ML20149J521
| ML20149J521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J514 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-97-12, NUDOCS 9707280251 | |
| Download: ML20149J521 (136) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1997012
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:..
-
i
1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION lli
l
.
Docket Nos: 50-461
License Nos: NPF-62
1
1
Report No: 50-461/97012 (DRP)
-
Licensee: lilinois Power Company
1
Facility: Clinton Power Station
~
Location: Route 54 West
Clinton, IL 61727
Dates: December 9,1996 - July 3,1997
1
Inspectors: F. D. Brown, Acting Senior Resident inspector l
-
R. L. Bywater, Acting Senior Resident inspector
R. L. Doornbos, Licensing Examiner
R. A. Langstaff, Resident inspector l'
M. J. Miller, Senior Resident inspector
J. R. Roton, Reactor Engineer
N. Shah, Regional inspector
K. K. Stoedter, Resident inspector
D. E. Zemel, IDNS Resident inspector
Approved by: Geoffrey C. Wright
Clinton Restart Manager
,
i
O 1
i DR ADO
G
- .-.
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Clinton Power Station
NRC Inspection Report 50-461/97012 (DRP)
-
1
1
This inspection consisted of a review of specific commitments the licensee made in response to Confirmatory Action Letters associated with the September 5,1996 Reactor l Recirculation Pump seal failure event documented in Inspection Report (IR) 50-461/96010. This inspection was performed in parallel with routirie resident inspection activities , documented in irs 50-461/96009, /96015, /97003, /97011 and /97014. The routine I resident reports documented enforcement actions and inspector identified weaknesses and concerns. This report documents inspector review of 55 specific actions which the licensee identified as being required prior to unit restart.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee adequately addressed each of the
55 specific actions which were identified as start-up commitments. (Section 08.1)
Items 111.3, IV.1, and IV.13 have additional actions to be accomplished during
startup and power ascension. Inspector followup items have been assigned to track
the items.
2
i
i l l l t f Report Details '
l. Operations
l 1
08 Miscellaneous Operations issues
08.1 Startuo Readiness Action Plan item Review (92901)
a. Insoection Scooe: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's actions in response to
commitments mado for startup from the sixth refueling outage (RF-06). These
commitments were contained in letters from lilinois Power dated:
.
September 17,1996
September 24,1996
December 9,1996
These commitments were documented in an NRC Confirmatory Action Letter dated
January 9,1997.
,
A modification to item 1.19 was made by IP letters of February 7, and April 8,
1997.
b. Observations and Findinas:
Attachment A identifies 55 corrective actions which the licensee committed to
complete prior to restarting the Clinton Power Station (CPS), and the results of the l
inspectors' review of each of the actions taken. The licensee record of
commitments and actions were contained in CPS record 4F.190, "Startup Readiness
Action Plan (SRAP)." The inspectors reviewed the SRAP and performed
independent verifications of selected items. The inspectors concluded that in
general the licensee's actions in response to the items were acceptable. The
inspectors identified two items (Items 11.4 and IV.5) for which all of the specific
actions had not been taken; however, the inspectors concluded that the intent of
the commitments were fully satisfied by alternate means.
.
The inspectors noted that while individual commitments were met, weaknesses still
existed in many areas. The inspectors concluded that although weaknesses
continued to exist, the weaknesses did not represent violations of NRC
requirements nor did they represent startup restraints. Identified weaknesses are
documented in routine resident inspector reports
50-461/96009, /96015, /97003, /97011 (draft) and /97014 (inspection end date
July 6,1997).
For SRAP ltems Ill.3, IV.1, and IV.13, the inspectors concluded that the licensee
had performed the actions which could be reasonably performed prior to startup.
I !
3
-
, . W
The licensee planned to perform additional actions for these items during and after
unit restart.
c. Conclusions:
The licensee adequately completed 55 specific corrective actions which
were required to be completed prior to restart of CPS as documented in
CAL No. Rill-97-001 dated January 9,1997.
V. Manacement Meetinas
X3 Management Meeting Summary
Public management meetings were held to discuss readiness for restarting Clinton
Power Station. During these meetings, the licensee described the status of the i
strategic recovery program and performance measures used to monitor progress I
towards restart readiness. In addition, specific material condition issues such as j
testing of electrical breakers, containment coatings, and degraded voltage were J
discussed. The NRC provided feedback on its review of SRAP items and . ,
observations on specific technical issues during the meetings. The dates and
locations of these meetings were:
April 18,1997, Clinton Power Station (Attachment B)
May 1,1997, Region 111 office (Attachment C)
May 15,1997, Region lil office (Attachment D)
May 28,1997, Clinton Power Station (Attachment E)
June 13,1997, Region lli office (Attachment F)
July 3,1997, Clinton Power Station (Attachment G)
Licensee materials presented at the meetings are attached.
The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the
inspection should be. considered proprietary. No proprietary information was
identified.
Attachments: A. Startup Readiness Action Plan items Reviewed by NRC
B. April 18,1997, Meeting Handout
C. May 1,1997, Meeting Handout
D. May 15,1997, Meeting Handout
E. May 28,1997, Meeting Handout
F. June 13,1997, Meeting Handout
G. . July 3,1997, Meeting handout
l
1
4
1
!
,
I
J
. _ _ . - .- __. -_. _. ... _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _
l
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
iP 40500: Effectiveness of Licensee Controls in identifying, Resolving, and Preventing
Problems
IP 92901: Follow up - Operations IP 92902: Follow up - Maintenance IP 92903: Follow up - Engineering IP 92904: Follow up - Plant Support
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
OPENED
.
50-461/97012-01 IFl Control Room Monitoring 50-461/97012-02 IFl Recirculation Pump Seal Performance l 50-461/97012-03 IFl Feedwater Check Valves
PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee l R. Phares, Assistant to the Vice President
l
B. Illif, Startup Readiness Action Plan Manager J. Sipek, Director, Licensing j
1
l
l
,
1
I
5
j
.
1
l
Attachment A l
Startup Readiness Action Plan
items Reviewed by NRC l
1.1
Commitment: The adequacy of policy statements and general procedures
regarding conduct of operations and procedure compliance will be reviewed,
and changes made as necessary to ensure that expectations and
requirements regarding conservative decision-making and procedure
compliance are clearly set forth.
,
1
l
Results of Review: Through independent observation, and review of the
licensee's closecut documentation, the inspectors concluded that the -
specified actions had been performed. The inspectors noted that, in general,
!
procedure adherence and conservative decisim making has improved as '
evidenced by a significant reduction in proof.Oure adherence problems in the
April through May 1997 time frame, and appropriate operational decisions in
response to degraded voltage issues. Specific observations are documented
in inspection Reports 50-461/97006 and 50-461/97011.
I.2 Commitment: A seminar on procedure compliance including Main Control
Room activities, turnover, log keeping, and communications will be provided
to the following personnel:
* !
Site Managers
e Plant Staff Directors / Assistant Director-Operations
* Work Control Team Leaders
e Facility Review Group Leaders
e Licensed and non-licensed Operations personnel
e Shift Technical Advisors
e Systern Engineers l
e Active operator license holders
* Management monitors
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee closeout
documentation and attended selected seminar presentations. The inspectors
concluded that the above seminar had been conducted, the content of the
seminar was acceptable, and seminar attendance was appropriate.
1.3 Commitment: Procedures used in the following activities will be reviewed to
ensure clarity, consistency, and ease of use, and changes will be made as
warranted.
I
e plant startup l
e l
single loop operation
e leak detection
e reactor coolant leakage
e procedure adherence 1
1 ,
l
l
1
l
. - -- , - - - . .
1
. I
,
5
* long cycle lineup and operations
* conservative decision making
* management oversight
* RR seal problems
,
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed a sample of the procedure
,
revisions and comments forms which resulted from the licensee's review.
Based on the inspectors review, the inspectors concluded that the licensee's
reviews were appropriate.
l.4 Commitment: Operating crews will receive simulator practice on normal
plant operation and startup activities to ensure familiarity with associated
,
procedures, and identify any areas for pr;.edure revision or enhancement.
Results of Review: The inspectors and a Region based operator licensing
' specialist reviewed training materials and observed simulator training
conducted by the licensee. The inspectors concluded that the training
,
material and simulator seminars were appropriate.
l.5 Commitment: The critique process will be revised to include:
*
Appropriate, independent and ob.iective inputs from other departments
,
* In-depth fact finding
*
Expectations for timeliness of the evaluation and documentation are
clear and enforced
*
Specific determinations on whether procedure noncompliances or
nonconservative operations occurred
*
A timely review and concurrence of the facts by appropriate senior
management
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed procedure CPS 1016.05,
" Conduct and Documentation of Critiques," Revision 5, and concluded that
the procedure had been revised to incorporate the above changes. The
inspectors concluded that the licensee's actions in response to this item
were adequate. Specific observations regarding critiques are documented in
Inspection Reports 50-461/97007 and 50-461/97011.
l.6 Commitment: Site personnel will participate in a seminar on procedure
compliance.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee closecut
documentation and attended selected seminar presentations. The inspectors
concluded that the above seminar had been conducted, the content of the
seminar was acceptable, and seminar attendance was appropriate.
2
l
i
. -
l
!
l.7 Commitment: A review of procedures used for: (a) movement of new fuel
and (b) movement of fuel during refueling will be conducted to ensure clarity,
consistency, and ease of use and changes will be made as warranted.
-
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed a sample of the licensee's fuel
movement procedures and procedure reviews and concluded that both the
procedures and reviews were good. In addition, the inspectors observed
selected fuel handling activities and concluded that the activities were
handle nell (see Section 01.11 of Inspection Report 50-461/96015).
1.8
Commitment: Current methods to monitor and measure procedure
compliance program effectiveness will be assessed and revised.
.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and concluded that an assessment had been performed.
Based upon this assessment, Nuclear Assessment (NA) surveillance activities
were to be focused on future procedure compliance. Additionally, periodic
" exit" meetings were initiated to improve the communication of NA findings
to licensee management. The licensee revised their general procedure,
'
NAP 101.01, " Nuclear Assessment Organization and Responsibilities,"
Revision 14, to specify the periodic meetings. The inspectors attended the
first periodic exit meeting held on May 30,1997, and concluded that the
presentation of issues was appropriate. The inspectors considered the
actions planned by the licensee to be an improvement, and the licensee's
review for this item to be acceptable.
l.9 Commitment: Evaluate procedure process (use, revision, backlog). 1
'
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee closecut
documentation and determined that the independent Safety Engineering
Group (ISEG) had evaluated the procedure process to address this item. The
!
licensee had identified one of the ISEG recommendations as necessary prior '
to startup (incorporating significant comments into procedures). To address
this recommendation, the licensee had developed a definition for what was
significant. The inspectors concluded that the definition was a significant
improvement over past practice of using subjective judgement.
In addition to the closeout records in the SRAP, the licensee implemented a
new procedure adherence policy and a new processes for temporary
procedure changes on April 1,1997. The inspectors noted that during April
and May 1997, the licensee has been effective at obtaining procedure
changes when necessary. The inspectors concluded that the licensee's
actions for this item were adequate.
3
l
--
.
l
I.10 Commitment: Review of System Operating Procedures.
Operations Department personnel will perform a review /walkdown of system
,
operating procedures. The purpose of this walkdown is to identify and
;
correct procedure inadequacies that prohibit successful completion of an
operational evolution.
Revise the identified procedure inadequacies that prohibit successful
completion of an operational evolution.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation for this item which included a listing of procedures reviewed
and those which required revision as a result. The inspectors determined
that the Operations Department had reviewed about 160 procedures and, for
about half of the procedures reviewed, had identified necessary revisions
prior to start up. Based on discussions with Operations management, the
inspectors determined that the scope of the review effort included: 1) all
integrated operations procedures, 2) all procedures used for startup, 3) all off
normal procedures,4) other procedures as deemed appropriate by operations
management and shift personnel. The inspectors concluded that the
licensee's review effort for this item was acceptable,
l.11
Commitment: Review of Station Surveillance Procedures
The operating crew personnel will review scheduled surveillances prior to
their performance to identify and correct inadequacies that prohibit
successful completion of the surveillance activities. This review will be
conducted in accordance with OSO-92.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed licensee closecut
documentation and did not identify any concerns. The inspectors noted that
the licensee planned to continue the reviews until all surveillances have been
reviewed at least once. As part of the inspectors' routine observation of
surveillance activities, the inspectors noted that many surveillance
procedures had been revised just prior to performance. The inspectors
concluded that reviews were being conducted prior to surveillances and the
licensee actions for this item were acceptable.
l.12
Commitment: Bectrical Control and Instrumentation (EC&l) senior
maintenance personnel who have experience with the performance of
curveillances will review a random sample of the procedures, including at
least 25% of all RF-6 surveillances to identify problems with methods or
criteria.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included a listing of the surveillances reviewed, and a
listing of the procedure comment forms generated as a result of the review.
The inspectors determined that a sufficient number of procedures had been
4
_ .-.
reviewed, and that 11 comment forms had ouen generated as a result. The
inspectors concluded that the licensee's actions for this item were
acceptable.
l.13 Commitment: EC&l senior maintenance personnel who have experience with
performance of surveillances will review all outstanding comment control
forms on surveillance procedures to assess if changes are timely and if
significant problems exist which might callinto question the effectiveness of
the results.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closcout
documentation which included the licensee's EC&l self-assessment of
surveillance procedures. The inspectors concluded that the review had been
performed and was acceptable.
1.14
Commitment: An assessment will be made of the EC&l maintenance
personnel who are qualified to perform surveillances to assure the
combination of skills, procedures and training sufficiently prepares our
- technicians to properly perform surveillances. This will be accomplished by
performing walkthroughs of various surveillances by personnel with different
levels of experience.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and concluded that the licensee performed the reviews as
committed. As a result of the review, the licensee identified 12 procedures
(surveillances) for which additional technician qualifications, to those
identified on the existing procedure / qualifications matrix, were appropriate.
In response to questions by the inspectors, the licensee reviewed the last
performance of the 12 procedures identified. Eleven of the 12 were
performed by individuals qualified under the new matrix. The twelfth was
determined to be acceptable because only a portion of the procedure was
nerformed and the individual was qualified to perform that portion. The
inspectors concluded that the licens, l's actions and review were acceptable
for this item.
1.15 Commitment: EC&l supervision will review the last 35 - 50 Temporary
Procedure Deviations (TPDs) or Procedure Action Changes (PACS) to
determine the significance of the changes and affect on training, previous
acceptability and effectiveness of the change.
Results of Heview: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included the licensee's EC&l self-assessment of
surveillance procedures. The inspectors determined that the licensee had
reviewed 48 TPDs arid PACS, and had not identified any significant
problems. The inspectors concluded that the review had been performed
and was acceptable.
5
_
__
'
,
l.16
Commitment: Field observations of RF-6 EC&l surveillances will be
performed to assess the actual quality of performance of the package. )
"
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation which included thelicensee's EC&l self-assessment of
surveillance procedures. The inspectors determined Nuclear Assessment,
group leaders, and process coordinators had observed 18 EC&l surveillance
activities and had not identified any significant problems from the
,
observations. The inspectors concluded that the observations had been
performed and the review was acceptable.
]
1.17 i
Commitment: Provide training to appropriate personnel on 10 CFR 50.59
{'
purpose, process, and applicability.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included the attendance lists and lesson plan. In
addition, the inspectors attended one of the training sessions. The
inspectors concluded that 10 CFR 50.59 training had been conducted for
appropriate personnel. The lesson plan covered recent 10 CFR 50.59
violations, licensing basis documents requiring review, and 10 CFR 50.59
,
philosophy. The inspectors concluded that the training had been conducted j
and was acceptable.
i
,
l.18 Commitment: Review all standing orders against the 10 CFR 50.59
screening process.
