical issues list and was not prioritized by safety significance. Further, erator work-arounds made the none of the items engineering that were being tracked as op$ positive engineering %p list. Notwithstanding,significant leadership and good quality engineering work were demonstrated in the recovery from the overhead annunciator and rod control systems problems, in the main
l. ja - 1
- steam line flow monitoring modifications and in the commitment of resources toward the switchyard betterment and radiation monitoring system upgrade
! programs, i l Design engineering procedures were comprehensive and their quality was good. Work instructions associated with modification installation were generally pood. Temporary modification activities were well controlled, with installed temporary modifications tracked and periodically assessed by the system j engineer. j The quality of technical support provided to the Operations and Maintenance organizations was mixed. Engineering support was good in a number of instances, such as those associated with indications of condensate pump { ' pedestal damage, with the identification of thermal fatigue cracks in Unit 1 4 steam generator feedwater nozzles, and with a leaking flange joint associated { j with the #22 reactor coolant pump. Further, the eng'neering evaluation of emergency diesel generator cylinder liner cracks was comprehensive and of high ! quality. However, several instances were noted where engineering support in i response to equipment problems was poor. Examples included the ineffective i response to control air compressor problems and the lack of a timely and effective review of the main steam line pressure pulse phenomenon prior to the ' i April 7,19M event. In a number of progranaatic areas, performance was good. The motor-operated valve testing completion program was found to be progressing well toward its planned date. The erosion / corrosion program 'aprovements achieved at the end of the last SALp period were maintained in effect. The steam generator inspection program was well controlled and implemented. Engineering support to maintenance troubleshooting activities was, in general, good. The Environmental Qualifications Master List was appropriately maintained. In - addition, this period. the engineering assurance program was revised and improved during Configuration baseline documents were found to be of good
- quality, but a licensee self-assessment noted opportunities to improve their use. In the procurement area, commercial grade dedication packages were complete and the warehouse storage areas were well maintained; however the material issuance process failed to prevent issuance of the incorrect materials to support a modification of Unit 2 power-operated relief valves and to sup> ort emergency diesel generator fuel injector stud changeouts. Also, notwitistanding the problems identified in the licensee's reaction to the g April 7,1994, event, the licensee provided for an excellent and comprehensive investigation and monitoring program for grass intrusion into the circulating water / service water intake structure.
problems with root cause analyses continued from the last SALP period and contributed to weaknesses in resolution of long-standing problems. In several instances, such as in response to indications of ground water leakage near auxiliary feedwater system piping penetrations, to indications of operation at greater than 2005 power, and to repeated steam generator feedwater pump control oil power unit problems, root cause ana'yses performed by tte plant maintenance and technical organizations tended to focus narrowly on the symptoms of equipment problems at hand. In reaction to NRC interest or as a result of an event, senior licensee management focused on specific issues and
~ ~ '- ' ^ i .n _ . . . .
- I. -
l I i e i I commissioned more in-depth root cause activities, such as significant Event Review Teams. The outcomes of these focused efforts were markedly better than
- ii i
those done routinely by the line organizations, indicating the licensee had i the capability to perform these assessments and suggesting that the j performance problem continued to be associated with the threshold established
- for initiating thorough root cause evaluations.
i Engineering personnel, particularly reactor engineering personnel, were found i to be very knowledgeable of their discipline, however system engineers were i not trained in current istC operability guidance despite the fact that they are - routinely engaged in operability assessments. personnel performance was .
