ML20141G887

Forwards Summary of Public Meeting Conducted at Region IV Ofc on 970513 to Discuss Emergent Issues Mgt & Engineering Performance Indicators

ML20141G887
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	05/16/1997
From:	Gwynn T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Horn G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 9705230064
Download: ML20141G887 (38)

Text

.,I

• g i

i l

@*"GW-UNITED STATES 4

1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p.

REGloN IV a

l S'

8 611 RYAN PLAZA oRivE. SulTE 400 8

AR t.INGToN, TE XAs 76011-8064 f

9 *****'

MAY I 61997 1

G. R. Horn, Senior Vice President of Energy Supply c

Nebraska Public Power District 141415th Street Columbus, Nebraska 68601

SUMMARY

.OF MEETING TO DISCUSS ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE

Dear Mr. Horn:

This refers to the public meeting conducted in the Region IV office co May 13,1997. This i

meeting included a discussion of emergent issues management and engineering performance indicators. Your discussion of emergent issues management provided focus on areas for continued improvement. You stated that you expected your perfor'mance indicators, still under development, would evolve to meet your needs for effective tools to monitor performance.

We also discussed our plans to perform bimonthly focused engineering inspections beginning in August 1997 and to meet with you on the same frequency to discuss your continuing assessment of engineering performance.

in accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of i

Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Roorn.

Should you have any questions cencerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

i Sincerely, l

/

[

&/

n v omas Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket No.: 50-298 License No.: DPR-46 1

Enclosures:

1. ~ Attendance List

2. Licensee Presentation cc w/ enclosures:

John R. McPhail, General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 J

'9705230064 970516

~

klhfk l

PDR ADOCK 05000298 P

PDR g

4.

r.

._.-m._._,._r._

i l

l Nebraska Public Power District l P. D. Graham, Vice President of l

Nuclear Energy.

i Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 B. L. Houston, Nuclear Licensing l

and Safety Manager Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 R. J. Singer, Manager-Nuclear Midwest Power 907 Walnut Street P.O. Box 657 Des Moines, Iowa 50303 Mr. Ron Stoddard Lincoln Electric System 11th and O Streets Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Randolph Wood, Director Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 Chairman Nemaha County Board of Commissioners Nemaha County Courthouse 1824 N Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Cheryl Rogers, LLRW Program Manager Environmental Protection Section Nebraska Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 l

l l

.. _ _. = _. _. -.

1 Nebraska Public Power District :

Dr. Mark B. Horton, M.S.P.H.

Director -

Nebraska Department of Health P.O. Box 950070 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 i

R. A, Kucera, Department Director of Intergovernmental Cooperation Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Kansas Radiation Control Program Director 1

?

s i

l l

l I

i i

l t

i 1

1 1

l '

o l

Nebraska Public Power District l MAY I 61997 i

f;-

bec to DCD (IE45) i i

bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator Resident inspector DRP Director DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/C)

MIS System l

Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C) i i

i r

e r

t l

f I

l l

l i

To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "c" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy l

RIV: Acting PE:DRP/C C:9Ellj4C_

D:DRP CSMarschall;dhe EEppilins TPGwynn \\gif j.

l5/f/97 VV '

5/()97 5/g97 T

t OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

t

Y I

Nebraska Public Power District MAY I 61997 bec to DCD (IE45) bec distrib. by RIV:

Regional Administrator Resident Inspector DRP Director DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/C)

MIS System Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)

RIV File Project Engineer (DRP/C) l l

l To recolve copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures *N" = No copy RIV: Acting PE:DRP/C C:BlfyfC D:DRP l

CSMarschall;dtcyypi EEgpilins TPGwynn \\,$

I 5/6/97 M'>

5/) 97 5/g97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPV r

l l

2

l ENCLOSURE 1 l

l.

MEETING:

Nebraska Public Power District and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV

SUBJECT:

Management Meeting DATE:

May 13, 1997 ATTENDANCE LIST (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) i NAME ORGANIZATION POSITION TITLE TD Moov A r b Aff cw.,

Gewere R.I I Ein hall r1 E <

Sr Em - M e /w l

Ph0i QNV t ffO OGlad ik& ML2WG MGk d

l PU,o3. GL NPD 14a'PM lax i

m Pa.eac ivivn se u a t w i..a hrEke{T.00Hca.

hWfD fnoe id & arY u

.i o

a Arkoel 7.7)en ed MPP D leruna G o sa e a N.,-

TAmn 12 Mau.-

M2C/NAA c/2. *PMecr zwxa h\\ U b ae.1 R u ny a n N R C.