Besults of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included the 10 CFR 50.59 screening forms completed J
for the standing orders. In addition, the inspectors reviewed standing orders
PMSO-041, " Override of Interlocks," Revision 4, and PMSO-071, !
j
" Secondary Containment Guide," Revision 3, for adequacy from a 10 CFR l
50.59 perspective and did not identify any problems. The inspectors
!
concluded that the reviews had been performed and were appropriate.
l.19 Commitment: Review surveillance procedures for fidelity with Technical
I
Specifications and USAR. {
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the closeout documentation I
associated with this item and a sample consisting of seven of the completed
reviews. By letter dated April 8,1997, Illinois Power revised their '
commitment to review 90 procedures with respect to the USAR prior to
startup. However, Illinois Power committed to review all of their surveillance l
procedures by March 31,1998. The inspectors determined that the licensee
had conducted 90 reviews which consisted of a sample from all departments
having surveillance procedures. The inspectors noted that one Licensee ;
Event Report (LER 97-011) was initiated due to findings from this review
!
effort. In addition, the licensee had declared the fire pumps inoperable due
to surveillance inadequacies identified through this review effort. The
6
-
inspectors concluded that the licensee actions taken prior to startup for this
item were acceptable.
II.1
Commitment: Expectations of conservative decision making emphasizing
safety of operation will be clearly defined and provided in writing to the ;
following personnel:
* Site Managers
*
Plant Staff Directors / Assistant Director-Operations
* Work Control Team Leaders
* Facility Review Group Members
* Licensed and non-licensed Operations personnel
-
* Shift Technical Advisors i
* System Engineers
* Active operator license holders
* Management monitors
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed Nuclear Policy Statement
No. 7, " Supervisor Responsibilities," Revision 12, and determined that the
policy statement adequately defined and provided expectations for
conservative decision making.
11. 2
Commitment: A seminar on conservative decision making emphasizing
safety of operation will be provided to:
* Site Managers
*
Plant Staff Directors / Assistant Director-Operations
* Work Control Team Leaders
* Facility Review Group Members
* Licensed and non-licensed Operations personnel
* Shift Technical Advisors
* System Engineers
* Active operator license holders
* Management monitors
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed training materials for
conservative decision making seminars and licensee documentation for
seminar attendance. In addition, the inspectors interviewed a sample of
operators and determined that operators understood management
.
expectations regarding conservative decision making. The inspectors
concluded that seminars had been conducted and that the seminars
appropriately addressed conservative decision making.
7
,- -
.
i
ll.3 Commitment: Plant or equipment condition limits will be provided to ensure
conservatism:
*
Operation of the plant at power, with Reactor Recirculation pump seal
degradation exceeding conservatively established limits will not be
permitted.
I
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the September 19,1996 '
" Engineering Event Analysis of the Reactor Recirculation Pump 'B' Seal :
Failure, 5 September,1996," and licensee verification documentation. The
inspectors concluded that the licensee's review and procedure changes were l
i
appropriate.
,
j
11. 4
Commitment: Personnelinvolved have recognized and acknowledged their
roles and errors made in this event. The Plant Manager will personally ;
discuss elements of this event with each shift crew. '
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closure
documentation and concluded that the intent for this item had been satisfied.
~
The licensee had documented that the individual who had been plant
manager during September 1996 had met with each crew to discuss the
event. However, no attendance records had been maintained. The current
plant manager had started to meet with shift crews, with appropriate
]
i
documentation of attendance, to re-perform this item. The plant manager ,
documented that during his discussions with three shift crews the crews 1
were silent and sedentary, and no interaction had taken place. Based on the
lack of interaction and discussion, the plant manager concluded that
continuing the discussions with the shift crews would not be productive and
l
discontinued the meetings. The licensee reevaluated the item and concluded
the intent of this item had been met through other means. Notably, the plant
manager held individual discussions with each crew member (see
,
!
Item 11.5), and numerous discussions had been held regarding the l
September 5,1996 event (see items 1.2 and 11.2). Also, in discussions with
operawrs during routine inspection activities, the inspectors determined that '
the operators were familiar with the causes of the September event,
11. 5 Commitment: Plant Manager will meet with each crew member to ensure
the following:
* understanding of safe and conservative operation
e
impact of operator actions and possibility for negative plant response
e responsibility for placing plant in safe configuration
* planning for the unexpected
e
procedural compliance is required even when no one is watching
*
understanding of plant material conditions which impact plant
operations
8
\
.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
,
documentation which included the list of individuals with which meetings l
had been conducted, and the Plant Managers summary of the meetings. The
Plant Manager considered each of the interviews to be open and beneficial.
l
Also, in discussions with operators during routine inspection activities, the ,
inspectors noted that operators exhibited sensitivity towards conservative !
decision making and procedural compliance. The inspectors concluded that
the licensee's actions in response to this item were adequate.
11. 6
Commitment: Additional plant or equipment condition limits will be
developed as appropriate based on CPS and industry operating experience, to
ensure conservatism.
Results of _ Review: Based on review of the licensee closeout documentation, '
the inspectors determined that the licensee had evaluated limits for the main
,
turbine, and revised an annunciator response procedure for turbine vibration.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee's review was acceptable. The
i
inspectors noted that, as part of their long term corrective action plan, the l
licensee planned to establish condition limits for the following equipment and
conditions after startup: l
e Condenser in-leakage
e Condenser vacuum
o Main Power Transformer Gassing
e Suppression Pool Level / Emergency Operating Procedure
Entry
e Rotating Component Vibration
ll 7 Commitment: Review April 1996 incident corrective actions for adequacy,
timeliness and effectiveness.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation for this item which included their documented review. The
inspectors noted that the documented review acknowledged that the initial
corrective actions for the April 3,1996 event were not adequate in that they
did not address issues concerning management involvement and procedural
adherence. The inspectors concluded that the review had been performed,
as committed, and was adequate.
11. 8
Commitment: Review SOER 92-01, " Reducing the Occurrence of Plant
Events Through improved Human Performance," response for adequacy.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation and concluded that the licensee had reviewed the original
SOER response for adequacy. The licensee review concluded that the
original response was inadequate. The licensee developed an action plan to
address the inadequacies. The inspectors considered the review and the
actions planned to be acceptable.
9
11. 9
Commitment: Simulator Restart Training. Active proficient licensed
operators and Shift Technical Advisors / Shift Engineers will participate in
startup training on the simulator. This training session will reinforce
expectations on management oversight and roles, procedure compliance,
-
conservative decision making, emergency action levels and reactivity
management. The simulator session will be conducted with the intended
crew composition as we rotate into normal shift compliments and willinclude
management monitors.
l
l
Results of Review: The inspectors observed selected simulator training !
seminars and classroom training conducted and concluded that the training
was appropriate.
. 1
!
111. 1
Commitment: Roles, duties and expectations of personnel involved in I
operational oversight activities will be reviewed and revised.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed standing order PMSO-084,
" Management Oversight instructions," Revision 1, and concluded that
appropriate guidance on roles, duties, and expectations for oversight
activities had been provided.
111. 2
Commitment: Provide a briefing on operational oversight roles and
responsibilities to the following personnel:
* Operating crews
* Active Operator License Holders
* Shift Technical Advisor
* System Engineers
*
Assistant Plant Manager-Operations and Assistant Director-Operations
* Plant Manager
* Management Monitors
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and concluded that appropriate personnel were briefed on
standing order PMSO-084, " Management Oversight Instructions,"
Revision 1.
111. 3
Commitment: During restart activities and until stable power operation is
achieved, experienced plant personnel will be assigned to monitor main
control room activities. They will specifically be charged with assessing the
proper oversight functions by line management.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation and determined that the licensee planned to use their in-Plant
Crew Monitoring and Observation program during startup. In addition, the
inspectors determined that the licensee had developed a schedule for
monitoring and observations by management personnel. The schedule
reflected continuous monitoring, including backshifts and weekends. The
10
-
. _ - ... - .- - ~ - _ . - - - . - .. .
-
-
j
l
'
l
l inspectors noted that over 70 pre-startup observations had been made as of
May 21,1997, using the in-Plan Crew Monitoring and Observation program.
The inspectors reviewed 11 data sheets for observation performed during
,
May 1997 and concluded that the observers were appropriately monitoring
conservatism of operational decision making and procedure adherence. Most
of the observations were for the main control room. However, some
,
observations had been made for in plant operations personnel. The
l
inspectors concluded that licensee's actions were sufficient for startup.
Control Room monitoring will be assessed during unit startup (IFl 50-
4
461/97012-01).
111. 4
Commitment: A startup plan will be developed which provides " hold points"~
,
at which progress in the startup, equipment conditions and appropriate next
steps are evaluated by Operations management and the shift crews.
i
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
i
documentation which included their startup plan with hold points. The
inspectors noted that each of the hold points had generic criteria such as
" Site support manning is adequate for startup support," in addition to criteria
specific to the applicable startup phase. The inspectors concluded that the
plan was a reasonable supplement to existing startup checklists.
Ill.5 Commitment: Methods will be developed to monitor operational decision
- making to ensure that expectations continue to be met and are reinforced.
4 -
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licencee's closcout
<
documentation and determined that the licensee used Nuclear Assessment
surveillance acti/ities as the method to address this item. The licensee
started conducting periodic exit meetings during which Nuclear Assessment
communicated their findings to licensee management. The licensee revised
their general procedure, NAP 101.01, " Nuclear Assessrnent Organization and
Responsibilities," Revision 14, to specify these periodic meetings. The
j
inspectors attended the first periodic exit meeting held on May 30,1997,
and concluded that the presentation of issues was appropriate. The licensee
,
also revised their surveillance procedure, Procedure NAP 118.05, " Nuclear
' Assessment Surveillance Program," Revision 20, to enhance the rigor with
which surveillances are performed. The inspectors considered the actions
initiated to be an improvement and acceptable.
,
lil.6 Commitment: A process will be established to ensure that personnel who
may be assigned to operational positions which have oversight
.
responsibilities will be briefed on those responsibilities prior to assuming the
i position. i
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
i documentation and determined that the licensee had established a process as
j
described in standing order PMSO-084, Management Oversi;ht Instructions,"
Revision 1. The inspectors concluded that the standing order outlined an
'
11
1 i^
-
, - .. . - .~ - . . - - .. - . - - -
,
.
acceptable process for ensuring personnel are appropriately briefed prior to
3
assuming oversight roles.
4
111. 7
Commitment: The Senior Management Team will conduct a self-critique of i
p sonal performance related to this event and identify areas for
npro ement.
.
-
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and determined that senior management had conducted a >
self-critique and had identified areas for improvement. The inspectors
i considered the weaknesses identified by the critique to be honest and self
critical. The inspectors concluded that the licensee's actions for this item
were acceptable.
til.8 Commitment: Establish a lower threshold for initiating assessments based
, on events, conditions or trends.
'
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and determined that the licensee took credit for Nuclear
. } Assessment surveillances for this item. The inspectors interviewed the i
Nuclear Assessm'et surveillance supervisor and determined that the licensee
2
had changed hov.- * eveillances were scheduled to more closely monitor
ongoing activities 6. J ?ponse to this item. The inspectors considered the
- change in surveillcnc Muling philosophy to be an improvement and
acceptable.
]
111. 9
Commitment: Monitor the effectiveness of the Corrective Action to ensure
} readiness for startup. . 1
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the closecut documentation and
did not identify any concerns. The licensee based their closure upon
j
improved performance measures. The inspectors noted that, in general,
' procedure compliance has improved. In addition, although the licensee
continues to have events involving personnel errors, the events are of a less
- serious nature.
, 111. 1 0 Commitment: Identify and schedule the corrective actions for the Work
! Control Program based on the assessment of the Work Control Team pilot.
-
Items identified as short term corrective actions are to be completed prior to
startup from RF-6.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation; procedure CPS 1141.01, " Work Control Program,"
, Revision 0; and training documentation for maintenance personnel on the 4
work control process. The inspectors considered the actions by the licensee ; for this item to be acceptable. 4
i
i
12
. T
-
1
i
!
IV.1
Commitment: The "B" Reactor Recirculation (RR) pump seal was replaced
and will be tested.
Results of Review: The inspectors observed the disassembly and inspection
of the failed seal and construction of the new seal cartridge. In addition, the
inspectors observed the licensee's root cause analysis team in the process of
evaluating the failed seal cartridge. The inspectors did not identify any
concerns associated with the observed activities. The inspectors concluded !
that licensee's actions were for this item were sufficient for startup.
Obseryation of seal performance during startup and pump speed shift will
occur during startup. (IFl 50-461/97012-02)
i
IV.2 Commitmen_t: The Drywell Floer Drain (RF) leak detection and flow l
measurement instrumentation was made operable and tested.
j
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation which included the completed work request for the work.
The inspectors concluded that the instrumentation had been installed and
satisfactorily tested. j
,
i
IV.3 Commitment: The Drywall Equipment Drain (RE) leak detection and flow
measurement instrumentation was made operable and tested.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation which included the completed work request for the work.
The inspectors concluded that the instrumentation had been installed and
satisf actorily tested.
IV.4 Commitment: Outstanding corrective MWRs will be reviewed to evaluate
material condit;ons that impact plant operations.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation for this item which included a list of MWRs reviewed by the
licensee. Besides the initial MWR reviews, the licensee recently conducted
system readiness reviews which included a review of outstanding MWRs.
Based on the initial reviews, the system readiness reviews, and the work
accomplished during the outage, the inspectors considered the licensee's
actions for this item acceptable.
IV.5 Commitment: Develop and implement the following actions for RF leak
detection systems:
*
Incorporate the leak detection calculation method (based on RF sump
fill times) into the process computer.
* Perform complete and thorough cleaning of the RF weir V-notch
system.
13
-
,
i
e
Determine and implement float setpoints change for improved time
response for the alternate (LD-027) leak detection system which is
based on RF sump pump discharge flow measurements.
<
Results of Review: The inspectors revietwed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included post-modification test documentation,
modification design documentation, and completed MWRs. The inspectors
l
,
determined that the licensee had incorporated leak detection calculation '
methods into the process computer and had cleaned drywell drain piping.
For the third item, the licensee concluded that modifying the float setpoints
would not provide the desired degree of accuracy and the licensee did not
pursue this change. Instead, the licensee installed a " bubbler" type of sump
levelindication which would provide the sump level rate of change and
indication cf drywell floor drain inleakage. The inspectors concluded that
installation of a " bubbler" system met the intent for an alternate leak
detection system. The inspectors concluded that the licensee had made their
leak detection and flow measurement instrumentation operable.
IV.6 Commitment: Incorporate the leak detection calculation method (based on
RE sump fill times) into the process computer.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included the test package and engineering change
notices for the modification. The inspectors concluded that the new
calculation method had been added to the process computer. In addition,
the inspectors interviewed two licensed operators with regards to the
knowledge of new leak detection calculation method and determined that the
operators were aware that a new computer screen had been developed for
the process computer. The inspectors concluded that the licensee had taken
appropriate actions for this item.
IV.7 Commitment: The Vice President, Manager - CPS and Manager - NSED will
assess long term material deficiencies on a quarterly basis to ensure that
corrective actions are being pursued aggressively and operational needs are
clearly being met.
At a minimum this assessment will address:
* Main Control Room Deficiencies
e Operator Workarounds
e Maintenance Rule Category A.1 Systems
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation and meeting minutes from two meetings and concluded that
proper attention was being focused on the material deficiency issues
discussed.
14
_ . ._ . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . . . ._ _ _._ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .__
,
i
IV.8 Commitment: Review 1995 and 1996 NRC Inspection Report material
condition items for adequate response.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's' closecut
documentation which included their reviews of 1995 and 1996 NRC
Inspection Reports. Based on their review, the licensee had concluded that
corrective action documents, such as MWRs or engineering change
documents, had been initiated for all of the items identified. However,
resolution of some long-standing problems was untimely. The inspectors
concluded that the review had been performed and that licensee conclusions
drawn from the review were appropriate.
IV.9 -
Commitment: Review adequacy of past operability evaluations and
determinations. Identify and resolve any open issues which would result in
equipment operability being questionable. {
l
Develop Operability Determination Program for Clinton Power Station.
Develop guideline for Reportability.
!
Train appropriate engineering personnel on Operability Determination
Program. I
Train appropriate operations personnel on Operability Determination Program.