> generally good, however two noteworthy contractor control problems were noted associated with the auxiliary feedwater system controller and the primary
- water oxygen reduction modifications where the contractors engaged in j installation activities failed to follow established station work process
- control procedures.
i l In summary, Engineering performance was inconsistent, with substantial variation in quality. The quality of the discipline design work was good, !4 with significant engineering management focus shown in several modification ! activit'es. However, engineering work priorities did not always reflect plant j needs. In several significant programmatic areas in which the Engineering 1 organization had an important role, performance was, on balance very good. ! Significant problems, nonetheless were noted associated with root cause j assessments and with equipment problem resolution. The fact that there j existed engineering capability, that when focused by station management and
- brought to bear on important issues, demonstrated the ability to achieve very good performance suggested that a significant aspect of the problem was associated with the effective engagement of available engineering expertise in -
activities important to safe plant operations, such as in root cause assessment and equipment problem resolution. j The Engineering functional area is rated as Cat 3. gg g
~
V. PERFORNANCE ANALYSIS - PUlNT Supp0RT i This functional area is now, representing a significant change from the . J previous SAlps. The plant support funct'onal area covers al' activities !
- related to plant support functions, including radiological controls, emergency l preparedness, security, chemistry, fire protection, and housekeeping controls.
! In the previous SALp the radiological controls, emergency preparedness and
- security functional areas were all rated as Category 1; however a declining ;
j trend was assigned to the emergency preparedness area. performance ; j, observations in the radiation protection area included: strong management l j involvement, as shown by excellent as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) l
- oversight; effective supervision of on-going work; and challenging i occupational exposure goals. The radioactive waste, transportation and i contamination control programs demonstrated continued strong performance. The i chemistry, effluent and environmental monitoring programs remained highly effective. performance in the emergency preparedness area was excellent with
] i,
- =
(,' t ) (' 1 ! g i a high que.Hty drill and exercise program, and extensive management i involvem0nt. Although the emergency plan was effectively imp' enented for four i events requiring declarations of Unusual Events, weaknesses were identified in ! ! classifying and reporting the December Igg 2 loss of control room annunciator j event at Salen 2. Addit' onally, problems with formulation of event i classification and protective action recommendations during exercises were j identified. The licensee maintained a very effective security program, with good management support, high quality maintenance support, excellent rapport with other plant groups, and effective audit and self-assessment programs.
- Although rated in conjunction with the Operations Area during the last SALp,
- the fire protection program exhibited some programmatic and personnel -
i performance problems. l During the current SALp period, the licensee's radiation protection program j performance continued to be a significant strength. Effective external and j internal exposure control programs continued to be implemented. Effective i application of engineering controls to control contamination resulted in l commendably low a' r activ' ty levels, resulting in low internal exposures. l Continued effective ALARA program implementation was evidenced by dose
- reductions achieved througi extensive application of temporary shielding !
during both unit outages, good radiation safety work coverage and pre-job ! briefings, and appropriate work area postings. The licensee effectively j
- implemented the revised 10 CFR 20 by integration of the new requirements in i applicable radiation pro';ection procedures and in timely training of the work i force. High quality traiMng for radiation protection technicians and staff
- was evident. A very effective radioactive material and contaminatier control i i program was implemented. Radiological housekeeping was generally very good. l Audits and surveillances of the radiation protection area were performance-based, performed by appropriately qualified individuals, and were effective in identifying performance problems. Corrective actions taken in response to -)
identified problems were effective. The radioactive waste handling, processing, packaging, storage, and transportation programs continued to be - very good. The ILcensee completed construction of a state-of-the-art radwaste storage facility. Radwaste generation reduction efforts were very effective as avsdenced by the continuing downward trend in radwaste produced. performance in the radiological environmental monitoring and effluent control programs continued to be strong. Effective programs for measuring ',l rad' osctivity in process and effluent samples were implemented as well as an effective program for the radiation environmental monitoring. Quality assurance aud' ts were thorough and of good technical quality. Responses to audit findings were timely and identified appropriate corrective actions. Continued excellent emergency preparedness (EP) program performance was noted during drills and exercises. An exercise strength was highlighted regarding Emergency Response Manager coemand and control. Effective management support was evidenced by active involvement of upper level management in the emergency response organization (ERO) qualification and drills, and rapid replacement of ERO members following recent employee layoffs. Several improvements were implemented during the period, including development of a radiologically-based protective action recommendation flow chart and improved containment boundary emergency action level, which enhanced response capability. The emergency
- = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i) .- i ., i 10 I i response facilities were well equipped and generally well maintained, however, l problems were identified regarding periodic efficiency tests on the high j efficiency particulate filters associated with the Emergency Operations
- Facility and radiation monitors for the Technical Support Center heating and j ventilation system being out of service for 18 months.