Reacbv Aspec.4ue-

)

Chd'sb Y hvfh.

MRC Chud, bMwdw 3 runb l

%)((rlM n. emsulA$n HKc biaitt oTece10. nR.s Ca. > Q. M er?ScHo FF O P_C

_A a [. kiroexrsed JRL

.bpTV big. bhp.12 V It. r^o 6.(oLL.irc N LC--

Chd$ 8 C.

ORM l

l M a-y 11 Hillei-1RC se i. coose, 9

r bb s S. /%rseha II AlfC sit /. L6 O d S m A /n,tdC -

^@ C-A ' f.nc< -

i l

\\

l l

1

ENCLOSURE 2 ISSUE MANAGEMENT MODEL l

Potential problem or l

issueidentified by Owner develops a CNS line organization, problem resolution QA, NRC or others.

matrix.

i PIR is written.

1

\\>

%/

Identify the Owner Implement immediate or compensatory actions s,

Owner and Supervisor decide importance, l

urgency and resources Conduct root cause-needed to investigate investigation and resolve the issue v

i Maintain Problem s-Resolution Matrix as Clearly identify the issue evolves problem / issue (write it down) v l

Status management v

Form a team (if and NRC periodically required) v l

Identify root cause and long term corrective l

Identify the bounds actions to prevent and scope of the recurrence l

problem / issue v

)

Develop trackable mechanisms to Owner / Team develop monitor effectiveness a plan to investigate ofcorrective actions, the root cause, take including appropriate l

immediate/

performance indicators compensatory actions and identifylong term s,

corrective actions Monitor effectivenes of corrective actions and adjust as needed

);.

EMERGENT ISSUES MANAGEMENT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT MEETING at USNRC REGION IV MAY 13,1997

i,,

a EMERGENT ISRUES MANAGEMENT i

Topics of Discussion l'

l e

Issue Management Model l

e Case Study of RHR Heat Exchanger B - An Issue That Could Have Been y

Managed Better Case Study of Safety Relief Valve (SRV) Setpoint Drift - Generally Managed e

in Accordance with the Issue Management Model Lessons Learned form Handling of RHR heat Exchanger and SRV Issues e

Ongoing Actions to Achieve Consistently High Performance in Managing l

e Emergent Issues i

i l.

i i

i i

2 l

l t -

...__m.__

i l,. -

l i

i EMERGENT ISSIIFR MANAGEPAFNT i

l I.

l s

Issue Management Model l

l 4

i A Systematic Methodology for Use in Investigating and Resolving e

Issues / Problems i

i Discussion of the Elements of the Issue Management Model

-e Establishing the Model as the CNS Approach to Issue Management e

J l

1 i

i i

l l

l l-i i

l 3

l-1

.._.__m-.

I s

l EMERGENT ISSIJMNAGEMENT l

l Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger B Issue l

e An Issue That Could Have Been Managed Better l

l e

Brief Overview of the Issue Comparison to Issue Management Model e

e Challenges o

Ownership i_

o Resource Management E

o Communication of Status with Management and NRC l

e Lessons Learned f

l e

a anc513a.wpd 4

1.

i

. _ _ _ _. ~ _ _ _ _.

l l

EMERGENT ISSITES MANAGEMENT 1

Safety Relief Valve Setpoint Drift Issue i

An Issue Generally Managed in Accordance with the Model e

e Brief Overview of the Issue i

Comparison to Issue Management Model e

i e

Challenges i

o Six Days Elapsed Before Team Formed o

Narrowly Avoided Losing Physical Evidence l

1 e

Lessons Learned L

i l

nrc513a wpd 5

i

-m

_. _ - =

l t

i l

l 1

I EMERGENT ISSIIES MANAGEMENT I

l 1

i l

l' e

Lessons Learned l

Knowledge Deficiency - Prob'.em Solving Skills o

I o

Communication Skills Deficiencies l

o Supervisors Must Learn to Recognize Issues and Take Action Faster I

l l

l l

I i

j i

t l

?

i l

e e

nrc513a.wpd 7

l 1

l

. - - - ~

.e EMERGENT ISSIIRS M ANAGEMENT Ongoing Actions to Achieve Consistently High Performance in the e

Management of Emergent Issues o

Problem Solving Skills Training Communications Skills Training l

o 1

t I

l l

i o

l l

1 l

i I

l l

i i

l l

l l

l 4

}

nrc513a.wpd 8

l ENGINEERING NUCLEAR SAFETY / REGULATORY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The Engineering Division at Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) plays a key role in the overall performance of the CNS organization. The purpose of the Engineering Nuclear

(

Safety / Regulatory Performance Indicators is to provide ongoing indications of the Engineering Division's performance in the context of the overall CNS organizations performance and to provide indicators of future performance where appropriate.