Results of Review: The inspectors performed a Follow up review 'of the
licensee's closeout documentation and concluded that the above actions had
been performed. In addition, the inspectors reviewed the procedure
developed for operability determinations, Procedure CPS 1014.06,
" Operability Determination," Revision 0, and ccncluded that the procedure
was acceptable. A selection of completed operability determinations was
reviewed shortly after CPS 1014.06 was issued, and no problems were
identified.
IV.10 Commitment: Review adequacy of past action plans and determine if any
actions are required.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation, and the revised procedure for action plans, Procedure
CPS 1070.01, " Coordination Plans," Revision O. The inspectors concluded
that the review and the revised procedure were acceptable.
15
_ ,_ _ . - -
.
IV.11 Commitment: Butterfly Valves: Perform bounding analyses for pipe stress
and supports, and update seismic analyses to validate initial operability
evaluation and to determine if any further RF6 actions are required to assure
operability is maintained.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed a sample of the piping analyses
performed by the licensee and did not identify any problems with the
analyses. The licensee identified that two pipe hangers required
modification. The inspectors verified that the two hangers had been
modified by inspecting visible portions in the field.
IV.12 Commitment: Conduct a review of open MWRs (except CM-MWRs) older
than 6 months old to verify no material deficiencies exist that significantly
affect plant operations.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed licensee's closecut
documentation for this item which included a list of MWRs reviewed by the
licensee. As noted in item IV.4, the licensee also conducted system
readiness reviews which included a review of outstanding MWRs. Based on !
the initial reviews, the system readiness reviews, and the work '
accomplished during the outage, the inspectors considered the licensee's
actions for this item acceptable.
IV.13 Commitment: Resolve immediate operability issues with feedwater check
valves 10 A/B and 32 A/B.
' Results of Review: The feedwater system 32 A/B check valves underwent
extensive modification and the 10 A/B check valves were repaired during the
sixth refueling outage. Each valve passed initial post-modification testing.
The licensee considered the valves operable based upon the work performed
and the post work tests. The licensee planned to provide a docketed
response to NRC within 60 days after startup with information on a mid-
cycle outage during which additional tests would be performed. The
inspectors did not identify any startup restraint concerns associated with
this item. Valve performance during upcoming operational hydrostatic test
will be tracked by a followup item. (IFl 50-461/97012-03)
in a July 2,1997, letter, the licensee reiterated it's commitment to conduct
a mid operating cycle shutdown to test the feedwater check valves.
IV.14 Commitment: Determine and resolve operability issues within the Scope of
GL 96-06.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closeout
documentation which included the licensee's engineering evaluation
(CR 1-96-10-360), LER 97-05, engineering change notices for modification
16
__ .. . . _ _ _ __.__.~._.__..__.___m__ _ _ -
-
I 4
work, and work request status sheets. Based on this review, the inspectors
, j 1
concluded that the licensee had taken sufficient actions for startup.
i IV.15 Commitment: Ensure the AR/PR system is an effective tool for .dentifying
radiological conditions within CPS. Provide training and expectations to -
j
Radiation Protection and Operations Personnel on monitoring and use of the
system.
j '
Results of Review: The inspectors observed radiation protection personnel
(RP) using the existing AR/PR system, and observed testing activities for the
- -
replacement AR/PR system. In addition, ma inspectors discussed the status
j
of the replacement AR/PR system with the engineering personnel and RP
- - management. The AR/PR counsel in the control room is operable and
monitored by a health physics individual. Based on these observations and
) discussions, the inspectors concluded that RP personnel were adequately } trained on use of the existing AR/PR system and that the AR/PR system was ,
effective for monitoring radiological conditions within CPS.
. ! IV.16 Commitment: Review the current population of identified operator 1
workarounds for proper priority and scheduling of resolution. Ensure
j- i adequate justification for those that will not be corrected in RF-6. ,
Results of Review: The inspect' ors reviewed the licensee's closeout
i_
documentation which included lists of identified workarounds and Operations
}- '
Standing Order OSO-089, " Operator Workarounds," Revision 1. The
inspectors concluded that operator workarounds identified through April 18,
1997, had been appropriately prioritized and scheduled.' The inspectors
concluded that licensee's actions in response for this item were adequate.
IV.17 Commitment: Review the current population of identified Main Centrol Room
l
deficiencies for proper priority and scheduling of resolution. Ensure adequate
justification for those that are not scheduled in RF-6.
Results of Review: The inspectors reviewed the licensee's closecut
documentation and attended routine plant status meetings. The inspectors
determined that Main Control Room (MCR) deficiencies received a high
degree of management attention on a daily basis and that the backlog of
MCR deficiencies had been reduced. The inspectors concluded that the
actions taken in response this item were good. i
;
17
_ _ _ , __ _ - __
_
.
.. . - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - -
ATTACHMENT B
4
- .
l
l ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY ! a i , 1 1
MEETING WIT-H THE NRC
! i { ! t .
ON STARTUP AND
! . ! ! RECOVERY ACTIONS FOR !
l
l
CLINTON POWER STATION I
April 18,1997
_ .
,
*
1
AGENDA
1
- NRC INTRODUCTION '
Jim Cahlwell
- OPENING John Cook
- INTRODUCTION Wilf Connell
. DECISION TO EXPAND STARTUP Wilf Connell
AND RECOVERY EFFORTS
- TURN-AROUND TEAM Dick Phares
. STRATEGIC RECOVERY PLAN (SRP) Dick Phares l
- READINESS REVIEW ELEMENTS D,ick Phares
- STATUS AND SCHEDULE OF SRP Dick Phares
. ROLE AND STATUS OF STARTUP Dick Phares
READINESS ACTION PLAN (SRAP)
. PERFORMANCE MEASURES Pat Yocum . ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR Dick Phares
STARTUP
= PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE Mike Lyon . CONCLUSIONS Wilf Connell
- NRC CONCLUSION Jim Caldwell
._. . .- - ._-.. . - . . -
i
4
INTRODUCTION
i
- i
! * September 5 Event 4 i I,
.
! * Startup Readiness Action Plan
1 I i
l '
*
Confirmatory Action and Trending Letters
*
Additional Events and Assessments l
J
l
.
Stand Downs and Worker Feedback
,
!
!
l
l
!
!
, - - . - . . - . . ._. . -. .. ..- .- ... - .- .
.
l DECISION TO EXPAND l STARTUP A3lD RECOVERY EFFORTS l
i j * Management Expectations Not Met ! ! -
i
! j e Events and Assessments Indicate Need for
- Expanded Effort
J j .!
4
- . Dedicated Turn-Around Team Created
l \
) * Strategic Recovery Plan Developed
,
. -
-.
. -. . . . . . . -. . - - . . . _ - - . . . - _ . . _ - - . - - . .
- . .
4 j TURN-AROU N D TEA M .
j i ! 4 I i e Dedicated Members From CPS Departments 1 -
4 i i i
- ;
* Experienced Contractors Used
* Turn-Around Team Responsibilities
'
, .
. . - - . - . .. - - -- - - -
.. . .
STRATEGIC RECOVERY PLAN (SRP)
.
! -
. Purpose of the SRP
l
! . l 4 -
l
'
l
-
* Components of the SRP
! ! .
l
l . 2 ! * Readiness Reviews ;
} i
. Line Managers Responsibilities
l
_. -- - - - - - . -. -. - . - . - - . . - - - - _ - .
!. >
READINESS REVIEW ELEMENTS
.
! i ! l . System Readiness Review
'
i e
. Programmatic Readiness Review
. Organizational Readiness Review
-. . . - - --- -. - - .-- - - - _- - .-
s. .i l 4
STATUS AND SCHEDULE OF l
STRATEGIC RECOVFaRY PLAN
- i
i
.
e IP Taking Deliberate Approach
\
,
i
-
.
i
i i ! * Readiness Review Implementing Plans
-
. ! i l ! 1 l l
= Turn-Around Team Review
l t i ! i i i
e Vice President Decision on Restart
i ! , !
i
e Long Term Improvement Plan
l i
l
J 4
) :,
. .- - - - . - . . -. .-
-
.
'
ROLE AND STATUS OF STARTUP
READINESS ACTION PLAN (SRAP) l
. SRAP Actions Incorporated Into SRP
e Status of SRAP Action Items
Total Number of Action Items 55
'
1
* Total Number of Action Items Verified 42
Complete by Nuclear Assessment Department ~
'
*
Total Number of Action Items In the Verification 5
Process
*
Total Number of Action Items With Activities 8
in Progress
*
Number of Startup Readiness Action Plan Items 25
ready for the NRC Closure
The Startup Readiness Action Items Ready for NRC Closure Are:
I.3 II.1 III.1 1V.1
I.4 11.2 III.2 IV.2
I.5 II.3 III.5 IV.3
I.7 II.6 III.6 IV.10
1.12 II.9 III.7 IV.11
I.13 III.8 IV.15 i
I.15 l
1.16
l . Startup Decision 1
1
,
- -. - .- - - - --- . . -
.
l
i
i
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
'
,
!
* SRP Performance Measures '
'
.
i i
e Applicability to Startup Readiness Action Plan
Items
,
. - -_.- -. - - - - . - - - _ - - . _- .-. - ; -
i i l j. i
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ;
f .
STARTUP
! .
i . Completion of SRP Readiness Reviews
-
} i i i . No Uncorrected Condition Leading to a False i Start ~ , !
! I
- e Meeting Established Performance Measures l
e i ? !
l l > ! ! l 1 i l 1 <
3 t
i l
i
1
!
. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ - - _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. .
.
. . PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE
i
I
.
*
l Major Emphasis on Procedure Compliance !
.
1 '
* Initiatives
i ! 1
!
4 l * Examples of Procedure Compliance
i
-
, , ) i
e Procedure Compliance Performance Measures
. !
* Recent Trends in Procedure Compliance __ . _ ____ __ _ _ .
. . . . . . _ _ _ ._ _ ._ __ _ ____ _ ___ .____. _. .._ _._
,
-
. -
r
I
.
CONCLUSIONS
. .
l
'
i
i
- .
IP Recognized Need for More Comprehensive
! Startup and Recovery Plans and Focused , 9
Management . !
i
l
l
1
'
j e IP Established Turn-Around Team and .
Strategic Recovery Plan
i i !
*
IP is Taking a Deliberate Approach to Assessing
i Restart Readiness
i
3 . IP Will Not Restart Until the Plant, Programs,
and Personnel Are Ready
4
i
. ?
i
.. _. .-. - . . - . ._.
.
ATTACHMENT B-1
l
Performance Meas >ures i
Strategic Recovery Plan
Startuo Readiness Action Plan
Event Free Performance
Culture Index
Materiel
Operations in-Plant Crew Condition
l
- Systems Monitoring
Maintenance Task
Performance Checklist
Main Control Room
Deficiencies
Human
MWRs Performance
Materiel
1
Condition Temp. Mods.
Operator Work Arounds i
Long-Term Tagouts Procedure
Adequacy
Outage Activities
?
P yams Number a(1) Systems
Significant Comment
Control Forms
Procedure
Procedure Changes Ccmoiiance
Conditions Reports Due to
Procedural Noncompliance
Human
Performance Condition Report
initiation Rate
Significant Condition Conservative ;
Reports Decision
Self Identification Rate "9 '
Radiation Worker
Performance
--
Organizations Human Error Propensity l
Index i
Management
Technical / Human Oversight
Performance CCFs
!
1
l
i
.
. .
1
Performance Measures
Strategic Recoverv Plan Startuo Readiness Action Plan
"
$l973~ Programs Systems Event Free Performance pe$o",*m^3no,
"
$[9*"
0s
Programs Culture IndeX pe or7a"nce
organ;. Operations In-Plant Crew Human Proceau e
zations
Programs
Monitoring Performance compna-ce Tlll7
ygng
organi. p' 9' ** Maintenance Task Human Procedure
zations Performance Checklist Performance Comphance
Programs Systems Main Control Room Matene, consegat
g9
e
y ,,3 g e m, r , l
Deficiencies cone. ten
y ,,ng om ;nt
Programs Systems M ^t i "* '
MWRs Conciton
Pr 9'amS Systems
Temp. Mods. Matene'
d
Conctron
Pro 9'ams Systems Operator Work Arounds Ejl;$
4
o ograms Systems
Long-Term Tagouts djli$
Systems Outage Activities $3J.t
Systems
Number a(1) Systems c$'k*5$
organ;- p,og,,ms Significant Comment Procedure pecu -> Of .; '
zatons Control Forms Adequacy _,c r : _
gy
,
$[$ Prc9'3ms Procedure Changes Pr
A
dure
,y
orgar'" Conditions Reports Due to Prx ea;re
program 3
zatons comc: ance
Procedural Noncompliance
organ;- Condition Report Hun an 'qnww -
2 t*"S Perfo<rnance Vuem 9
'
Initiation Rate
organ- Significant Condition
zatens
programs vam;ement
Reports ove's.gnt
'
organi- Programs
zations Self Identif! cation Rate Moversigh,
n 9* "","
organi. Programs Radiation Worker Human
zations Performance Performance
organi. Programs Human Error Propensity Human
l zations Index Performance
organi. Programs Technical / Human Procedure
zations performance CCFs Ad*4" 0Y
.mm.a cw ...,am.+-w =:- 8' 4M- *-4a--limh J--..-3Fwe u41 J A Ju 44-a#4 - M4J---det--h-4-Aha&- 24 A d.J4 4A-4 4---th du 4 hW.-2-h~.54J4e.--mJ4-m-i-sar4_#,. 4Aswaad m,s h.s.aav-u.Al&SmaM2AA -.Aua5MA
j ATTACHMENT B-2 L
HR$liWM .
R ? E :# E l . 4 M lg 3 0
:; = = _ c . M .1 :M += ,n===n
i .:j i ;
M
4
iii
,.
I 1 '
@
+a .
'
& ..r
u ?
O <s.
c i. = 1 4
,
e ,
.{A,. 'i j
. .w'*
-
- -
' '
$
m
.
d
O
maw w
W W
W D M
O
C
d
.n ..
&
m .. .w.
h
~
:f#'If
.
:
x hfkE
ri
%o I 4
W i
O d
'
w? dId
' ~
.
a
... . - - , . - . - - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - . - - - _ - - . _ _ . . . - - - . - _ - - - _
?- g -
Goal: 21 Days Between Events
Long Term: TBD
.
EVENTFREE PERFORMANCE ,
,
30 -
;
i
i
> Number of Events Average number of days between
l
events is a 90-day rolling average.
Average number of days between ,
25 - events The numerical values indicate the
number of days since the previous
event.
L
20 -
o
.
v)
y 15 -
O
.
!
,
10 -
.
,
l
I
5- ,
2
1
5
20 18 34 30 i
0
0 - - - - U' :w: - - - -
N N N N N N N N N N N N 5 N N N N N N N N N N N N
5 N N N N N 5 N N N I
S$@5$$$$g]99ga 3S 8*SS$$$$$$$S$$S$$$SS 8$
'
3 0 -
5 5 5 - 2 e
8 55nRSS^^^E55$SSS**T
EVENT DATE
5 5 ,
!
l
5
4/1&97 ,
i
,
. . - . . __ __ - _ _ _ _ - . - --
;1 ! . .6 ,t>w . i l' >t ..t t* .t, l, i iI.
.
r
a
e
Y
/
s
t
in
o
- P
2
e 7
s
a 9
-
e
r . /
- c 6
I
n 1
A
/
:
t
/
. - N mer n 4 -
:
p T
u
e l
.a. .o .
.
.oS L -
tr
t
a
g
n
o x )n
eo n m
OV
e
l
is t
nG
n '
- i r a , -
O
dt
i
\
a r nU
E P
l c
nr
-
m p
m .
Ifo I
- n :- ,0
...i...'. ... . . ....:
,.
*
ei f
... .
.i....'
-
2.
: ..:; : ..*
:
-
* . *
*
. 3
- ro .'
' . ..
:.. . .
J* .. :;
.
*
..
: .
.
: * . .l . -
- :
-
. . . * . . .!, . . . .* .., . .
-
-
utyi
..
;s.....
:
...
.
.....: ..
: . . .
.
.
:
.
..*. . .
- .
.
:
.* . . . .
- t l
i
.
. .
..
. . . . . .
. * .
..
.
. . . . . * *.. .. . . .
.
:
l b . ..-
*
. .