I The licensee continued to implement a very effective security program. } Management attention and involvement generally continued at a high level. , Maintenance support of security equipment from the maintenance staff was j M effective in minimizing the need for compensatory measures. However, -
- some assessment aids had deteriorated to a point that even aggressive '
i maintenance was not entirely effective in maintaining this equipment. The licensee continued to implement a good performance-oriented training and qualification program. However, personnel wrformance issues raised questions regarding complacency of security force mesurs and supervisory oversight of I routine security program implementation. The licensee initiated actions to 'l address problems in this area. The fire protection and prevention program was effectively implemented. Corrective actions put in place to address equipment and personnel performance Problems highlighted in the previous SALp were effective. There was good fire-fighting equipment maintenance and surveillance. Responses te emergent equipment conditions were appropriate. Combustibles and ignition sources were well controlled. performance during drills demonstrated the licensee's ; readiness and fire fighting capabil' ties. Audits were detailed and of j appropriate depth. j In summary, the plant support functioas contributed effectively to safe plant 4 performance. performance in the radiation protection area continued to be a !
- significant licensee strength. Well trained technician; and staff coupled i with effective management resulted in aggressive ALARA program implementation I with significant dose savings realized. Excellent performance in the i radiological effluent and environmental monitoring programs was again noted.
There was continued excellent performance in the emergency preparedness area. Security program performance continued to be a strength. Fire protection program implementation was substantially improved. The plant Support functional area is rated as Category 1. ;
V' . 0
</
o
- l i
I a
' SALEM EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4
- Overview On July 29,1993, the SALP board met to iscuss PSE&G's performance at Salem during the l
perio:1 from December 29,1991 to June 19,1993. The board concluded that the licensee had l
' operated the Salem units safely and that operator response to operational events was excellent. - 'Ihe overall performance in the Operations area was good. However, weaknesses were noted in the decisions to restart Unit 2 following the rod control system problems, in the failure to i follow procedures resulting in the loss of Unit 2 annunciators, and in the inadequate oversight i of the fire protection program.
l' PSE&G continued to implement effective radiological controls and ALARA programs during this period. The SALP board noted improvements in this functional area including strong
. management support and oversight. Quality Assurance audits in this area were of very good
. quality. The board concluded that the Salem maintenance and survAlta- programs contributed to the safe operation of the two units during the assessment period. In general, a declining number of i personnel errors in both maintenance and survd11== indicated improving performance. However, the number of transients induced by component failures and the significant problems with the rod control system raise questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the maintenance i and engineering support functions. , i The SALP board determined that PSE&G maintained a generally strong and effective emergency i preparedness (EP) program. However, the board was concerned with an apparent decline in the ability of thelicensee to make correct initial Protective Action Recommendations during training, drills and annual exercises. This concern resulted in the board's assessment of a declining trend ] for this area. The board also concluded that PSE&G continued to maintain an effective and , performance-oriented security program during this period. Overall, licensee performance in both ' EP and security remained excellent. l Engineering and technical support organizations provided good support for refueling and maintenance outages, and strong performance in addressing day-to-day problems. The SALP board noted that training programs for engineering personnel were excellent but that weaknesses { were observed in the licensee's non-conformance, erosion / corrosion, and fire protection programs. Although the root cause training program was viewed as a strength, the board noted that the threshold for initiating actual root cause investigation was not clear or consistent. PSE&G management continued to provide generally effective management support. Significant l Event Response Team (SERT) reviews of major events have been effective. However, the board i noted that in several instances, PSE&G failed to initiate adequate root cause evaluation or a j assessment of abnormal conditions. NRC interaction with PSE&G management was needed in a number of cases in order for full evaluation and corrective action to be taken in a timely
' manner. Once initiated, comprehensive assessment, root cause analysis and effective corrective r
4 I k
~
~ t
( .