Top level performance indicators are provided in the Nuclear Power Group performance

[

Monitoring-Executive Report. In addition, this report provides performance data on the CNS vital Signs which are designed to be indicative of current and a predictor of future performance.

To provide a picture of the Engineering Division performance the appropriate performance

{

indicators from the Performance Monitoring-Executive Report are used and are supplemented by additional performance indicators to specifically assess Engineering Division performance that are reflective of both current performance and of future performance.

[

The Nuclear Safety / Regulatory performance indicators for the Engineering Division are briefly discussed below and the perfonnance indicators themselves are attached.

Emergency AC Power System - The current CNS three year average unavailability is approximately 0.5% (which is significantly better than the industry average of approximately 1.1% unavailability and the industry goal of 2.5% unavailability) and continues to improve. Modifications to be implemented during the current refueling outage will further improve current performance and eliminate known design problems with the fuel delivery system.

[

Residual Heat Removal System - The April 1997 performance is based on a very conservative interpretation of the industry guidance related to RHR system performance.

This interpretation will be reevaluated. The unavailability shown is a reflection of the

{

amount of time either train of RHR was out of service for maintenance during the outage.

High Pressure Iniection Systems - The cunent CNS three year average unavailability is approximately 1.9% (which is slightly above the industry average of 1.75% and slightly

~

below the industry goal of 2.5% unavailability) and is trending down. Outage maintenance and planned enhancements are expected to result in sustained improvement.

Performance goals for the above system indicators were selected to ensure that an adequate

[

margin to the 2.5% unavailability assumption in the CNS Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) is maintained. u

Fuel Reliability - This indicator shows the trend in air ejector off gas rate which is an indicator of fuel leakage. Current performance indicates no fuel leaks indicating appropriate guidance is being provided by Engineering to Operations regarding operation of the reactor.

Mean Core Damage Frequency - This performance measure, new in 1997, indicates the overall reliability and availability of systems, structures, and components impodant to safety as established under the Maintenance Rule Program. Our current performance of less than 1.4E-05 Mean Core Damage Frequency is well below our risk significance threshold of 1.8E-05 and is essentially equal to our current 1.43E-05 estimated Mean Core Damage Frequency used in the PSA.

Maintenance Rule Effectiveness - This performance measure, also new in 1997, indicates the efTectiveness of our System Engineers in limiting the total number of Maintenance Rule items. For purposes of this performance indicator, a Maintenance Rule item is defined as any failure to meet a performance goal or any programmatic failure (e.g., a significant condition adverse to quality or a condition leading to an NRC citation). Our goal ofless than or equal to 9 items in 1997 reflects an expected improvement in our current performance of 10 items. Based on current trends and actions planned, we expect to meet this goal.

NRC Open Items - This indicator, which currently shows all CNS NRC Open Items, is a reflection of our ability to promptly address these items such that they can be closed and of our ability to operate the station in a manner that minimizes new items. We have a relatively high number ofitems and have not been successful in reducing the number of items outstanding. Additional actions are being taken to improve in this area.

In addition to these front line indicators of Engineering Division performance, the following Nuclear Safety / Regulatory performance indicators are used to measure how well we maintain the engineering infrastructure to support safe operation of the plant.

Enriineering Backlog Reduction - The Engineering Backlog Reduction project continues to progress ahead of schedule. As of the April 25,1997 repon only 309 Component Evaluation Packages,51 Drawing Change Notices,56 Nuclear Action Item Tracking items, and 32 Design Completion Reports remain to be completed. We have continued to devote resources to this effort throughout our current refueling outage.

Potential Unauthorized Modifications - This project involves screening and/or review of historical documents for potential unauthorized modifications. In addition, any potential unauthorized modifications identified will be addressed. As shown in the MWR Engineering Review Performance Indicator, our review of historical documents is proceeding ahead of schedule and will result in completion of this review by the end of 1997. i

As of the start of 1997, we had approximately 500 potential unauthorized modifications identified. Accordingly, we established a goal to resolve at least 400 potential unauthorized modifications by the end of 1997. As shown on the Unauthorized Modification Resolution Performance Indicator, our year-to-date progress exceeds our a

goal. Recently, the NPPD Board of Directors approved additional contractor resources to continue resolution of this issue.