. g. .
.
.. )
.
ul a .
.... *
.-
. .
*
:g
.
.
x- 2
.
i .:... . :...
:
. -
. . .
.*:... . .
._ 9
Cv
..
. a . ...= ...
.
. :.. .. ...
. . : .
..:d9.. . . * .: .Aw .. . .
.
e 9
- a . * .
. 1
- ..
... .. . . * : . : . . :.
:.
. . .
.
-
- n .:..,.:l..**..... .. ..
.,.dw,. . ... '**
.. ' .
: . .
1
.
......!. . , . * . . . . .
: .
. . so :..
. ..*. . .
.
.* .
. .....
..-
.
$. . . e
-
.
..mg....*.
.
...:.,
.
. ..
.:
... 9
9
vdaes
.
~ :
. . .... .... .s. . 'i . ::. .
. e : . ::..:.
..
1
e. . ..t... g;
*
.
,. .i. :...'.
.
. 3
' .. ? *
.. ,0 (
:'...
. .- .
.: - *
.:
e......;.....
:
.
.
.#. .. -
. . * . * .: - .* . :
2 g
.. ,.; z.h : - - G *: O. .. .. .;..
:
sb * -
:
:.
..a . , . .*
:
*
: .
.
: . .. .. ::.
.
..:
; ,.
. .
i
n
gt s
n
* .
.. ..t i.
. :
l . ... . . O
.*
..* : .
.....
.
...:
. .
t
a
e. '.*'.. .. . *.
:
.
....,.....g
...
. . . :.....
:.
.....
. .:
R
i P
nl a
:
-
' ....
*
*
:
.
#.. .. . .
.h... .
.
.
.
:
- .
,.
*...
,
P
. :,. i . : . e e
: *
.....I . . .
. .. ...
,
. .
.i .. ..
L
t r
.
.... . . ~ . .
. ..
aew .*
. ... .-
.
:
. , .
.*
..I...
.
'
..
. . .Q
.
* .
.*
.
..
.
.
,.
,. :
.> :
.
A
S
RP
.
..
:.
-
.* * . :.. .:
o :....e...si. .. '
: .
.;*
. ...
*
. :... . *. :
. .. .
: .
. , *
...
.
.
.
.
.
:
...:... .*:.. ..-
f. , . . . . ..
.
- . : .
r :
. : .a
.
g,.. .. .. .g... .
.
u
Pe a .
:: : : .
. . . .
:*., * .:.. : . . .. .
.;..:.
:....! : .* . =... :
c::..,
.
. ,. :=.,,.. . i . B
.
. . .
.
. . . .....:
.
. . . . . ':
l _
.=*
Lc u A ...i..6
.
4
.
>
e -
. . '
* - . . 0
1
._
._
_
AN
0 0 0
2 1
0 _
4 e -
S( 4
.
r x )0
ue9
-
-
.
.
.
t
und 19
l
_
_
_
Ci( _
_
.
-
-
_
_
7
7
. _ . . . _ - - - .. - . . - . .- - _ - . . . . . - - - . . - - . . - . . . - . . . . - . . . . - . - . - -
CoalJ
Startup: 3
'
Operations In-Plant Crew Monitoring ""S*""'
5.00
4.50 -- - i
,
3'81 3.83 i
3.70
.5 3.73 37, 3.75 W ,
j
3.68
i
g 3.58
3.50 -- 3 44
- - _ -
- 149 - - -
l
0 327
Se _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Y e -
5m he 4 } 8 9 1 : e
as R s i 4 f A
!
I ;
$$ 43
ji il j k1 5j
J
E
a f 3
"i
3 3 ji
[i! l'
!j
; 3 !
K b >
5
ii
h
! E
5
]i
0
15
$
! ] :
$h* ! } $
i
Areas Evaluated ,
4/16/97
!
!
I
.
_ _ _
s.~..-.~~.-m.--._m.-- . _ ~.m-~_ -
______m. .. . _ . - . _ ._~ ~ ~ ._ _
l ! l
! ! l lgp m m egg gg 1
, * .,
- o
l ! cn
; -
;
\
e
7 i
i ~ S
m E
'
-
< v
ci, $
.
h i ii i! y b
:' o
^
! 3g3 , . , . .
1 - :
o
,
n .
[M
'
?_ ?t ,
'
1 l l 4
s
& J[.) W.
'
i 5 -
C I5$k
*C $$G W6 h
U
*
4 ? .
E
3
a - E
n n
.
M4 n u :
8 p&gf re f$.- E paiWh.4 0
,
.
e:
! $ o .-
.
' bN f a < i B
0 o g%i.g R$
l I
b C/) wF:. 1 .9%
:%
%,M., ;4 d.g/iN i %li['MM ...
y
rT ,* .- s 63.; yr.g.'.;;e
- eM 6v.. ptV enh4 v.kp:? 4MWp
.
-
i %nt >, ..
-ww. e.; . . < . 3 .u.1:>}e..
7.
-
nk q ~.e np
f ,4 d
O N[n[. I'(s'k 2 $'bhh37. I NN N, : Nhj::,i ,[$"' --
~.hff 87h?y[$ i,
...
3
. -
s nb
Pi .s+~ng,,te
rn n 9m
u
,
e
'
x O %% 9. aM s?MDM,%:.$a C3 - W,n
*
,o
.
"
~
mew .u w v
~ 1: ' /'- M$' '.M DE $M 'w.'454. Tsi:. 3
: w
~
a ~g,p
a
i.Rs 5 63
p g
FEM
Jgd..vc -fa WN.tc 4.w3f;
'
'?
'
,
, -
i% z e;;< pv;g M
vM -,
.
y - y.. '
-
g F
. ;gi,
:63 ye 12
Q ;q1 } ( f .:.6 T$ .W "
,
O
ff
; '"
'
.!
'
..'c 5 CQ
C4 di
.
3
-
Q
,
. -
-
.
I sn
m ,~ *.
-
a
F
E,4. Hva. _4 &
: #a
'Mi
o
H
%eWW'
Q{}s.t.' }'y ki U
\ * * l k.h 'c b ? ! sp?# .' en a 5 e> $}5%e p'li. j- k d0.? 4 .S.g)f Q,N'] g:q,, . I
& -bg$ +w
\ . Ow& en wy
Y- h Y$$
'l y
h
! N. ?$$bdkkh$ Nlh5hi 0 l
1
m. m . m. ,;ew., g&.^l~;m.. w,.,~ w w e ,n,
' ' % . .. :-a. y,jt.
.-
: ..
.'
< .iD - :-r:: *P .e s 2. ?m,o *
w:, .m. . a. . ,
,
,
'c <r;y 'q . .
" ~ Q. :' '-
! 6 i i i e i .
. "+ ?; . i i
i 8 W 8 M 8 W @ $ $ W @
i m , , , y n n n n e4 e4
1 l
i
! ! ,
.
-- -
.. _ - - _ _ . _ - _ _ __-- ----,_.,_._.- .- -.. .-..~~%,.m+.um-w_A=~_m.-um
1 l l i i
1
!
!
k Isk kkdNN ? I
'
g
. i i
4 n
" '
s
j T LD
t"
// #!
-
i
y I
e.
-
:
,
N
i
- o- I'~ r' , o o '3 e v
X
'
[* @ 8
f'
6. i <
! o ca o p
.=
en
l 0 F) J " Q. i
(3 c> 'r .
rpr 4
O l
Y
'
.
C m; u.. b.x .s a.
.
3c 18 .
IM,[.r[Mi dr MM N M
F $1rk!c f.
M
i
e:x
C
k.mb%[N #m$hn)h. .
w
l
r .C
. O :@ 5944%9 .m a . .
.pdf
. 3
1
l
l L -[';; *.,d.t W.UF L '
;y;W.. y a \
.
*
g. D l
*& .
b iSQ Q' ' l?*'
'
!$
j ** O m. MM f Tg $1*1 4 E ) 0 kf.,. h.'$fit i , e
w
e ~ .A.,m%%g. w.O Nh
z.
Fr q.cc ,v.:n !,%> m w. fh
Vy 2
m.m
W ::x
'* -
.
'
swfb% ha.1:
*
'. . !:
- a
.
i .
O
.
o *0
,
. . . "3.[,N, h.4,.
n.,i* I$.fh.;.
, - ,
; ,. .,., $,.i. .. h
& C
.
l
(. . .El 5 Y~' !y"?j:le
,
ij;, hT.' {,*1 l," }] e 3.Y.f.f:f h.Y,(}c ~ -
,' 'f
U
c-
m.w$$i" *:d{,i
~
}., h i
2
*
C
.
tt SYZ.7.
e
' m% J. 5 i e, e I M J6..>.d w.u.,a; sg
paed'n('IdhIk-igb
'
$, y .%B !$fW.55$h
,
: '~
> "iM 6gMij@35$ $p,
-
- C ;G W# M h esm
. i c .w o <
>
,
ew(c'Th,i,r.g ;$ g4.b
.
j
[ '
* ,-? S'$ O' -
?
.
I
k O
'
'
h, Ng>h?, ?(ll hy \h? . ;.;
- *".n*
r m -
' !;
-
pR,,$s.# :--
D
&.147 ci
.
- C "lde; it ir 3r n r wg.,
"
% .i .4 MC Mf
*
t% dw
- M:y Vi . E.m,,Q',4*M
'
O W ,,
C in ,M$:2ke
- i es=e
. . . .
w_,.. , a ..p*. p Q y@-
cn m ## '. t
4 .
..
,
& % 14 % y,; ppy. Ji
;'g'ah2 3 g;- l
i
l
7* w
h J'.& ," ..<
.'
.-p. tD
. MJ
,
i ~ .?
N/Lgi
1Rv';j&'
G *
G cl.$)5
c0
@;;:. , i.%ii4:
.
5%Q:
,&c )
_
CD
y
,i f ;'
w U
.
,
@ a,$ '.'s.,?.: FLY... ..l'tir.~k
6*.
?N .. *
.h.
.
f
k, . th' .
.
y u.e ,
u - :
t
e p
j U i
"
N
%. Eh ~
o
-
,
2; q$d,g@M -F -
. ,
mit
. ty
m.v.
-ipt - M/g
m, 3 .
>
(
4.(5,
r p 4d rp
'-
lW;.J. i's i $
.i- - , ' ,c,.f.e# -' ' :~_1;? 4% g.4 <re
f.'.'Ug
$*;#ja . 3
v
*
J.
,t
;
,, '; mv yd.. f, s
W.
y .
,
{ . n
em i
n.y. .-=.um.
a
f.- m . .v t ,. .: ,4, % ' a
i
. . ,. . . . w r
.a. x.
.
4 4 6 i
o o g g
4 4
I C
to
h. 9 . .
to
h. 9
O q
P.
C
C.
to
5
o
9
1
i
to n n n ~s m m m m o n
.
lt
A
f
a.
, - .- -
- q,, - -
I
.
, Tactical Plan Elements *
MEASUREMENTS
'
'
.- -
:
Human ErrorPropensity Index
i \ \
Applicability ]
'
l l The purpose of;the Human Error Propensity Index is to determine i
\
- time indicat. ors allow management .
ents and
toea react to
also help moititor the direction of an organintion during significant ch
,
'
The Propensity Index (PI) looks for the prevalence oferror drivers
perceived time pressure, weak lateral integration, etc.) and error catchi
reduction techniques, field surveillance, etc.) to establish the likelih{
.
problems. '
Process i
The meaning of the index and the data collection processes should
communicated to the involved parties in advance of the actual data collec
.
addition, the survey process should include a feedback method to de
issues that wbuld detrimentally effect the PI results.
achieve statistical significance),20 of which are
-
i
supervisors. 'Ihe results.of the evaluation, which can be obtained by eit
questionnaire, are then used to establish the baseline score. l
The changes in the PI score correlate strongly to the changes in the h
the organization. Therefore ifa changeis d t t d
, i
e ec e management has the opportunity to
respond immediately. In addition, the scores have been benchmarked to t
industry values and scores above 60 require immediate
severe events are imminent. est action, s
* *
Timing- .
Measures will be established prior to startup and be periodically asseszd t
performance improvements.
!
( .
.-._....-----~_.,,m . m....,_,.~._,..,.,.m..w.m._-,_ - .-- .ma...s_.mu...am.=4.- wsu-- -
___..a_.-~.
l i l v l 4 l l
QAE f.SE
r I 4.M'3
3 - ,
3 '" ;
~ 4 MW3 '56% ^' , 3
{ b e M[w.t% '
'l M -* -
^'
..,:
' 3fM
&
!
.S$.h( ,g'8E$
5h .,.
g
,
'
JV O
..
l 7, .jp , , m g m.pt Wl4,v,.h.
a; ... g,. ., L..e ,. . e
. . .
,
-
v ,
h3
r ?, ?i,
.4
>
23
? f
,
c.n Ta'* .r. ,: h4
Eh *
.
-<-
5 k.,{6$ Y' > h d' NNy.;
m
om 2
d::.r:>(
:EP, .*g$@M
s n. ^ 2 k: . .
y
^ s ,,
M }b{ ., . I .n,'e . h, .
N#5
' ,.
_
,,,y. g.
as
,,
, ' . . -
:#j- ~ ~ -
d k) I . hf
1 % , !M?! if.p i
bD ' '
l:~ '
MN *
* W!
w4.. m
.C.
s
- - odj,IIf,:.
.m- r y l
Q Q *
* '& C'QslJ. t u '
.
o O
'
t .?' .B. 94f6fx.,, . ..
**
U
.Y
.
.
Y;hk1 , k
e w
>
e
-
v .
-
.u.v..
:1 m )f
- ! p, h g.e w %'.5 mA
$ C* kh., "
.
,c m .
/ c.m m .,; ....iy , [ i,kh h
# <C ,
I~ 95:;O;YM NV; ?]y T a:,i..ar ,h '/;
7
O
. w .. +: u -
--- - - - - - - -
&
.
& '
~
<z.. <,m .~
- & '. ; }?,&, m.u;
WA .{'5..f.~t:
..a a@,;t.,f
*
NA kl,1 @... >
$
see
Q
., g.
{,pf,.;., f,h u
! G o
a
'
W
p -y 'ph
b,"
g, g ,sf gn'
'WG %L%: g.LlSL
X * *'n',\ yp:? ' J.'W:;y,y ,l % x,e:;~; b: N,
.
'
w
' ?: a .
1 18 -
%gt ;gn
l, - d ', ss .. lf4 i.,1$:i h$?.p .- }D: l5R" y ~~'.l" E!E?,& "L' t.0 ~?$5-
- ~
i *=* -y s .wi .s <9. . ; ~-
-
} ,,:l', C., .:,^,- r <. . . :s
,'. , .g;e.2y; ,gki3yy v;qy;,' c. $.wg,=4.qg y w.y gs a.m
"
_d U
-
1 0 -
b, . .
,q ["" .
*~
. (,) ', ....._.
. .; - 9,, ~ g;g .w e;4;, y.g ., c 3
e
,
w. .. . . \ U
i tr; w *
'l $; :UE .
- -
a a$q ... plV Y.Q:a m G{$m.
f
c ?*l<l
.n%:
.
M. :f 7!,'
.
5,%. %ff; MHi
e e r,w gm
& :E ':
- O a
:
2 * O .-,~.
' ,- a a
; g- .M.y :ib.JW@ "* is
- .,
fi i
h '
f yw;he .g:40hf'hI[ [h ,,
w
.
a '
. a. . . w go '
o.
C=
3.dik i.';W' L- i 4,j ], : *f.'y$. ~ k ;Y
.'?? \
i:s.s , - $
y
Q o.T9fy.'G ;9 3
~.. . r. 1 a .w} O
.D'.h'
. -,& ; .
,
~ n;: Th & %.
?
.
f
x. m .u h2:^)f
%ph .gna Nh. . ONO m~ . %.. w mw-m .
t,
W .,
'
', :); _
,,,-->
f.lfQ f Q &
WdMidd?M
..~: - Wycw e
i- <
S f bi.h d' i
-
' B
1 !i .. E
~-U .g ? WQ 5.$l&
JM.s. ng q.jM t,
G
':h . ', c
'
_;,
I
4 i L b n r
C tri O W O W O m
5
l t i
9 C W O
m
N. 9 N 9 b. 9 N 9 9
e n n v m m m m N
.