-. -- = , . .
l l '. ' I/ # l l actions were implemented. Outage plarning and training programs in all areas were considered strengths. Facility Perfonnance Analysis Summary Rating, Trend Rating, Trend Functional Area I2st Period *Ihis Period
- 1. Plant Operations 2 2
- 2. Radiological Controls 2, Improving 1
- 3. Maintenance /Suneillance 2 2
- 4. Emergency Preparedness 1 1, Declining
- 5. Security 1 1
- 6. Engineering /Tec'nnical Support 2 2 l
- 7. Safety Assessment / Quality 2 2 j Verification l
~
Previous Assessment Period: August 1,1990 through December 28,1991 l l Present Assessment Period: December 29,1991 through June 19,1993 l l l e 1
;e
- F j ,
i .,
- i SALEM AND HOPE CREEK ISEG INPUT i
Emluation ofSalem/ Hope Creek ISEG equinient organkatiorr - i 1. Plant Tech Specs.fbr Hope Creek and both Salem units require an onsite S4ety Review l Group (SRG), the ISEG equimlent. . A. Salem 1 is a pre-TMIplant. The licensee proposed a Tech Spec change in 1981
- to require an SRG. The NRC appmwd the change in 1984.
, B. Salem 2 and Hope Creek are post-TMIplants. The original Tech Specsfor both ! units required SRGs. ! H.
- 1* A. The SRGs review appmpriate documents with the potentialfor identifying issues.
l For example, the SRGs review plant Incident Reports (IER precedents), i participate in the Operating Experience Feedback meetings, and scan amilable
- industry sources ofirgformation such as newsletters and electronic bulletin boards.
B.
, 1. The form of the SRG product is practical and useable by line
,, organkations. SRG issues monthly summary reports of activities. They i pmvide independent repons on specijfc activities. SRG makes . recommendations to line organkations; they are negotiated and tmcked in the Action Tracking System. i 2. When the SRGs make recommendations, they are sound andjustiffed. Howwr, during interviews line management had diffculty recalling i specijfc sqfety significant recommendations made by the SRGs. Also, line management identiffed that, at times, SRG may identify.ffndings without
- . making recommendations on how to resoin thepmblem. Based on review i of SRG monthly summaries of.ffndingsfor the past year, the inspectors
, concluded that the SRG recommendations wie sound and practical,
- although generally not sqfety significant. >
C. Line organkations tolerate / accept the SRGfunction. Some members ofSRG are more respectedfor their individual accomplishments and qualglications. SRG l recommendations are negotiated with line departments and subsequently tracked l and implemented. Receptiwness to SRG opinions varies with the SRG member expressing the opinion (see respect comments abow) and the line manager
- receiving the opinion. The licensee's organizational structure is designed to ;l i
l pmvide SRG Independencefmm line organizations. Additionally, licensee Tech i Specs and procedures do not prescribe or limit the SRG role to one typical of traditional QA/QC organizations. Howwr, plant managers sometimes . congpromise SRG independence by often using SRGpersonnel to perform routine l activities normally performed by line organkations. The inspectors determined that the Tech Specs andprocedures do not establish a clear missionfor the SRGs. l As a result, SRG has no detailed guidance how to accomplish theirfunction as dejined by Tech Specs and does not dewtop a systematic approach to pmviding ^ an assessment of the efectiwness ofline organization activities. SRG rarely } identiffes opportunitiesfor major impmwments in plant sqfety. For example, the 1 ( 6
, .. . - _ _ . - - - - . .- - .. - . . _ ~ ~ - . _ -
~
e f... i ,'J . v
- 2 majority ofSRGfndings identify minorprocedure discrepancies and process or I