In general, these potential unauthorized modifications are minor enhancements to non-essential structures, systems, and components to improve plant operation (e.g., addition of valves to radwaste system, addition of gaitmnics stations, modifications to valve packing, addition of hose fittings, etc.). To date, none of these identified potential unauthorized modifications have been safety significant or resulted in an unreviewed safety question. Each identified potential unauthorized modification is documented on a Problem Identification Report (PIR), and screened for operability, reportability, and safety effects, before being added to the backlog for resolution.

I Engineering Document Reduction - The total number of open engineering documents (Drawing Change Notices, Engineering Work / Project Requests, Classification Evaluation Packages, Modification Completion Reports) has been of concern to CNS. In addition to the Engineering Backlog Reduction and Potential Unauthorized Modification efforts mentioned above, we are allocating resources to significantly reduce the number of open documents in process within Engineering. As shown on this performance indicator, we started 1997 with approximately 2200 open items. Our goal is to reduce this to less than 750 items by year's end. Our first four months of performance was slightly below our expectations. While the number of open engineering documents generated during our I

refueling outage will challenge us, we expect to reach our year end goal through process improvements and by maintaining additional resources in the time period immediately following the outage.

Engineering Initiated SCAOs and CAOs - This performance indicator shows the trend in Problem Identification Reports, initiated by Engineering, that become Significant Condition Adverse to Quality or Condition Adverse to Quality reports. The recent improving trend is encouraging and indicative of an improved Engineering questioning attitude.

Engineering SCAO and CAO Closure Time - As indicated on this perfonnance indicator, the average age at closure for Significant Conditions Adverse to Quality and Conditions Adverse to Quality has been improving (declining).

PIR SelfIdentification Rate - This indicator is a measure of how well the Engineering organization is at identifying our own problems. Our April performance was a reversal of the prior months improvement. Engineering management and supervision will be piacing additional emphasis on this aspect of our performance to improve. I

1, I

{

Safety Evaluation /50.59 Reiection Rate - The perfonnance indicators of rejection rates l

for 50.59 screens and for 50.59 evaluations is a measure of the quality of these important I

products. While the overall trend in our perfomiance is improving, we do not consistently meet our goal of s2% by year's end. We are continuing to make improvements in training and learn lessons from our failures to improve our performance.

USAR Discrenancies - The trend in USAR discrepancies demonstrates our enhanced attention to the USAR and demonstrates performance consistent with making this important documentation right. Thus far this year we have processed and approved 74 revisions to our US AR. In April of this year we updated our controlled copies of the USAR to incorporate 84 previously processed USAR Change Requests.

lI ESP Task Oualification Status - This performance indicator shows the cumulative number of task qualifications held by the ESP population (Engineers, QA, and

,I Licensing). Our performance is a little below the goal line which is based on our training plans for the year. ESP Training will resume following our refueling outage.

Engineering Supnort Orientation and Continuing Training - This perfonnance indicator shows: sustained 100% completion of Quarterly Continuing Training; a very high level of I

completion of the Engineering Support Orientation Course; and a strong improving trend in the number of engineers that have completed the Three Week Systems Orientation Course. There are two more sessions of the Three Week Systems Orientation Course scheduled this year.

Engineering Action Plan Comnletion - This performance indicator shows the number of Engineering Action Plans we plan to complete through mid year. This indicator has been revised to reflect reallocation of management resources during the outage to resolve the SRV issue. The mid year goal has not changed.

Engineering Sunport of the MWR Process - This performance indicator trends the number of MWR's that had to be removed from the schedule at the T-2 freeze meeting I

due to untimely support from Engineering. Initiatives by Engineering management led to the first quarter perfonnance improvement shown on this indicator.

I d

I I

==

==

num num ime uma

==

sus sum

==

==

==

==

==

==

mas EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM Goal-3 Year Average <2% Unavailability Performance Manager - R. Estrada yh 2.5% -

a~

+,

ii:yk 4

... t

.';,7 :

pp 2.0% --

fy 1.5% -

w,,

-%s w;

Ele 1.0% -l-

y.

s.

kh$

n k[:N 0.5 % 1'~

N M

- b' e

.a wz A^

} ^ ;P.

ll?

l m

gg,

e i y;.

[p,;

1. l?

ik dj[

0.0%

l l

l l

l Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month -Goal (Below) -Industry Average -o-3 Year Average

M M

M M

M M

M M M

RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM 3.0%

mc ww 19e01 - 3 Year Avera p9 !% Unavailability

,vl.

.Ferformance Mar Nge - J. Swanson

~ ~ -

gti:-

g c;-

81; 2.5% -

n,

f. _

. g' '

+i s t

s 3.0 +

kb O:-

2.0% r aw; n

,~

>A t

l%gp

, $n in DNd

+ :;,,

1.5% --

5.7l g

,d i

1

~S

~~

MI$.