N
- - . . . - . . - ~ . _ . . _ . - ... -..-.-.--..- -
. -.. . - - -----.-- ....-..---- - . ..- . . .
-
Gonis
Startup: 3
Long Term: 3.5
Maintenance Task Performance Checklist
4
35 3.4 -
-. 3 4 -- -- - - - _ - _ . . _ _ ..- 3,4
3.1
3 .. - - -._.- . . _ . _
. . .
, ,
.e
15
y
.
-
g2 -- _ . . _ - - - -- . __ _
o
15 - - - - - - - -
_
- - . -~
,
- --- - -
.. .. .
1 l
l
os - _ - --
-- ; - - - -- -
-- 7
t
0 - 5 -
STANDARDS PROFES$10NAUSM SAFETY R ADCONTROLS TOOL USE SELF CHECKING OOCUMENTATION
AREAS EVALUATED
4/16/97
. _ . - _ . _ . - _ ._ - _ _ .-. . . _ . _ - . _ _ _ .___-_ _ - _-
Goals
Startup: 3
Maintenance Task Performance Checklist tong rerm: 3.5 .
Overall Performance
40
35
3.2
3.1
30
2.5 -
t
l
2.0 - '
i 1.5 -
. 1.0
l ' !
0.5 -
"
i
'
I
- . , -- - -
i
-
---
00- i
Feb Mar Aptd May June July
t
GRADING SCALE l_ D TRT^t- !
4 - Excellent
3
2
1 - Unsat
4/16/97 i
t
I
!
.
.
' Goais !
Startup: 3
Maintenance Task Performance Checklist Long n= 3.5
I
Procedure Usage and Adherence
4.0 -
*
3.6
3.5 - 3.4
3.0
25
0
.I b 2.0 !
e
o
1.5
1.0
0.5
. .
0^ i .
4 Feb Mar Apra May June July l
GRADING SCALE [__._ne'T6TA
,
4 - Excellent
3
1 - Unsat
4/16/97
,
.
i 7
)
~ ~
- -www !
:
'
o $ 8 $ $ $ $ 0uououo
'
6
, , , - ' l
.
'
i
i ,
i
1/20 - ;
12/9/96 w w 1 "+w - w /w* r -.
; l i
l
I i
1 2/3 ---
~ i
,
-
l 1 OI
i 12/23/96 iMiHEiWiEMMEB5DE c4 S
'
~
I e i
E
2/17 --u a
m.2
l. , f
,
, , 5,
.
4
l .
3/3 --.~ m, z c gi
1/6/97 w o m % m e ntses e
.
I{ii
'
' i
E' E
_
, ,
5- ca
!
l
> u
{j 3/18 < > < - m .i ~ "
3*
i (
i i o' I '
j
'
O
1/20/97 wrmsuum:xnwa E a/2 m_.- .c 0
.
x .
3
i l a
-
I,! ' 4
4l16 O
.
l' l Q ~- nu , a _
2/3/97 newesn wwowN 5- %
u"z O
O
&
" oeoooo
uu s v, 3
! 2/17/97 wwore.*omweg4
-
O
-
g h 1/20 1
.-.. .y - - >
$,
,. 7o i.
'
. o.
-
i a. 3/.,> wx
-
o
3/3/97 w etew e ce w e u .i
~
- . _., _
2 3
~~ i ! ,
o, o
"*
-
1 1 o g
'. 2/17 - - >
=. i m
*
*
-
i = ,
(N
i 3/18/97 - - - -
=a I --
! Oi
; - ,
i. 3/3 - > - - - , a I
,
-
, ; a i
l ; e. l
5'
--
i
'
V :*.w.=2 c"a
i
' 3/13 _--i ! "
4/2/9.7 --
t
y - -I
--
l
4/2
4/16/97 : =.... -- ='<5
. . . .
4/16 1 --m-"'
,
c-
o eo
u o
h A
c E
t d
o
D -
, s - u
W . u
, e -
>
< d
' O, e
c Q
N n c-
O
E
-
>
m
m&
l -
a 3O c
A
oo
a
W
^ .a
1 3
q- - , ---e . , - r - - - -
,-c, . v-- - - - -
. > . _ . . ._ . . _ _ _. ... . _ _.. .
. G=ls
Startup: 0 Outage R:straint MWRs
Long Term: Average Age <!82
Days
'
SYSTEM READINESS MA TERIEL DEFICIENCIES
100-
90 -
80 - New Indicator: Numbers based on Strategic
70 - Recovery Plan element reviews.
$ 60 -
y 50
2 40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
4/18/97 4/25/97 5/2/97 S/9/97 5/16/97 5/23/97 30-May 6/6/97 ,
DATE
aoo .. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE MWR AGING !
MONTHLY ,
summmusMWR Average Age (Days)
p 250-
<C - - - MWR Average Age Goal
O
200 --
2E . . . .. ... -
m
Q 150 --
w
100 --
'
50 - This is a new indicator beginning in 1997.
O , , , ,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ,
1996 1997 .
4/16/97
.
w_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________._._________m._ __
- _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. - . . . - . - . ..- . . - . _ .
t
,
NUMBER
o m o G o O
l
NOVEMBER tf
i
i
DECEMBER G [
JANUARY $
FEBRUARY G ,
..
!
d
'
MARCH c O i
.
> ;
,
r :
*
-{
8
'
APRIL d ;
!
' A i
'
4
3
i
i s yay
m
,
f
"
E 5 I
8 O i
5 E
O !
3 JUNE (f) [
__ i
Z !
@
JULY
.
> I
__
r !
r
,
AUGUST
m !
Q [
t
..
i
SEPTEMBER
~
h
l .- '
[
,
OCTOBER f
p
r- to o
l '
0 5 o
A
S 3c E wi t
N NOVEMBER MEtA i
f
- 3' ce
i c) ' f
r
l N .@ *
O k
"
DECEMBER [
1 ,
L
p
t
i f l '
r
t
,
I
>
I
~ - - _ . . . . - - --.m.-,_.____ _ _ - - . _ . - _ - - - _ _ . - - - - . - - _ _ - . - - -- -
i
NUMBER
o w o G U U a U $ $ o
l l I l
November JN!.*l. N,[f.:;,l -[ f- G !
;
1
5
t
I
December G
l .
'
January J ' , '. .-
-
..:.,.
t., .- .r . ' ,';c . 9. ...,
G
,
r
! !
February '[ '{ [;.t f.,f 'f; l- 0 .
l
O !
March
_. . . . . . . ..
. . . ' ~ . . .'.-'T cm
m ,
, = . - . . . . . . .
@ l
l
,
!
i
! -
>
H
-
Apni .
l l
l
Q l
, 2
g mv
E , o
z
'
'
'
x
June
! O !
Jufy C
i
Z {
O )
'
August
I
(/) l
I
d i
,
September l
*
,
r
October
o G o
d3 3c E.,
d
a
V '
a g IA t
-
) November .. o ,
Ch *
U
N o
@ v
M
December '
P
P
....--.,-e-_..-- , . - . - - . m e_, .o - . _ - , _ - , , . - . . - . - , - . . . , . , , . - - - . . _ . . - _ . . . - , . _ - - - - - . . - - +
. . _ . _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ .
.
- Gosts l
Startup: 0 Without a Completed t
Safety Evaluation
t
Long Term: TBD
l.
;
Long Term Tagouts
100 -
90 - ----
;
80
NW ,
'
69
70 % gg ,
$ 3 ,
$
O
60 - - - - - - - - -
h
g 50 - - -
5
$ 40 - 1
5 _E_lllIIEMI
,
30 - - - - - - - - - -
f
-
,
i
20 -- - - - - - - ~
16-
14 ,
i
'
10 --8
' ' *
0-
-
- -- - - -
10-Mar-97 24-Mar-97 7-Apr-97 21-Apr-97 5-May-97
[ BTotal Long Term Tagouts E Tagouts with Completed 50.59 l
4/16/97
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
REFUELING OUTAGE TGT6L 00 TAG EVEN (RF6)$ -ISTARTS/FINISHESISCHEDULE PERFORMANC
CURRENT SCHECULE --- (IB)
24000}
'22000 -
T.-~~~~~~~~~""
-
.
.E.,
20000 - .
*
_
_ ... o
a
9 18000-
' ~
f
I6000-
E 14000 - y
O
N b
*
U
*
M i2000- . . -urns __ .
10000- '.
E
v
8000 {
.
E :
N e
T 6000 -
'
g 3
e g
.
4000- [
?
O.
.
2000-
04,__.,......._,__ - , . . . , - . . . . . . . _ . . , . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . , _.,.. . . , . . . . , . . , . . . . , . _ . . . . , . , . . ..,.. . . . . . . , . _ . . , . _ . , . _ . , . _ . . , . . . . . . . . . . _ , _ . . . , . . _ , . . . . . . , . _.,
1 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 0 ,1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 1
0 7 4 1 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 2 9 6 3 0 6 3 0 7 6 3 0 7 3 0 7 4 I 8 5 2 9 5. 2 9
0 0 G G .. T4 ;4 i4 0 0 0 0 J J J J J F F F F M M M N A A A A M MM M M J J J
C C C C 0 0 0 0 E E E E A A A A A E E E E A A A A P P P P A A A A A U U U
T T T T V V V V C C C C N N N N N B 8 8 0 A R R R R R R R Y Y Y Y Y N N N
STATUS LINE END OF LINE
o - BASELINE 11856 !!856
a - PCTUAL 19182 19182
o - PROJECTED 19312 22458
.
4/16/97
.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - __--_ -. -- _- . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ __
- - . - - - - _ _ - _ - . _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - _ - _ - - _ -
Number of a(1) Maintenance Rule Systems by Quarter
,
1st Qtr 96 2nd Qtr 96 3rd Otr 96 4th Qtr 96' 1st Qtr 97
ECCS CK VLVS ECCS CK VLVS ECCS CK VLVS ECCS CK VLVS ECCS CK VLVS
CNTMT SYS CNTMT SYS CNTMT SYS CNTMT SYS CNTMT SYS
IP SYS IP SYS IP SYS IP SYS IP SYS ;
CM SYS CM SYS CM SYS CM SYS CM SYS l
t
RR SYS RR SYS RR SYS RR SYS RR SYS f
RCIC SYS RCIC SYS RCIC SYS RCIC SYS RCIC SYS
CD SYS CD SYS CD SYS CD SYS CD SYS
LD SYS LD SYS LD SYS LD SYS LD SYS ,
CW SYS CW SYS CW SYS CW SYS
LL SYS LL SYS LL SYS
-
FP SYS
,
f
' 3y
12
10 j
'$
.
10 -g- - - -
10
; --
$ 8 ,
Y i Yf !
.
!
l3 l %Ij-
{- 6
'
-
fj d^4 '
i
'
-
'
/; '.;,
. .' i
-
4 - . - l-
.
-
2
- - - - -
f . - ----
'
f,T ..
2nd Otr 96 3rd Otr 96 4th Otr 96 ist Otr 97
! 1st Otr 96
! I
Calendar Quarter ,
4/16/97 I
!
:
t
i
,
_ - _ _ _ . . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - - - - - - -
_ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _
. _ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
1 ,
* . Go:is
Startup: <!25, None Startup -
Related -
'
TOTAL SIGNIFICANT CCFs t.ong rerm: <50 - I
OPEN BY MONTH
100 -- ,
i
- (Estimated) Criteria -
,
to be established 1
87
.
75 --
,
.
.
b -o-1997
0 50 .
8 .
-1996
= 44 :
t
' '
37 .!
;
'
25 --
!
15
=3 =3 4 55 C,
O4 1- l l --l - -I" -
-- - -l- - --i l l l ; i
z to E [ >- Z 8
0 n. I- > 0
< Lu ( Q. < D D 3
-m-
W O b W ;
, LL s < 2 7 ' < O. z o .f
*
,
4/16/97
:
i
.
. _ - _ - _ - . . ~ . . - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . -___-_- _ _._~____. - . . - - - . - -
. . . _m..m_____ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .
Total CPS Procedure Changes
500
450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i 415
i
400
E 350 -- - --- - - - - -
en
i E E PJumber of Procedure
*"9'S
b300 - - -- - -
Total Procedum Changes
,
y t
260 Since September-96 = 1533
, f
0
226 '
5
~
jgg -
180
l200
_o
i' E
3 150 - - - - L40 _ ____
132
i, .
100 -
I ,
50 j-
4 j 0 ' ' '
t !
Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 .
Month
!
2/ 16/97
.
l
4
k
l
- - - - - . . . . . . _ - . . _
_ - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - . _ _ _ - - -- - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - . - . - - - . - . - - . . . . . . . . - - - - - - . - . . . . . _ _
_ - _ _
.
:
! Condition Reports Associated With Procedure Violations l August 1996 through March 1997
100 -
/' i . e,oceae,e vietsiien. l
,0_
----------
,
120 - '
--
.
-
j 100-
!
- -
3 / i 80- '
_ _ _
,.
l 60 . / 4 _
_
l '
,
40_.
- - !
p
20-
!
96 Aug 96 Sep 96 Oct 96 Nov 96 Dec 97 Jan 97 Feb 97 Mar
4/16/97
:
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
. . _ _ . . . _ . - . _ . . . . ._m_. ~_ . - . - _ . - . . _ . _ . . . . - .~.--_-m.._..
......-....._.mm-._-..__..._---~.,
'
I
Condition Report initiation Rate
f
450 i
437
424
l
f
' D Condrtion Report initiation Rate
'
E Human Performance Rate ; ;
4 i
C3% HP Ratio '- .
I
_ _ _
350 --- - - _ . _
, __- _ _
!
.;
I
05 )
296
300 ___ _ . . _
280
250 __
42
22,
04 209 l
93
200 _
l
66 f
52 l
tso _
l
'
iii
f
,
,
100 - _-
j
5 9 73
72 59 10 is
-
4 -
t
-
l
l 50 -- - - - - -
,
[
.]
'
0-- - - - - -4--,
l
Jum96 Jub96 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97
4/16/97
'
[
!
!
m ._ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ . . . . _ . - - - _ . - _ . _ . _ _ _ - . - _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ __ - _ . _ - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . m...._ ... . .
-
Goals
Long Term: Average Age <l80
Significant Condition Reports U*"
.
- - - - . . _ . - - . . . . . -
50
so ;
-
45 44
alssued --
_ i
. .
B Closed
40 _
_
3,
,
gn ,.
_
35
D Open with Plan (Cumulative) 1 _ - -
~ [.
O Open without Plan (Cumulative) -'
M'
- - -
-
-
30 30 '
. ,j
30 --- - -. - -
. e; - i
25
-
25
'
b. .I I
$8 !
.
22 ,
J'
-
.,c. v -
,_ .
20 ' :^
.
-
16 :=L . .'.
^
:. ?':::
n - P4 14 E.
'
-
, 9 I Q '
10 ')s
U $ ' ~
'
' 14 ' I'
10 - A
d
' * ,
-
-
fi F -
% y - ;*) A {j
.
-
_~ .- y!; f e . .t X ,.
-
' '
# $p
5 -y- i? 7 $
Q
,! -
1
Nf '
[[
f
-
ff -
I
'?-~. k-
0- - {- -- i --
} '
m---+-
} .
-
$
--{-- -
-- -
0
- i --
l-@.
- - - - -
M t
Aug-96 Sep-wd Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 I
*
Average Days Open for Signr6 cant Condition Reports
123 t
120 ----------------
-
102 y
100 95 - -
~
84 !
~~
80 -
l
p I
61
60 - - - - - - - - - -------- -
;
45
42 ,
;
40 }.p? ; .'.i . -- -
: .; 7
_ ( r
>
. _ 3 .- .
_
l;_ :[
rEI
20 --------
~d
~ ~ ~ ' - '
0 '
i i i !
l Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 ,
,
6
4/16/97 !
)
i
!
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _
...-..- . . - . . - . . . . . . -- - . . . - . . . - . - - . - - . - . - . . - - . ~ .
Startup: 0 Outage Restraint CRs !
Startup Restraint Open Condition Reports
!