equipment defclencies with little or no efect on nuclear sqfety. D. The inspectors were unaware ofany inspection or recognition by ouulde entitles l 1 (INPO/NRC/others) ofSRG contributions. i E. Plant organizations occasionally seek out SRG to participate in special activities. The SRG participates in most, perhaps all, Sqfety Evaluation Review Teams (SERTs). The SRG assists SERT reviews ofplant trips and signiffcant plant ; ennts. F. The plant managersfnquently request SRG review ofennts or activities. Some reviews are related to nuclear sqfety; many are not. III. The Hope Creek organization performs SA/QVfunctions well. The Salem organization ; has been slow to identify issues and signitfcant enntprecursors. Once the issues had , been identiped, the Salem organization responded with comprehensin eforts to understand and resoin them. Dcensee senior management considered the Ofsite Sqfety Review (OSR) group infectin and assessed that SRG made some posittu contributions to the plant. Ucensee senior management initiated a contractor review of the efectinness of OSR, SRG, and the quality organizations. Management intends to improw the efectiwness of these organizations. At the time of the trupection, the contractor had not completed the review of the SA/QV organizations. l e 9
i#* fa.w: :4s,.... 6f"x h;eN h;&up .a*lY% p.,.~..cr. f U g .- m f l
/ y4.- acr- M ; l yp ul-f Q ,, w h ,m b .=:- w- cy d *$. %,d ', *? Alt
- g,f_ &l ! =
BRIEFING MOTES ON RECENT SALEM PERFORMANCE G M : I On its most recent SALP report, dated 1/3/95 covering the period ! between 6/20/93 and 11/5/94, Salem was awarded the following SALP l Scores: l i Operations-3; Maintenance-3; Engineering-2; Plant Support-1; Overall performance noted to have declined, as both Operations and Maintenance had been rated category 2 the previous SALP. ; Accommodation and inability to resolve long-standing equipment : problems and a general lack of a questioning attitude were major j concerns. ! Senior Manaamment Meetina l Recently, Salem was a full discussion plant at the June 1994 and January 1995 SMMs. It will be a full discttssion plant again at ! the June 1995 SMM. Though not put on the watch list or sent a : trending letter, the senior managers recommended that the EDO, ; Regional Administrator, and Director, NRR meet with the Board of l Directors of PSEEG. This meeting-took place on March 21. ; IcurrentIssues l \
} The licensee has implemented a plan to change the culture at the t i
facility and achieve meaningful and measurable performance ; improvements. This will be a challenging task. Over the past l ! i year, several management changes have occurred, and there will be j -l a few more before the licensee has the management team it wants i i in place. continuing problems with the feedwater system plague !
- the operation of the plant, causing frequent power changes to l l effect repairs. Other equipment problems occur with high l frequency precluding sustained operation at 100% power. Unit 1 has a feedwater heater leak that will limit power to 94% until l the next outage.
/ !
ince the beginning of 1995, the two units have had to shut down, reduce power, or delay startup due to problems with their solid I j state protection system, safety valves, reactor coolant pump i I f and heater drain pump level controllers. seals, feed pump governo Recent Resident Inspector inspection reports highlight continued problems in corrective action determination and effectiveness. g Inconsistent system engineering involvement and effectiveness has s also been a persistent problem.
\
( 0 - & M .& ~.,_+J.. W##
- q ..n x n es .
t) :.a! s i. L;s. L ~,,b c,L w& dL 1 M~m/~~ a ...e JL..Al U . y ..<. ^'t'a JW *dlf JLM c, w s...
,.M n.n.. .
m ~; U - .+' y =*,J Q 4:..
- E 4 ; ;,$',,. , ; . - , n p 3f %
, .2 ~
\ .ac .. .: - s. .r . .. n.~ .-
- w. ....- .;. . 4'L ~'
~. . . . . , . . .-
't?. ...