1.0% --

,' n ;

~

u-

=l '^

R

20

w

,f 9sa

~-

r w re

_a TQ SWg; w

.gl p;gg 0.5% -

s wm "i;y i^>

.Nih:

,'hd?

Jy '

5:"

u

,l; k;e

_c s we s tflai!r e

0.0%

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec C::] Month -Goal (Below) -Industry Average -"-3 Year Average

o m

m m

r r

e r

r

~

~

HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION SYSTEM s.Or.

Goal-3 Year Average <2% Unavailability Performance Manager-D. Schantzen t

2.5% A 2.0*/. --

x W'

>+,

!s -

v..

_ nJY

!'{?$

0 M t '..

q%re%

A.

E 1.5% -L wu ea fME

~

M

,1 5

&?

m

'M5

• L

I.

re;6 1.0% --

ft

,F0,1

• 4Q ikKi

~.

1 8

@N:-?

in gd lN 0.5% -- QS Ng

• ?l 4W p

.jg 0.0%

~

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan ' Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec j

1 Month -Goal (Below)-Industry Average

'~3 Year Average i

M M

M M

M M

M MEAN CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY 2.0E-05 Goal-1 Year Average <1.43E-5 Performance Manager - O. Olson l

1.9E-05 +

1.8E-05 --

1.7E-05 --

NOTE - Value not calculated 1.6E-05 +

1.5E-05 1 hIl$

fih5

Et v@h~$$$gp 1.4E-05 7 52

- a:s f

ID_dicator Definition Pl[$j$l dhih

^4 j

i n egraN Nuency of core 1.3E ?gjs 9:..!

' hjg damage based on availability

'*[ Q Ia T 3dd

& reliability of systems,

(

gi$

$fjy structures, & components 1.2E-05 +

istiiM

!!$344 90 in Maintenance Rule scope.

c

&as?

t Qt a

~

un 1.1E-05 --

9m. ;--

e "$

MCy-

' :.a

..:q.

4MS

@lE

$s 1.0E-05

~

l l

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec w Actual Mean CDF -Estimated Mean CDF -Risk Significance Threshhold l

==

==

==

==

==

-w MAINTENANCE RULE EFFECTIVENESS Goal-s9 Total Events l

Performance Manager-R. Wachowiak 12 --

Statais of items Actual - 8 Pending - 2 sg 10 --

< a-y'+

an e'

,/..~

4

, 4;

.pp-n

~

2 4um 8A M

M.

-y.

p;c

_.n

p g ;'

3lu

. 7 3; m;:g.,s, :

m. -

7 m- ~ -

~.,a.

ga:3 t

gy%n.

.q

-QG

,:xg j!(N.

f'

N;. 8 ff$

$5-

"m

., y+ :.

W[ww:-

6 - @w2 EM8

~

PN W

D

+

$iN

$Q:q l,i.g.~ %s

@, ;s$,m...

d.s%-

m:

.n :

,..3

~.%:-.

x e....

M Jg@

l

[ndicator Definition

~

,4 -

"Ay

.gf g@g-

'g ny y

gg g

26W m,

o..g 2.

-c.

r-

.m

3. ~;.w:

gge:

3 3 g-Total number of a) 1) items,

~..:,

a; 2:

. Nje

. vm 5:-

E mm

@v items not meet ng pe ormance

,M:s su.

u_ ?.

2 eF5 "W

y m_

4-jf.

jgp

.fp{

y g

y gg

n goals, or programmatic problems yw s

.s m

m 9A %

.n.-

p f.,

5' 4

q.l"'

~ c, fM... '

. q. ~,

=.gy yk.ia q.

%nn:

,. ~

v 2.--

+ws

. - e ;.y.; -

,MQ.

7

.s s

[.

s., a qq

..s ;a

'>h t.,

s

..m.,

2-- ye g M:

@m my

'y sais e

W; c

ww a.,.,

o..

s.:,. c.

, :n.

n

- ;w w

w

.,.,q,'

. ns

. e

. v>yf sig'L:-

{;yy

p. ::.-

p u;;g

.qs y

.a;3 pe-gg:

L N-

.m.

s Q~w' M'.

d;-

6&%

q; j.

• W.

' e6 yN..

.$,x ~

'k fyq-e4 Q&

Q4g

-y

'Z _

y r n.

e

$g'

• !!M "m

y1, mN

..m

-'~~s.-

m<

va '

m,.

. m _.