80
lQ Open Restraints l 74
70 - - - -
[
t
60 -- - - - - - - - - - ----
"As of [
50 -- ---- --
i
y 44
#2
3 41 [
40 - - - - - - - -
h
E ! 35
3 : ;
'
30 -- - - ----
f
:
20 - - - - -
'
0 ;
}
Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97
End Of Month i
4/16/97
'
!'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ - _ ___ __-_ _ _ _____- ___ _ ____ _-______.
,
.
o -
S@lf Idsntification Rate
90 %
Y 'm.
/ \
/ \
" '"*"
-
80% [
---
O pin op /
x
g ,,,on.
( """O "RadakmProceren
-x s.. / \
! O \
70% --\- ,_,
s
/
\ y' 's o \
\ f
' '
g /
/
,/ ,# .N, o
\
60 % \ '
y '~ %- '
l
/ f \\s\ , / [ 1'
,
, \
/o
\.N
/
% \
7 1 . x._
-
7- x . . v4.(/ -
s .,
50%
~'
#
/ * %~M * --- "" -*
'
s
\ \ o
/ .
\ /
40% o
\ /
\
'
/
\ /
\ /
30 % E }
\ /
\ /
h/
20 %
96 Sep 96 Oct 96 Nov 96 Dec 97 Jan 97 Feb 97 Mar
4fi6/97
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___-__-___- _ ____. - - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
,. -
HUMAN PERFORMANCE / TECHNICAL CCFs
25-
l j 20 - '
15- j
1
f
.
E Human Performance
E Technicalin Nature
i
10-
.
' '
!
5-
.
Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97
4/16/97
!
i
,
!
1
'
$lartup: <10%
,
Radiation Worker Performance Long Term: <10%
20.00
t
18.00 !
!
16 00 .--- --- -_
!
'
' ;
14 00 -- - - - - -
I
to
5 12 09
= 12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
h 11.16 ('
8
h 10.00 -
10 00
3 - - - - - - - ---- - -
t
E
S I
.o 1
,
e i
n. 8 00 -- -- - .-- - --
Y
t
'
6.31
l
6 00 - - - - - --- - -
< i ! ! 4 00 - - - - ~ - -
2.67
t
! 6
'
2 00 -- - - - - -
g --
0.84 .
j
, 0.00 0.00 r
0.07 t
0.00 -
-'
-
3rd Quader 96 4th Quarter 96 1st Quader 97 i
D RCA Exit Problems a Frisker Use Probicms OPCM Problems O GAMMA 10 Problems
_ _ . _ - ._ - -- _._._
,
4/16/97 !
,
!
. _ _
.. . .- . . _ . - . . - - . - . . . . . _ _ . . . - . . . . . . _ . - - - . - - .. - .-
.. - '
,
!
'
ATTACHMENT C
.,
j
.
J
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY (IP) l
.
3
MEETING WITH THE NRC
1
ON STATUS OF
i
STRATEGIC RECOVERY PROGRAM (SRP) i
l
FOR CLINTON POWER STATION (CPS)
May 1,1997
_-
- . _ . _ . ._ _ _. .
;
_
.
,
., <
,
Y
AGENDA
.
<
*
INTRODUCTION
.
OVERALL STATUS AND RESULTS TO-DATE
*
HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND PROCEDURE
.
COMPLIANCE
! -
Management Expectations
! -
Training
j - Procedure Enhancements l '
-
Observations, Monitoring, and Oversight
'
-
Performance Measures
-
Update of Performance Measures
- 4
-
Feedback and Corrective Actions
.
MATERIEL CONDITION
*
NRC COMMENTS
. *
CONCLUSIONS
4 3 %
i
< i e
. . .
- .
1
INTRODUCTION
-
1
!
. STRATEGIC RECOVERY PL AN(SRP) TO
PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE RESTART
i
AND RECOVERY PLANS i
l
'
l '
. SRP DESCRIBED IN 4/18/97 MEETING
.
. READINESS REVIEWS ARE IN PROGRESS
l
. RESTART ON MAY 30,1997 i
!
!
_. - . . _ _ _ _ _ .._ .. _ . . _ .. _. _ _ ._ . _ _
, ,
'
1
i
OVERALL STATUS AND
RESULTS TO-DATE
i '
e STATUS OF STARTUP READINESS
.
ACTION PLAN
.
l
l
.
!
SRP READINESS REVIEWS
.
.
TURN-AROUND TEAM HAS
AGGRESSIVELY EVALUATED
DEPARTMENT IEVIEWS
~
.
RESULTS TO-DATE
_. . .- . . - . . _ - . . _ - - . . -.
, _
-
.
1
HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND
l PROCEDURF, COMPLIANCE
= GOALS OF SRAP NOT FULLY MET '
l
= SRPINCLUDES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
. OVERALL ACTIONS HAVE INCLUDED:
- Management Expectations
- Training
- Procedure Enhancements
- Observations, Monitoring, and Oversight
- Performance Measures
- Feedback and Corrective Actions
-. . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ , -
i . .
'
MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS 1
.
ON HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND
l PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE , s . 1 i J
e MANAGEMENT'S EXPECTATIONS ARE: -
! ! - Questioning Attitude
- Conservative Focus on Safety
i
- Strict Procedure Compliance
- - Self-Checking
! !
-
*
l MANAGEMENT HAS COMMUNICATED 4 i
ITS EXPECTATIONS
! 4 i
- Stand Downs
- Management Charter on Safety !
- Performenee Principles
- Revision to Procedures on Procedure
Compliance
:
,
. .. . . . _ . _ ._ _ _ ____._._._ _ _
,
.. ; _ . .
*
.
1
TRAINING ON HUMAN
.
PERFORMANCE AND
P~R
OCEDURE COMPLIANCE
i !
.
TRAINING SEMINARS ON PROCEDURE
.
COMPLIANCE
! !
- .
TRAINING ON NEW PROCEDURE ON
- PROCEDURE USE '
i
'
i
.
l BRIEFINGS ON SAFETY AND ] CONSERVATIVE DECISION MAKING i ! .
.
] ,
HUMAN ERROR IGDUCTION TRAINING
I
$ i !
i
i
. _
-
l .-
l
PROCEDURE ENHANCEMENTS
* REVIEWS TO ENHANCE PROCEDURES ,
'
e REVIEWS AND ENHANCEMENTS
INCLUDE: l
l
- Exercise of Frocedures
i
- Review Procedures !
,
- Reviews of Surveillance Procedures
.
.
ENHANCEMENTS TO PROCEDURE ~l
- REVISION PROCESS
c , 1 '
l
l
i i < s
,
1
;
I
. - _. . _ . - . .
__
-
.
i 4 i
OBSERVATIONS, MONITORING,
- AND OVERSIGHT OF -
~
i
l , HUMAN PERFORMANCE
AND RROCEDURE COMPLIANCE
i ;
l
i } l = POLICY AND GUIDANCE ON
- MANAGEMENT / SUPE'RVISORY
I - ,
OVERSIGHT
! ! l = TRAINING TO MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS
- e OPERATIONS IN-PLANT CREW
j MONITORING ! !
= MAINTENANCE MONITORING
. USE OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSORS
.- - . .- . - - - . . - - -.- . - . -
.
~
-
.
.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR
HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND .
PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE
.
* PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR HUMAN
PERFORMANCE AND PROCEDURE
} .
COMPLIANCE
! ! ! * NO SIN'GLE MEASURE IS CONCLUSIVE i
-
j . DEFINITIONS ESTABLISHED TO MAKE i MEASURES OBJECTIVE i ,
- . , . - --
_ - _ _ _ - _ .. .. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __ --_- -
%
.
m
-
.
EVENT-FREE PERFORM 4NCE Average number of days
3o "
between Human Performance
i > Number of Human
Performance Events Events is a 90-day rolling
- - -
Goal
'
25
The numerical values indicate
-
Average number of days
the number of days since the
between events
previous Human Performance
Event.
........................................ ............................
20 -
Goals: '
The short-term goalis 21 days
g between events.
y 15 -
o A long-term goal has yet to be
established.
10- !
S-
5
20 34 13
18 3 30
o .h. . . ....O.O. . . h. . .h. .h.
. . .. .
s c s s s s s s r- N s s N N
s3$8 $ $
5 5 9
8
a 8 $ $ fj $ ^R S 8 $ $
a a a L M e S 8 8 R R
- -
--
^ E E E m S
5 5 5 V V '
owner: P. D. Yocum EVENT DATE
4/30/97
.
-- _ s. _ _ _ _ _ _ .r- _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-
l , ,' [ ti ; '
!' !! i.
.
..
~
.
- _
_
_
4
t
6-
3 ed
Er[s']
- l3i.! u IM5' l'
0:l ~i
%
!3 !I
n -
e
m -
evy r -
e yr o o
r pt c -
m t o a
e n t
ci mf 5
4 y94 ,
h le
c fa si s t 3 i2( 3
s lec isd
t es a -
a x aen
n E SNU e
e.
i
d
a - ~
r 0
- - - 2 i1:l
000 -
G 5 321
f:. (i:fi3
E -
!? I
GC 7
NN sgba$
! l
1
h7l 13
de! ildhilI
-
3 !
ia 1{i
i ,l
! , l
I A -
RM
O
2
6
- h.E9$s? -
,-
-
. f$FWM
f48 M !buf~ i
T R
I O
3
-
NF
OR 7
3
5
5 -
_[2M9$ahhy$dMpd" Wfga3%
.
n 9 sj
9 :j P"
9
MEP
/
8
2
/
4 g$ FE ks 0 { Ig @d W%M' $3 RE3m+r5
i -
!i !l&
D
E
T
A
W
E W
F
O
U
L
RRE S
A
*- .Maf_ Mg$$[p4$Rh7h=#
k u $
e
i
ii1I
A
V
C
3
E
D
S C E
T 0
S
A
NEV A
D
2 m he$
3 $Ngik?WC29tm0A D d n
:V
r !i # E
R
A
O
I I
P
U 5
-
T T A
T
4
3 KG - hah s $g$5Qe[fe*
p
0i
tf
t.
.
;
.
.j
AA
.
! ia i j i-
A -
L D
RU
E
6
5
3
_yn 2 h- ,~ ia {#
PM
'
-
OU 5
" .-
C -
!i;I
'
2
6_
3 M'e i - ~l3if
.1f
gji
i!
1
w-
0
3
2 st#E
3 s
-
- iij i'
ta -
o 8 "
G 4 y8cN? - ' .a
p 3
-
2lpl8 ii
u
t
r -
a 4
t
S
6 .
3 .
y.
j '. I n " .
-
!: :$ g' $gqE*%- v ,
. -
!ni
! eli3 jj2 ""
'
0 0 0 o 0 0
5
4
0
3
x.
2
5 o. 5 0 7
1 t 0 o 9
/
oa
t
0
3
/
4
t
.
Ratings
o o - a ro to a w a x (n
N N N N N N N N N N N -
, , , , , . t
! ' ' ' ' ' '.
Professionalism & -
1 f
Attentiveness
l
l l
Nuclear Safety
~
l l 1
Verbal ;y ;-
Communications '
l
Procedure
Compliance
gg ;
l l l '
[
Oversight and Roles 171 -- - ==mei
!
M I *
l l l l l -
'
Reactivity Controls N N W V= ~ ~ T3W M S@MI l l
393= tmme j
' ! l l
aint & Sum gggytyfq4u,3gg,gggg,gg,,ygt9g3pgggggg l ! i
Q p
-
Activities
,
R vg m oingued. rwepi
'
m
! l l l ,
O i
!
N Pre-job Briefings M M EiM W h M & E W E M N e bl [ ;
o '##EsiW9M49M$iWMnWWws , m .
k k l ! l l l
$ Daily Surveillances Fl#~'"'7C L a- a.-71% '^ { 3
--
to
-. _ 22% o
M
e
a
n
:
Annunciator 'u . . . . . s..
Response I
- ..... N. . b N NN . . ..
..
#Y
. a ..n . .
l I
MCR Annunciator
g l
Status ; e
Problem l I
Identification
g '
, ,
'
-
-
i
Overtime Control !
'
l
Management '
Availability , l
l i !
Notification of ,
}
Authorities
- -._.L. . J _1 i .1 ' 'l _ ...
j 5
,
B B i
2O !
DR .
O>< >
!
(D '
+
-
.
V
- - , , , , . . . .#~.-,_.- . . . - - . . . .. - . , , . - , , - , . . , _ , , - - . _ - - - - - . , , - < - , . . - - - . , . . - . - . , - , , . . , , - , - - , . - y .- - . - , ,,
, , , - ,-.m-, .,--r-
. .
.
.
MAINTENANCE 7'ASK PERFORMANCE
Grade Scale
B Feb-97 O Mar-97 O Apr-97 E May-97 D Jun-97 E Ju!-97 O Aug-97 N Sep-97 a Oct-97 D Nov-97 E Dec-97
4.0 Excellent
3.0 Satisfactory
2.0 Needs
DATA UPDATED AS OF 4/28/97 Irnprovem,ent
40-
1.0 Unsat
3.5 - -
7
-
_ _ 1 7 6
.
-
I $ Startup Goal:
30 J -:
~
- --- ------ - ---- - - - - - -
'
--- - - ? ----- -$ - - 3.0
,
! j
'
-
} [i
2.5 - f
_
, c
-
2 i i
W
?
O 2.0 ? I -
"
$
8 i
i <
?!
t.S -
f
s
,k.
1.0 -
-
, f
,
7
'
}
's
0.5 -
f
.
^ 1
::
4'
0.o .
.
Standards Professionalism Safety Radiological ToolUse Self Checking Documentation ;
controls !
Owner A. E. Mueller
AREAS EVALUATED
,
4/30/97 I
- _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - . - - _ _ - _ ____ - - . _ . _ - . . - _ _ - . _ _ _ . = _ - - - =___- ._.
-
. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
TOTAL SIGNIFICANT OPEN
,5o 7 COMMENT CONTROL FORMS
Open
- - - Startup Goal 4/27/97
125 - - --------------
. . - Long-Terrn Goal
115
Goals.
!
Startup: Less than 125
100 - open Significant CCFs
.
87
h Long-Term: Less than 50
y open Significant CCFs
O 75 -
b
m
E t
3 !
Z
50 - - . .
4l
39
i
25 -
Ill37
15
11 !
4 5 4
3 3 2 -
1
0 E " '
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun *
Owner: D. M. Antonelli / H. Nodine 1996 1997
!
i 4/30/97 !
,
I
I l
t
- _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
. _ , . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
,
.
.
TOTAL CPS PROCEDURE CH4NGES
450- A Number of Revisions / PACS Total Procedure Changes Since
415 September 1996 = 1784
-
a Number of PDRs/TPDs -
400 -
,
350 -
W
O
k 300 4/27/97 .
'
260
'
g
% _ 251
250 -
Q llh 226
Lu j Mi
h [ W
x 200 -
Q- 180 180
k .
- *
$ !
'$ _
g !-
# ; $M
$ 150- g; % N- 132
2 W { lj
~
(. 5 $)
Z ,
) '
ff ,
100 -
'
] I f h h
*
Mi li), -
iff E I
*
H
'
i
,
; #5
g g Us
g
s0 ,
j j ,
g$
,
3
l C Eiii T .TC.
h
,l
. !Il f
l
l
'
N N
g %. h!$1 1 ,:. k % Nsi ?b'?5
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
1996 1997
Owner: D. M. Antonelli / H. Nodine
i
4/30/97
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
CONDITIONREPORTS ASSOCIATED WITHPROCEDURE
,s0 VIOLATIONS
147
'
'li
l[
b 126
h
120- *
!
j d; 99
100- .{. E E
'
87 '
e W i ^M
ul ; l; ! Et )&@ -
80
.
{[ g ,[Q ,
.
65 f 7
lf: 2
.
62 4/28/97
i; 'd % e
60 - *~ .,
. ,
,; <
s -
,
48
MJk
40 - 57E i
g;.
-
,
,
30 y me < .
_ I i
2K@
j
,f W ( ;
20 - 1 ll ? [t
'
f
'
'
j , ' i
}hrg -
'j i
] ?N #wy
{@
0 .