- IWI
. . ~ -
j
;;-..~--.~--.--.-----.__-.----.
I, ' 4 . i , l .. i l 4 !, r SALEM GENERATING STATION - l gENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING [ l ' HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1' , t l t, i COIM 27W MNILasT1Ase ORINEVE / e C00mtet. RDOM tt00rICATI005 AIS MURAAN PACTOR UPORADOB
- e UPGRADE 0F 1d,aBB LJ0EAfl PET OP SWWICE .ATWI MPW88 l*
- CLEAN CDWESTRY LABORATORY ,
I e RIAJ0ft WWRTC0fYARO EMPANB40N ADS UPCRADE j e BUS BSTRUIWif10NWif51 fEPLACEttENT i
- i. e 900.1884108 TRAf0BRHutEft UPORADM i
j e BTEAbi GWEllATOR SAPETY VALVE flWLACWWNT 4 !
- CSICIAATIBIG WATWI FIBM TROUGH IIEPLACWIWift ,
1
- e 0,,7A ,7 - AR. - .u,. 00.,,, -
j e SAPEGUAROS E0ulptENT C00mt0uER INBTALLATION f , 1 e LUBE OE. STORAGE PActufY e IISTALLAfl0N OF SYSTEtt TO ADO CHWIICALS TO ALBEJANf PEE SYBTEtt e UPeRAct RacesTE PANS.gacq .' I e ApLAcaWff op namens e anamm -ATE ETRAIIBRB i e Im LOOP B5ffRIIWffAT1001II00RCAft005 !
- 9354410R MMIR0038 OIWWI DW POINT II00Nf0R PURRENWlf i e W.W..W W R.WA. W e 84 W W ONNESM l
j e cosWORA.PouensmounamauroRensi
; - /
1 [} i t l i
= _ . _ _ _ . - . . - . . - - _ - - _ _ - - - . - . - _ -
1 i . i 4 1 SALEM GENERATING STATION
- SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING i
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE i i e CIRCLA.ATING WATER mean UPORADES
# DORIC ACIO CONCENmAfl0N REDUCTION
! e CIRCULATING WATER AIR ret 00V% SYSTEM e UPORADED INTERNALS FOR PREE4UH12Er. CODE SAPETY VALVES AND I EURNNATED LOOP SEALS 1 e UPGRADED PORY AND SMIAYVALVE ACTUATORS - e UPGRADED INTEflNALS OF ALL AUX PEED WATER CONTROL VALVES 4-e UPORADEDWA-GAS-m ANomR l l e UPORADED CONm0L AIR AND ISTROGEN VALVES TO CONTAlfGAENT
- e UP0flADED DORIC ACIO AND PRitAARY WATER PLOW INSTRUtaENTATION !
t l 4 1
- StAALL BORE MPING REPLACERAENT > 5,000 PEET e ELECTRO HYDRAUUC CONTROL PutAP UPORADES j e STEARA GENERATOR PEED PUGAP CONTROL OIL SYSTERA UPORADE i w #0 STALLED PElWAANENT SACIC4F POWER SUPPLMS TO ELNW4 ATE TRADORARY POWER PEEDS l
i e DURDIO OUTAGES e ~ e 1 J j e M TIE 00Nm0L ROORI Al#NHCIATOR SYSTEIR i e R=AC.D ROD CON =x.-P C0u-RS l
- e uPORADED N =A. ,ioW tAEASURERA.Nr s
} ~ estem4M 2 1
i Corrective Maintenance Backlog . l Salem Station 3,000 - 2,550 2,500 2,200 2,000 1.600 1,500 1,000 500 0 1991 1992 1993 1990 All Priorities 2/22/94 18AO-3S
Preventive Maintenance Overdue . Salem Station (Maint Dept) 700-
~
610 600 500 !400 i 2 300 200 135 100 37 1 0 1991 1992 1993 1990 1/17/94 20TO-3MS _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _._-.__s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _._.___.m___._.___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ . .
Preventive Maintenance Ratio . salem station ! 7 l s4 60 ss.2 50 O- 1991 1992 1993 1990 1/1/94 410-3s
l t Total Leaks Salem Station 1,000 S 800 7so T 600 m o , j 400 E 216 200 81 0- 1991 1992 1993 1990 1/17/94 17MLO-3S
4 Reliability Centered Maintenance . Salem Station i 40 34 35 30 25 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1/11/94 581-3S (Project Comple'ed) l
Procedures Upgrade Project . Salem Station 4,000 3.525 3,000 2.548 2,000 l
' i.sse 0
Q. 1,000 587 1990 1991 1992 1993(Sep) 1/10/94 PUPLIC (Project Completed)
e Licensee Event Reports . Salem Station 120 100 84
' l 60 42 O
1990 1991 g g. 1992 1993 2/7/94 28TO-3S
---_..-__._____-____--__--__________m.-_-_____-__-_.--2.-_._m __ ___-. _.--_ .._-__. - _ _ _ _ - . - - - - - _..-_..__._-__-___m-_-.u__ _.m.-__ _ _ _ _ _-_
Personnel LER's . Salem Station . 50 40
, 30
.8 21 2 20 O 1990 1991 1992 1993 1/1/94 280-3S
= . _ . . , . _ ,, .- --~_- ~ ~~
kSEVGCo AGaLS 4/i9/73 1 Joe- M s x>> A r & m 4 l l SM Mamuwsae 1% ' l
- @1A. jn - , / QA h k-
~ .& + ta (4A&pK, GA, M As 4 rox & ssa / ;
IJ'
- 12?M- mda~ f d;n A y=:m,4-f %.Al p d QI Q .4 d A w J P7^ M l d - & qq 12 6DD -sto ja +w &akeje '
&y hk =/-ALA x PA -7 ,j< i dit/4- A 8/py4 #S42o4,4;,,4/4, e _ -
1
,=;&=n p ,u cA, M n u, rs ,
.1 %
- A soo- m u ,. & A L Vk.
$ 4fy aaf My y sp c p q /e y 4 /~ kg/- AYA = -9 A y,
-n+ a- u faza
- 7tw w / <cc, n 4 1 ,4- '
unh
- La)fs &
& jd
/ i l
(b :
//u .
f
-. ..n..- ~. -
[. j . f MANAGEMENT MEETING - REGION I APRIL 19,1993 4 AGENDA I. ORGANIZATION CHARTS II. PSE&G REDEPLOYMENT l III. NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT BUSINESS PLAN IV. 1993 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ! V. SALEM IMPROVEMENT RESULTS 4
=a j
i I
ma* - a n - +-m A1~.-- Aama s- m- M-- 6 ---_a -4,_se a-ew-,E4 --RA - e--- , - --+-..L-wa _ i l l
. i 1
!g= 8 4
i ga 8 i5 N D r ira liisEd i i Q: 9
- I!!l ii
! ls,e .
k - I l5 lgd W I ist. - ! Q s 15 N != ! ll l!'i_! M g W s -
.s '
!! I E8 s g5 a "I
.! I in I i' <
g5 4
*I
- i 1
)
. _ . - . ..c. . . . .- . - . . __. . . -. . .
;t n . . a NUCLEAR DEPARTMENT l
i i i M8 CLEAR WERAflWS i VIN PRES 10EWT NUCLEAR WERATIWS J. J. NASGN l[ l 5 i : I I I I SALEM cPEftAftens ngPE CREEE EPERAfteWS HRTERIAL CsNTROL WMCLEAR SERVIMS IRICLEAR erERATIONS IIUCLEAR PUEL ; arPERT ! C. A. VOISRA t. J. NOVET S. C. CelgesR 5. C. SENB2EIBIRIER L. K. NILLES E. S. ROSEufELD 93SE9103 k
) ,
i
? . .}}