O m

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (a)(1)

Goals L JProgram -Goal (Below)

!lI!1i

)i l

Ill1 i

79-ceD s

m 7

d e

9 ed n elit

-v e s a o

plot N

o oCT i

+

79-tcO 79-peS S

M 79-g E

uA T

I 79 g N

n lu i J d E

n P

l E

do 7 i 9 r O

-n e P

u W

J C

l R

79-y N

a M

M S

l 0-7 N

9

-r M

C p

0 A

~ '

7 9

M z

-r 2

N '~

a M

1

, ~

l M

s t'tsR:::r N-7 i

9

/ > v'g b

5 5

e

~

?4 F

1 M

0 79-na M

0 J

+

1 T

ll!

I 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 9

8 7

6 5

4 3

2 1

1

.EeC=8 2.E3Z 5

~

]

[

l:

l!

1E+3 Goal-Less Than 300 uCi/Sec Performance Manager-B. Mcdonald 1 E+2 --

NOTE - Value not calculated while shutdown Day _

Y k~ w/N d@x.

^

s m

"C 3%

R&;

m

.wn.

j% %.

'~i' mIV a%s WM,e 4W s>

m m' %

sn kur rw ggr4 g

~~',^ ng@te 35 lN)

_ ;W;)

Q

$f'. _

7q%;{,

.m$.i

-9

.g...

gya

.S M

Mdth h kNd ihkD'c ~ v;g$

N.

f pg+ pg lggg; gg No Fuel leaks 1E+1 +

g p#

t w

,: :R Ed IndlCated w(@3 s-u m%

co

${@...g

%$y?

' h{s W@h '.

d MM W

k ;

54 pl >]

q1%;

kQl M.

g,

%2 g

z

$i(I i

s k$$gh W

9 9

m-r -<

w S0%. ' ' '

' y

?,

99

'$C.

k>l6 4

.c

p sN

@;P "Y

figsb Ny 1

m@

d50:d5 "jfST'

.~n's a

ww a

m%:

f[j 1E+0

• l l

l l

l Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

'Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec C2 Month *Ouarter Average -Goal (Below)

r r

r r-w Engineering Backlog Reduction Performance Manager: J. F. Nevill (Enercon) 2,000

+ PROGRESS i

TORIGINAL TARGET

^

-m% 11 N ACCELERATED TARGET m

C i i i r p'~.s i

.Q 3,500 S.

as

,o

. g..

,g m

-x

.e_

0

=

@ 1,000

-t t i s 1.-,

l a J J J

...t t & t & 8 2 J 4 s o

w.,

g

. 3.; y.

V '.,.

o l..

co

.?