.
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Ownet D. M. Antonelli/T. A. Bostwick 1996 1997
.
4/30/97
-
.
. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
CONDITIONIMPORTINITIATIONRATE ;
450 - 437 Condition Reports initiated
= 424
There may be more than 2 ; '
' ' Human Performance Events
, , one Humar Srformance
Event on u..a Condition d,{l
;.
4Yr
Report. 7 g -+-Human PerformanceEvent to
P C Condition Report Ratio (%) *
350 - h j{
M 4 *
k % e
$ 305 i} 299
'
T' _ M 296
300 - 8
L j/
.
-
280
_
n.
@ @ -
~$
1 8 $ 4 !
$ g 248 %. A 242 4/28/97 I
250 - t r1 -
@. f
m
g
d e a
a
a d - [
221 +
3 s g i.
;
lE R @ $4 204 2 209 209 '
y
-
D 3- T+ Si t 9 6
393
200- ( $ k 'h
~
k $
d h
@5 e 3 a -
a ,
-
$
~
p g
? c- c#
na
72
160 166 '
'
42
-
152 dj p:p g }v{
a
y -
- -
t
m, ,,-
$4 ,
4
150- -
p (s y fB
~
.h g "
8
. i E $ U ,
til g i f 'g 3 $ Bi g g ,
E 9: t E 9 $ %
100- y I'!r y 's g h we #
,
s
r
j
79 77 I Y f 5 N D d 72 79
75 [ 9 62
-
,MD 82 gl' .
m - 72
g%ky {! 69 Y. 70 Ell? N
M ire
h
.
23 -61 -- a. 4" r, F %
g l" &;
0'
g 54 ti .D.. :: * ir # 11 % ;
i 5 & 5 & ke 5 55 h $ ik
5 f
5 5 it i d p r 9
?,! ?,; 2* 2y ? V t; %. C' it
y
- +R .. 4 * g g g
0
e # t: $ :4
, ti @ p y e
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Owner: D. M. AntonelWT. A. Bostwick 1996 1997
4/30/97
_ __ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
. - . - - . _ _ - . . _ - - - - - . ..
, .
.
i l l FEEDBACK AND CORRECTIVE l
ACTIONS FOR HUMAN
l PERFORMANCE AND !
- PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE
j
.
! j
e ON-THE-SPOT FEEDBACK FROM
MONITORS
. DEBRIEFING BY MONITORS
. EXAMPLES
_. - . _ _ _- _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . ._ . _ _ _
.
,
1
-
1
i .. MATERIEL CONDITION 4
'
. l
*
1
UPGRADES FOR DEGRADED VOLTAGE
. d
*
! INSPECTIONS OF BREAKER.S
4
*
INSTRUMENT ACCURACY
l
*
HOUSEKEEPING IMPROVEMENTS
.
*
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
_.
.
.
.
.
Olssued
RIGNIFICANT CONDITIONREPORTS
4/28/97-
50 -
a Closed 47
O Open With Plan (Cumulative) - 44 45
4' 43
O Open Without Plan (Cumulative) -
- 40 37 38 y y
>
_ _
_
' -
~5
~
30 4 30 ! , , J
a 30 - - 3 - 27 +
'
u> lji # s.
2E . _
; y
y 25 - ; 4 22 3 - .
-
'
S 20 - 16 17 "
5 k
13 w
15 33 ll gg _
si . [ 12 ij k
10 - 78 ?g -
-
!)
'
'i b 7 i
"E
'
-"
I
8
I
5- 3 3
o
3
#
2
E
2
f
*
g
"
f f# [ 0
T " ~
1
' E I ? $U 1
b
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Owner D. M. Antolem / T. A. Bostwick 1996 1997
SIGNIFICANT CONDITIONREPORTAGING
'
200
180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---------- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -
160- GoaI: 4*28/97
131 Average days Open
140 - Average age of S.ignificant
.
123
337 ,,,,,,g,,,
120 - Condition Reports less than 102 ;;g $$
g
y,
95 ._
$ 100 - or equal to 180 days 84 -
TZ iM -g
I !
-
42 45 -
i !!
Aug
B
Sep Oct Nov
$
Dec
$
Jan
#
Feb
$
Mar
$
- Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Owner; D. M. Antonem / T. A. Bostwick 1996 1997
4/30/97
!
i
f
- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - - -
!
.
.
M4IN CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES
,
90 O Total Non-Outage
IVITIlFIELD WORKRELfAINING
80 - a Total Outage
7 Less than 20 outage MCR
70 -
Deficiencies at Startup
60 -
m 50 - Less Than 25 Non-Outage
47 33
39 '
39
30 -
20 -
10-
0 I I i 1 I i i
Jan . Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nov Dec
i
Owner J. A. Puzauskas 1997
A VERAGE AGE OFMAIN CONTROL ROOM
='
_
l
, e0 . .
Average Age
DEFICIENCIES Goa's:
160 - --
- Goat Less than or equal to 84
m 14-
days.
k 120
*
y 100 -
g, .. . . ....... . . ................................
$ 60 -
< ..
,
+
20 - '
O I I I I t i i i i i i i
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nov Dec
Owner: J. A. Puzauskas 1997
,
,
[
4/30/97
.. . _ . . .
.
.
.
.
SYSTEMREADINESS MA TERIEL DEFICIENCIES ooais:
100 -
90 Startup: Zero outage-restraint
80 New Indicator; Numbers based on Strategic MWRs.
70
Recovery Plan elernent reviews.
g gg , Long-Term: Average age of
y 50 '
Cfp MWRs less than or equal
2 to 182 days.
40 -
]
30 -
20 -
10' 2
~
0
4/18/97 4/27/97 5/2/97 5/9/97 5/16/97 S/23/97 5/30/97 66a97
Owner: J. A. Hale DATE
goo .. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE MWR AGING
MONTHLY
250'~ MGM MWR Average Age (Days) 4/27/97
g - - - MWR Average Age Goal '
200 --
z . . ... .
Q
l
@ 150 --
Lu
k 100 --
5 This is a new indicator beginning in 1997. l
k 50 --
0 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Owner: J. A. Hale 1996 1997
4/30/97
- - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - .
_
- . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ___-____ __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - _ _ . _
. '
i
'l
TEMPORARYMODIFICATIONS
REMOVAL RESTRAINTS
25 --
Instaned to Support Outage m in Testing as Permanent Modification
>
Awaiting Permanent Design / Implementation m Others
- - - Goal
.
20 -- 21
Goals:
Reduce to and maintain no more
than 8 installed at any one time 1
15 -- 16
# 87
g % 15
33
Nf 12 12
i
2 11 fn :
z
10
hA: h
At
10 -- g
y
{j g
p. _ _
. .
...7 . . . . .... . . O . . ?-2 . . N . .N . . . . ....
50 If @ @
I N is I
m Ji 3p
5- 4 !g g$ $ a {,
g p <
p $$
il fE Ni '
6 gr 4 $y
0 l . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Owner. M. W. Lyon 1996 1997
4/30/97
'
- _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . .. _ . . _ .. _ _ __ _ . _ _._ . _. ___ . - __ . . . .
. ,
'
-'%.4
,
s
S
f
.,
OPERATOR WORKAROUNDS
25 -
a-~ i Number
Goals:
- -
- Goal
'
Both the startup and 1997
goals are less than or equal to
20 - 10 Operator Workarounds.
15-
Z
uJ
ID 12 12 12
2
D w %?, 11
Z 19.' gy __
M]t ep. ., d
10- :W a's --
~
--
Og
-------I - - -- -------------------------
--
h
ygg
kt "N;
8 8
_y
w ^
$1b f.% Tit
$?h ?* d $d
m n $- *
+ $y;,c$$ ;
w
;c::
5- fy_ y j,, %K1 f,;
& % T
${7:
-
it:i !Q
1% r,'
;&Q ', '
4(T4 i i .,
't y %y4- ;#
*D
v1
:>g v-
j
. .: . m"
Q< hri j ,
$f
LM
g. .M.,, g; sy - T , =, ,G,it
-
$ps W
0
5
{ '{ ?j
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
, Owner: J. A. Purauskas MONTH
4/30/97
.
- - -
_ _ - _ _ .m m .m._.___._.._...mm_ -
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _._ -- _, -, - - - - y ,<w
. . - - - . . . . - . . .
- - - - - - - _ - - - _ - -- -__. - - - _ - - - .- _ - _ . - - . - . - . . - - -
,
.
.l
~
Goals'
- LONG-TERM TAGOUTS
,
Startup: No long-term tagouts
,
, gg , ,
a Long-Term Tagouts without a completed safety
m 50.59 Completed analysis screening or safety
'
evaluation. j
90 -
87 !
Long-Term: Goal to be
79 80 established.
80 -
70 ~
66
.
s
! 8 80 . '
@
l--
O 50 -
6
- 8 e.
e
30 - 28
-
20 -
16 16
to . 8
i
0--...-- -
1 1 i t i i i
10-Mar-97 24-Mar-97 7-Apr-97 22-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 12-May-97 19-May-97 26-May-97
Owner P. J. O'Brien
,
4/30/97
i
i
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __J
_. .
.
,
,
.
.
i
; CONCLUSIONS
.
. CPS PERSONNEL ARE MAKING
l PROGRESS . ! I !
* NUMEROUS ACTIONS TAKEN
1 1
* PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS ;
I IMPROVING ' . l -
- e MANAGEMENT CONTINUING TO STRESS
! . .
AND OVERSEE PROCEDURE
,
COMPLIAN~CE
.1 i ! 4 h !
I
i
:
i i
,
, . - . . - ._ - .. --
' -
ILL N'D S \
l
POWER Amc m o '
i
l
.
l
4 0 <
/ %' * n s _
a.
/
,
s
<-
;
, .,
.v
i
*'~ . . . , . 'j //-Q :-
,k
.
, _ _ , . - . _ . _ _
t- m -.
. . . . . . _ , ,i! I i!'\,\
tl:p;;7. ;.,;;,y-
. 1,' : : ' ' n.$_m_!,7
, ,! h.
i {} } bib, .. ...
.
g
i
.
t y-m. .
<,
f.fi'% , f
i ._ -
'
I ,. _. .. . i. ..
,
'.
,
,r
D
.
D ita
ghy
'
=s.-j ,_.-~g ,._.n- "M' g)
[_M
.
.
'~ _
m, ,
N
-
- --
,s M 4, N yd * .! m -C
-- . ,A_- . ,',s.g3. ~ -
,~d, . _www
_
, .. .
_ _ _ _1_m_ war _mnin_nimme nra t_ _ _f -
w
_
--
,.- . ,~.. - -
_ :::= : : : _ - ::: - :: =::--
-_
- _
~~~~~~~=c55555555=;;5 a::
sss;5555x
..
.~.~.-
- _-7- .-_= :
_
=n .= :==:
= _=:::::::::::
_ : ::_ :_ : _
:=
-
_
:=:
-
- -
_ _ -_
= -=:
_
_:_-:__~.
_:
-
,: : _ _
:
. .y --
g;;_: -: ;; :5 ;
i
: _ - :: _ - -
.
-
i
Clinton Power Station
.
i
Illinois Power Company
Meeting with the NRC
j
on Status of '
Restart Activities for
.
Clinton Power Station
May 15,1997
)
!
.
I
'
I
I
e , . - - -
,
-
!
Agenda
. <
Introduction Wilf Connell
Status of Startup Dick Phares
Readiness Action Plan
Conformance with Dick Phares '
Confirmatory Action
Letters
Status of Strategic Dick Phares
Recovery Plan
Current Startup Dan Thompson
Restraints Pat Yocum
Conclusions Wilf Connell
-
.- . . -- -- . . . - _ . . -.
,
Status of Startup Readiness
Action Plan items
l
l . 55 Total items
-
. 44 Item Actions CompletedNerified
l \
.
Summaries Given to NRC for 46* Items !
l
- -
30 Items Accepted by NRC
-
10 items Awaiting NRC Review Results
-
6 Items Pending Question Resolution l
.
IP Response to NRC Questions by May 16
1
1
.
- IP Will Submit Reports for Remaining items
by May 28,1997
i
* Includes items That Will Remain Open Past
Startup
._. . - - . - - . .--- _ ..- - _- .-
-
. .
1 !
,
Conformance with
!
-
Confirmatory Action Letters l
f
.i
4 i .
* September 11,1996
i *
.
- . January 9,1997
I
. I
'
i
! 4 ? d i
! i l l 1 i 4 i i l J 5 .
I !
$
:
$ 1 4 i
.. . - . . -- - -.
. . .
l
'
Status of Strategic Recovery
Program Readiness Reviews
.
.
Overall Status as of May 13,1997:
132 Total Readiness Review Activities
-
- -
23 Activity Reviews Complete
.
-
31 Review Activities Complete /Pending '
- Action Completion
- -
35 Review Activities Awaiting Oral Board i
i
-
43 Review Activities Still Outstanding
-
On Schedule for May 30 Completion
.
Results to Date:
-
Most Open Review Activities Pertain to
Systems
-
Most Programmatic and Organizational '
Elements Completed
-
No Elements Found Unsatisfactory for
Restart
-
Reports for 24 Activity Reviews Returned to
Owners for More Information
.. - - - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - . _ .
$ 1 1
- Status of Strategic Recovery
l Program Readiness Reviews
(cont'd)
. . i
.
Additional Actions Based on Results
i j -
Additional Restart Constraints identified
- l
l
j ~ 24 Maintenance Work Requests )
~ 4 Preventive Maintenance items
! ~ 1 Condition Report '
-
Examples of Long-Term Improvements
--
Vendor Manual Upgrade
--
Improvements in ISEG
--
Use of Industry information
--
50.59 Safety Evaluation Program
Upgrade
--
Critique Process Upgrades
. .- . . -
l Current Startup Restraints
'
! .
. Breaker inspection and Refurbishment
i s
. Degraded Voltage
.
Main Control Room Deficiencies
. Open Condition Reports
1
-
Outage Restraints
-
USAR Discrepancies l
. SX Valve Replacements ;
!
.
Instrument Accuracy
l
. Recent Issues 1
L
-
Seismic Qualification of Breakers
-
Suppression Pool Strainer Operability
, -
I
i
Conclusions '
.
Startup Readiness Action Plan items Almost ,
Complete
~
.
Strategic Recovery Plan on Schedule
-
. Improvements Observed
.
Readiness for Restart
.
Long-Term improvements Planned
.
i
4 d e
.- . . .. - - . - - - - . . _ . . .- .
.
.
_
- ILLINCIS
l POMR 411acantnr e 4
l
l
l
l
1 i ! ,~ . l
'
l
!
h 1
/
I
,
,4 ~f
,
.,
.-
. .
l ^
.
M:e,W
e
- - ~
..
.
.
___
! l \\
UMN i 3
N'E
gi 'dkfiki)"kN[f$!!!h,flf!.dl$
-
Qy '16 ti I
I-d - D. 8 -
we !?! " l -
.
,
% r>
, <
] 'JE
:8 '
N ) $NeLv ll. & AM/T g !""$"1gM;gs) n f],% h t
"
~
x~ ---
m .
_
<-
' ^ ' 5555555555555555555555555555-:-:-:-:-:-:-:_:-:_
3(
------ ni a J
"va==r"-
_
:55555555555555:555555: 5: 5x _
~_ _::iii5E:liil
____ _
. ~ ~ ~ -
_ -- i inizi:1.---?:?:ici-:ei-i-i-i-siEsssss_:Eriri:siri&=-
-- = - __- - - :-:- y _,
_
=:-:0:g5:-5.55g7:_:- - - .
-
_
CNnton Power Station
_ .. - . . . - . .. . . . . . . _ . . . . .. . . . . . - - -. -. .
'
!
.
l
Illinois Power Company
,
Management Meeting with NRC i
on Readiness to Restart
l
Clinton Power Station
~
May 28,1997
l
.
%
..__ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ - _ . _._
-
.
4
- Agenda
4
-
} Introduction Wilf Connell
. } '
Completion of Startup Dick Phares
Readiness Action Plan
!
Completion of Dick Phares
Strategic Recovery Plan
!
Performance Measures Joe Sipek
.