.xg O

2 500 Ai i.,

~~~ '

.\\.

o a

,t U

Me['

J',

' v - i L f':,! ;

l

....,,. 5.,.

v 0

• */..,j;%

i ieiiiiiiiiiiiii;ieieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia64iiiil'io l'ii6 i

/ / / /// // //// ///

Data Date: 5/9/97 i

RLW CH3

MWR ENGINEERING REVIEW 35,000 Goal-33,908 By End of 1997 33d)s Performance Manager - F. Diya 1

30,000.i 25,000 --

20,000 +

15,000 -

12,300 3

Reviewed YTD

-Goal (Above) 10,000 A 9.400 m

7,850 yy

[/

W,,4

Th, N

/

s.-

e

. m- -

W",4 5,300

% ?:

c r%l %

5,000 --

m -:

.y die h

INfhh N$pu$$e$$

$s$ Ad N

P mN?

t A

e 2:

dS@$

$g$g W

5h

?!Ni$

, iM5*

0 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997

i UNA UTHORIZED MODIFICA TION RES_O_L_UTIO_N Goal- >400 By End of i997 Performance Manager-F. Dij a 350 -

300 -

250 -

200 -

Ec tor De55pA 150 -

~ Total number of unauthorizedi modifications resolved 100 -

o l

50 -

3]

. u.

O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec O Month Goal (Above) -o-YTD 1

l

-3 c-m e

w r

r,.

c

.c,.

r e

e c

ENGINEERING DOCUMENT REDUCTION 2500 Goal - <750 By End of 1997 Performance Manager - F. Diya

$!k%

b 2000 -

' ' ' I l

ill9!!!!!f Ln

. ~-

}hi

$$b.

'5 s '

g y-er y u.y r

• E g,.

1500 -

to -

~~

.m 4X.'l' s.

\\.

gs -

~

Q m

'x

~

1000 -

W ladicator_ Definition l Total Open Drawing Change Notices,j 500 -

l Engineering Work / Project Requests, ;

i Classification Evaluation Packages,1 i & Modification Completion Reports i o

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec iDCN (Mod) L_JDCN (Non-Mod) CZ3EWR/EPR MCEP wComp Rep -Goal (Below) i

Y l

l El 4

W O> O%OM Q 2 q_>1 ] 2 2p{-m @M m Q 2mgW 2Q b

8 i

D E

I F

i I

{

T l

N E

D I

8 l

I R

F E

' \\

B M

q U

N l

l

\\

\\

j

\\

E l

r j:I 3 go l

l

)

I I

l i

j

?

yv hi;

,?

j

-?

[

2 o

~

6 6

6 6

6 6

6 6

6 7

7 7

7 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

r y

n lu g

p t

v c

n b

r r

p a

u c

J u

e o

e a

e a

p A

M J

A S

O N

D J

F M

A eozN j

dyr 8B8>9e}ko t< $ez m2zo gzgAxSg o

2

l 1

AVERAGE AGE OF THOSE EVALUATIONS CLOSED IN THE MONTH P

d 9

E o

o o

o o

o 6

6 g

n_

.a a

o I

Apr-96 E

g j-4 g

I m

am>>

.m.

y hhMM May 96 p

aaI%>>

C

=r :rrree m

Jun-96 p

ggmm g

to 75 ? e m

g o>m n

$S9>

Jul-96 Q

m O

g R$ j ',' ' ' gg., inii$

q

~

sa gm l

r- <

cj Aug-96

$H

?Psk!!- -

a

, b.?

9g Sep-96

,,.,. _. ', h[

zp da :. E ?

-t O

E m

o

~ ' '

I ~d w

m m O Z

> Q O

H 0

2

, e :.

a

'j m2 O Oct-96

. ~ ?4 cE tiis g

g 0:

=

o r-a m

.3'" >

3 H

~~'

Wi):jjp~3 O

• ifi Nov-96 I

A g@

[

g

{nK@

O@

l cC E

% -i Q'j

' E

> Z I

r Dec-96 U) m l

y muy..gm s

\\

^

g Jan-97 g

sM,"

%j},

S $$$p O

g

/

Feb-97

^

/

E O

E I

I o

Mar-97 W4, i,ngs I

a a

v I

Apr-97

%ffy I

5

J

)

~

]

]

1 m2OmZi>OM T TTOQFm$@ mmrT OI2dm"""gO g4 d1m T

I lgb ZmmZ~ZO OmTkIdEmZd o>gM ZO IIm gDo mE T

I g>7 w E@wI kg>O E8 i

a al a

D E

I F

TI N

a E

D I

-F L

al E

S TN a

E C

R E

P a

l yi f

i s

I I

l l

l i

I l

l I

t

^

aI l

1 l

l l

1 l

l 1

l l

I v

^

a

~

~

6 6

6 6

6 6

6 6

7 7

7 7

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

9 9

y n

lu g

p t

v c

n b

r r

c a

u J

u e

o e

a e

a p

M J

A S

O N

D J

F M

A yz F[-o$$$p2855@

w5z$$m5-

\\

VT m

M MM 50.59 SORC REJECTION RA TE Goal-3 Month Average <2% by End of 1997 Rejection Rate (Screens) 25% -

Rejection Rate (Evaluations)

+Overall Rejection Rate -

(3 Month Average)

-Goal l

20% -

2

~

E c

.o 15% -

~u OY E

a.--

p, 10% --

\\ A2 5% -

h:

~

4:g:

4-

~',.

d',4 0%

" +-

+

+

~

+-

Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97

1 1

m m

m m

M M'

M --

O

\\

USAR DISCREPANCIES BY. QUARTER 24 i

24 L

20 -l 20 20

- 20 g

y" / y -

fsM MWi u

Me$y m

^ y' e m

?.'R m

17 17 Amf m

C

?d5$. '

.hdh v

)

p 16 --

s.. - lv'.c M. m

-..f y>fif-Md.[rr-g g

. n:. s

$ey fkd:y W

j sj% * -- 16 "

1. "iQ g

O h yf;W:4tn$

(

w M~:

e th.f%1 Q.)M}q i

"Fl 3o Bdfs w# E^

iM 9 3 m

y sw K

1 :::. Sp.

MA W

2 ?..

-ps UF.p&M']

?[d(d

(/)

s x;

,. v% B 12 -

g

@ffy R$

+

O w" 'i

n og

' W' >-- 32&

6 '

W:6.8 Mk'sSG W

~ ::

97 f-8f@

Q E

t 9

O g

H 7

Z

, NA ?

..)

• C

,::..ru

~

.f.2 EsN:,a C

x

.::W.. -

Qt ps

'e-Zei:* ~.

..e>

W

?Q

</

"8ga$-M 3

re o

w 8

gp:p, qcw/

~

gg

.m me 2.4

- g

'i ee V-

,f 3: ?

$.02@3 D*nW

@NM " O m m:0; 79Y,tt '

C 9D 7

WM s

l$3 9

3 W

g'Q:p I

'%ih. 52.,

dyet g4?*$

$f

• • S'"

(/)

m 6

a@:3::m g%

w 7

24 t g $$-h;-

Mh%?

g Ves '

ig c'{j..gp '

n 3Q

[

i f k:Ub

, #, b.

l?

((.

' { $ Qu_f ffffT3 y:

3 2

3

+&

g 4,

s%

2:3Q p.f.,g.ygg t<.

t >r v < ~Lj

y

.+;,-

O 4.+.,.

-w s:.

'r-w.,

.a w+-ww W m

',c

/2

,.,.g -

• p

}' [.

TQ, }

'e^j.QJ

'i

+m w:

,. y.

99

.+{;s;g.,

p)w;

$pp.;sQ; h'j w

k --

$ $$5 k'

N{'N th$?

... 4 7,,

wg pag,.

g"'NY'. '--f dil?

O 3

3 3

)

gg

,w g,

.g g

qy3; ef '^ f m

4s m

w CMl "lyg

,d%

V

)

bAl

%K*:

I L 'h b

3:N.$

k p-[ffh R,%g...,

$f b

s T

n:.y'y R

%: %:q 1

hy f

u.,

.;%yl l%M

+

v

- Qp x ' ~

~

sq p

5p.,c a

w e w_gs ag;

up.g 3 Q py.y

- ~ ;-

+

v,. a,.

g.y;;;

~

m'j' m;m

~.39 4:,;;gy;ff

_.e_

s 3,.;;

0:O-3-*

md

.e -

,_.x

, ~._-,

y 0

s

.s x

3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR QTR 94 94 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 97 97 CURRENT QUARTER THROUGH 5/9/97 lwNUMBER PER QUARTER +SIX MONTH ROLLING AVERAGE l

Goaf /

s Number of Qualifications E

s a

s a

a s

a a

i o

Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct 96 Nov-96 1

Dec 96 1

2 h

Jan-97 E

k Feb-97 o

3-k 3

Mar-97 E

m Apr-97 N*g May-97 e

Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug 97 Sep 97 o

Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 L.__a_-_.

m.___

_m___

s e

C d

b b

O June-96 3-

~

July-96 s-E O

E August-96 3 -

A m

8 C.

I 1

y September-96 l -

e C

2 (D

g S

y i

e October-96 l

l3,

?

O l

• I S-l a

9 E

Noventer 96 I

g h

s O.

g 9

E O

O E

December-96 t

3 5'

E.

2 H

h, January-97 l

Q 2.

8 m

3 aE to b

G February 97 y

X 5

k March-97 16 5

I m

h April-97 I-8 ii 8

May-97

[-____-_

' ' -)

i r-a n

a r -

- -- w o

ENGINEERING ACTION PLAN COMPLETION Goal-21 By End of June 1997 Performance Manager - M. Boyce 20 -

EDTotal Plans Completed

-Goal 15 -

10 -

5-

.s O-

+-

+- l 4/4/97 4/11/97 4/18/97 4/25/97 5/2/97 5/9/97 5/16/97 5/23/97 5/30/97 6/6/97 6/13/97 6/20/97 6/27/97

_ __ J

{

fT R

.t ENGINEERING SUPPORT OF STATION WORK S,

. w.

s

' /g -

'MU l

e

- y I

'i m.

J,

f. - c W ;;g ll

' sp 4-5-

^- ~" -

lO ttems Not Supported l b

s.

1

+

s.*

3-I

~gg;Sjf E

M e

s

).

o

- : c ;... -

w

p y-M

.O E

y,

s z2-

a.... s

&^,

4

se:.

~

N >~

+;;f s

.i$:

y

+ w+.,

T+r:

^

J'

+

v'.7+.,,y:

T -

g v

Cj', i 1-

~ - ":v*:> :

w

'.:a.

m

[

g;,

m w

gg

~" '

s

'!M

_ g ss::

s

1. 2 0-'

-+-

1/18/97 1/25/97 2/1/97 2/8/97 2/15/97 2/22/97 3/1/97 3/8/97 3/15/97 3/22/97 l

f Period Ending l

l 4

..