Status of Startup Pat Yocum
Restraints Dan Thompson
Long-Term improvement Dick Phares
Plan
Conclusions Wilf Connell
. .
. . __ .-- .- - -. __ - .- - - - - - . -
h
4
- Completion of l
Startup Readiness Action Plan '
3 s
. 55 Total itsms t
i
- *
3 Items are Post-Restart I
'
.; .
52 Pre-Restart items Completed by IP l
.
1
< :
i
. .. - . . . - . . .. --.
.
i .
Completion of
' Strategic Recovery Plan . l
- .
132 Total Readiness Review Activities
i
- .
120 Activities are Complete
l .
Reviews and Oral Boards Almost Complete
for Remaining Review Activities
,
*
Actions Remaining:
l -
12 Activities Awaiting Closure
Memorandum
-
3 Oral Boards to be Conducted
.
Will Complete by May 30,1997
.-
. . ._ _ - . _ .
. .
Performance Measures
. Improving Trends
.
Will Continue to Monitor and Evaluate Need
for Further Action
l
l
.
TOTAL CPS PROCEDURE CHANGES
~~
415 Total Procedure Changes Since m er of RemenWACs
September 1996 = 2219
_
m Number of PDRs/TPDs
'
O Number of Procedure Changes
$
g 350 -
1
$ 300 - j; 258
g 60
251
j
250 - 1
[ 226
e ! - -
'
I 200 -- 180 , 180
7 : [ h 7 148
E 150 i k
* b
}} N 132
3 A e -
b- 5 4 _
z 3 % t e I.
~
{! S
fi -
h 177
.
YX (,; i & $
h
50 - w ?! li
s h il $ 1
!
$
#
$ Ei
@
${{ $ i
?
T
C*
!
0
!
,
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i
1996 1997
Owner W. P. Bousquet / H. Nodine i
'
j
-
,
c
l
~ 1
.
_ _ . -- . ._- .- -. - . - - - - .- _ . _ .
, Performance Measures f
MAIN CONTROL ROOMDEFICIENCIES
90 - o rotat Non-Outage WITHFIELD IVORKREMAINING
- 5 Total Outage . @di
'
go .
-
Less than 20 outage MCR
Deficiencies at startup
less than 25 Non-Outage MCR
60 -. Deficiencies at startup.
_
$ 50 --
$ 47
S 40 - 4I
39 y
30 -
20 -
.
10 --
0 ,
'
,
'
'
,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Owner J. A Puzauskas 1997
SYSTEM READINESS MA TERIEL DEFICIENCIES
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
E
50 --
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
2
0 I "l I
-
1 I i l i f
4/18/97 4/27/97 5/12/97 5/26/97 SS/97
DATE
Owner: J. A. Hale
ow
- -. -. . -- - - .- - .- .- _ _. . - - - .- . .
. !
l Status of Startup Restraints 1 :
1
! I !
. Circuit Breakers
I
< -
Revised Test Plan
.
-
Increased Inspections
! -
Outstanding Questions
i
-
Will Demonstrate Reasonable
) Assurance 4 j i -
[-
l A.B.B. K-Line Breakers I Westinghouse DHP ! Westinghouse DVP j I
~~ " ~ ~
i! Breakers Breakers ;
'
l : l 4
' O 8 Not inspected.1esteh
28 1 # inspected,1ested
,
* **
26 j 4-
y .-
- -
i ) 24 _ _ , .
'
%h.'f ,
'
22 g i
I
j lh
y j
20 $1} ' '#4$ I i
4 Safety Related
q 18 [
i
is qA- f ,
t
n ,
16 -
'8
,! G.E. Magna-Blast
,
34
g ! Breakers
jo l ,
!
12 i
l l12
'
'o .Ni N l
'
B
6 L ' j 6
.,
( ,
4
. - . . - . - - . . . _ , _ . .
'
4-
2 -
,
[ 2
0 5-
WQM
, ' ' ' ---. ~ : o_
-- ,
'
o s- -- 4
33 Safety Related 22 Safety related 5 Safet/Related
-- - - . - . - - _-. . _ - -
-
.
4
Status of Startup Restraints
-
.
.
* Degraded Voltage
J ! * ECCS Suction Strainers / Suppression Pool i
Cleanliness -
. ! * Component Level Hardware Failures
.
. Remaining Outage Work
f f 1 l
I i
_._ -. .- - _ ----.--- - -.-. ----_..-- .
- .
.
Long-Term improvement Plan
l i .
- . Conceptual Plan
h i .
Includes Systems, Programs, and
i
Organizations
!
- .
Identifies Actions, Responsibilities, and
i Schedules ! ! .
4 } ! !
.
Conclusions
. Startup Readiness Action Plan Almost
Complete
.
.
Strategic Recovery Plan Almost Complete
-
.
Hardware Actions are Critical Path
. Expected Restart Date
. . ._. . .- .
,
+
.r
e
- ILLING S
PGMR Atracaneni r
.
1
.
.- ._
m,
s
,. - v es[
x. n..
~',,... jb 5- ,L
.~ ,- _ , , .
. , _ . - . . . _ ,, ,.t_ ..._! _ .' ._i '.} ,
. ;d!
-
.-a...
,i 'i , ! I :'!
._, .
'L .I if,j
~,t I'ggl.f y!2u
*
- .I!,
.s-.m
y
, .- ;f!
J 11
si, . Q
. _ .w. i.-
n --9
. c =.: ,
.
; mc . 'e r,., ;
,
+
!! 'W*$. *i
.r,4a=:c' 1w~
'
: !
. .' e. Cms M- - 2
.- # >\ ,
h '.' - .
l
t 7 k
+ ' '
c b [ . --J Li k h "','"' " "I $ ky
m
----
e
m
~__
_
w w
_=_ _ _ - _ _ - := 2 _
~ .6_
_ ..
m
a
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
- - :- _Z_7_;C,LL1-T- -Z-Z-1-7- -1-112 . - -1-2- -1- ~ - -- - - -T-:- -Z-1-Z
-
_ _ _ _ z_ m -- - rw
- ..
: - : : : : : :- -- : :
__ ,
. -~:5:: ssse: =-:e:ss-:5-:se:sS-:;;s1___ _
_
:55:^5:^~T-55 5SS.55555555555 ^5:-^5:15555:l^ ~
-
_
. -__ _ = _ - --
-: .__
-_:-_.
._.
.
_.
= _;_ - .- -.
<
.
Clinton Power Station
.
l
!
I
.
Illinois Power Company
Management Meeting with NRC
on Readiness to Restart
Clinton Power Station
June 13,1997 -
I
i
1
+ l
l
!
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
!
l
I
ILLINSIS
P4WWER
__
l
.- -
.
Agenda
.
Introduction John Cook
!
Planned Startup Activities Dick Phares
!
Startup Constraints Pat Yocum !
Dan Thompson
Startup Plans Pat Yocum '
Long-Term Dick Phares
Improvement Plan
Conclusions Wayne Romberg
ILLIN9IS
PGWER
...
- . .. - . -. -- . .
_
Planned Startup Activities
.
*
!
Startup Readiness Action Plan Complete
*
Readiness Reviews Complete
*
Procedure Use and Adherence
ILLIN els
P9WER
,.
-. . .. - - -. . _ .
.
!
'
Startup Constraints
l .
I
- . Degraded Voltage
1 '
1
l
,
. Circuit Breakers i
,
1
. ECCS Suction Strainers / Containment
Coatings l
l
I
. Main Control Room Light Sockets
1 . l l ILLIN91S
P@WER d
. - -
_ .
I
Startup Plans I
.
Startup Plan Developed i
e
identifies Hold Points for Evaluations j
=
Specifies Equipment Conditions and
j
Activities for Evaluation i
-
Staffing Adequate l
!
-
Systems Ready
!
-
Crews Briefed
- {
Lessons Learned from Previous
Evolutions l
i
!
l
l
i
l
i
)
I
1
;
ILLIN 91S
-
P(WWER i
,
_. . - . - . .. .. .- ..
-.
_
.
.
Long-Term improvement Plan
.
Covers Systems, Programs, and i
Organizations
, ,
~
e
;
identifies Elements for improvement
Including:
,
-
Leadership / Accountability
j -
Work Control
j -
Self Assessment
-
Corrective Action
i !.
ILLINGIS
.-
P&WER
. . . - - - -. - . ..
l L ! Conclusions
. Restart Date l
'
l
I
=
Plan for Controlled Startup ,
!
!
.
Plan for Sustained Long-Term improvement
Issue Identification and Correction
-
l
ILLINOIS
P6WER
...
$
.
ILLINCIS
POWER macum o
i
! .
.
Illinois Power Company l
r
Management Meeting with NRC !
I on Readiness to Restart
Clinton Power Station
i ,
July 3,1997
-
1
- b
. . : .
.
. . . .
m M' .
,
.h @' (-.- . - . _ .. . _ ... _ . . _ . .
~.
.
q.
,,,,..
e .*
-_ ._. .___ _.._.._. t... _,
_
$
3 .- . : c-
i
1
ss.e:e :RC.c..=
, -
a nr.w M g!!4j-iW &..m-empb
j/MNc 7hj ' Ce
,.~ w .n1..oo,w# ff:f y!',jM g %
.......;-....__.
% ..[ , $ __ g
. s . _ _ __ _l_ _gA'flO0gaudsue=== ymA___7 m
--.o:0:co:0:c_:o:0:ce:0:0:o :::_:::::::20:10:o 0:0:0: _
_
_: :_
__---^^-_^.-^_--'-_^_^^__^_::.m-
_ _
_ ::
=_ ^_ _--___ _
. = ssssssssssx--ssssss
_ _ _ -
_
:_ : - :_ _ _ ::_- _ ::::_ ssss_
:_ ::_ss' s-:sss =-
-
.
::_ :
-
- . : -_ _-_
__ : : :_ _ _ _ . _
-_ _ - .
. _
_-_ :_ _ _
. .
_
.
; .-
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ .
_ _ _ . _ _ ._
i Clinton Power Station
_ __. _ _- _
._ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _
;
i
,
i ~
lilinois Power Company
'
Management Meeting with NRC
on Readiness to Restart
Clinton Power Station
+
-
July 3,1997
.
:
.1
i
IP Representatives:
.
*
J. G. Cook Senior Vice President
i
W. D. Romberg Assistant Vice President
P. D. Yocum Manager Clinton Power Station
}' R. F. Phares Assistant to the Vice President
J. 'V. Sipek
,
Director Licensing
!
4
m
. - -. .. .
-
.
I
i,
Agenda
,
.
- i .
, Lntroduction Wayne Romberg
~
Startup Constraints Pat Yocum '
Dan Thompson
"
Overview of Startup Dick Phares
-
Readiness Action Plan
- -
- Overview of Readiness Dick Phares
Reviews
,
improvements in
'
Pat Yocum
>
Performance
', .
1
,
Satisfaction of CALs Joe Sipek
- Conclusions John Cook
-
-
-
. .. - - . - _
l
l
Startup Constraints
_
t . Degraded Voltage
I i
;
.
Circuit Breakers
.
.
ECCS Suction Strainers / Containment
Coatings l
w
a Neon Lights
,
a
u .
. . .- . - - . -
i .
; Overview of Startup Readiness
'
.
Action Plan
~
4 '
: - -
55 Total Actions
1
.
3 Actions are Post-Restart -
1
.
52 Pre-Start Actions Completed
. Improvements Made in:
-
y Procedure Compliance / Adequacy
Conservative Decision-Making / Human
-
Performance
-
Management Oversight
Plant Material Conditions
-
.
Subsequent Events Indicated Goals Not
Fully Met
~
.
IP Developed Strategic Recovery Plan
Additional Actions and Management
-
Focus
-
Deliberate and Comprehensive
Approach to Restart Readiness Reviews
-
Long-Term Improvement Plan
_
,
1
! t
Overview of Readiness Reviews
.
'
.
i
132 Total Readiness Review Activities
l ,_ -
l .
All Activities Are Completed
i
.
'
Additional Restart Constraints identified and
.
Completed
l; '
-
44 From System Reviews
-
28 From Program / Organization Reviews
'1 a Program Weaknesses identified
-
Work Control
-
Corrective Action
-
Vendor Manuals
.
Programs Determined Acceptable for
.
Restart Based on Short-Term Actions
.
Further improvements in Long-Term
-
Improvement Plan
.
.. .
i
i
1
,
improvements in Performance
1
'! '
l
.
Management Expectations
__ -
: l
.
l
Procedure. Compliance
;
I
.
Procedure Enhancements
.
.
Event Frequency
o
Plant and Control Room Deficiencies
.
Management Observations and
Measurements of Performance
>
.
b
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - __ _. -. _ _ .__ ..-_ _ ________ - _____--_ _____ _ ____ _ ______ - _ _ _ __
i
w
,
c
. - . . _ -,. -
-.
GRADE DAYS
o - N w s. - - o
o & - & n & t,u un s. v. o;
.
O 'n Q U' 0 U' S
O $ 1/1/97 - +
b 1 .
> -< c
.
a tiMtf 5- e
hI &
~ ,
:* 1/13/97 i
% . . . .
'
f 1/igr97 5 k ,
e g c 3 m -
,
j
g
Q
% v
3 1/;597 j._
f f31/97 ;
:-
y3
-4
gg
l l ,P
*
a
Rg
e o*
{{F
-g3 , g
y a 2 . *
8
a - 4's.}
l
Q
~,
2'G97 i }$ -
' R
1
c p*J
g
.
*
B, -.<
'
rit y,97 : o a
- . . . . . ~ -
g a, g , B w ,
"
gg
*
a 2'1837i --
g Q 2/24/97 i $ $ k
4 > - T2:97 i
- -
Ke<
3 E
g
3
* e
M.
.
*
.
$ 8 %+ .
3/8/97 5- d 8 m
$" %;
y ... <n m'
V 3/14;97
--_ e
'
*
*
3
*
.
,
Q
-
3CO,97 i
.
.
e
,
N ,
W .n . @-
I
.D ,1 326.975 *
%v
. i
2 E E4 a.1/97 i . %j r
% *
-
h$7 t
* %
N
.""- a.
2 4,7fg7 : a * N
'% 51 i:= ; % i
] 4/13.97 -
Q
'
a ,
D
N
4/19/97 i
: :.-
e
*
N i
.y
-O L^J 4.25/97 2 ~
P
d -
w
%
.
e'
.
$
N
*
N 5'Ir97 p ,
*
g g g' A
s e
[
. . ;
56/97 h .. g
[3$
a 3 a ,
M 3 '97 :P
Q
'
,
.
?g
c
g 519/975 e 'g k
O
" g='n @
E
hl5M'
l
! 5/25/97 I
[
,
'
*
Sa6
o
,
[
!
6 g l 5/31/97 : , m ,
n . . e
7 b&s7 : . R7
: .. " .m . *g
*
6.12;C7 - - *
m
.g
& 9 o e
3
Si18,97 i j '
} i
N.'407 i f I
*
o 97 I ...h
i
!
d
_ - - - . . . - . _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . -__ a - . , ~ . . . - . _ . _ _ e
,
90 -
MAIN CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES
~
O Totai Non-Outage Willi FIELD WORK REAIAINING
M Total Outage
70 - EN1
,
__
Less than 20 outage MCR l
g - 1
\
~ Deficiencies at startup
i gg_ 47
33
39 41
-
-
,
z Less than 25 Non-Outage MCR :
30 - M Deficiencies at startup.
'
31
20 - j
i
10 - '4
!
o ;
-
#4
y
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
7
Jun Jul Aug Sep
Owner J A Puzauskas Oct Nas Dec
A VERAGE AGE OF M:llN CONTROL ROOll
aco -
DEFICIENCIES
;
m_ ic7
,
g33 , F ~ "A * o n +
g,a , %Y m * 5 ~'
i3-
.
= ic 1 l
3
ted
2
"$ 5
P
m
m
I
Coa
~
3- INj
':?1;
.'@ 3 "'
O!il
..
hM 5d
9
-
t 'l. Ti $1
W
bii . . $ _ 541
Lu 70 @
- -: :y; $ % :g;
-
gi M i '
..
,;
le
z ".-
V" =+-( P _j..k.__ _
- .w v ~
..,.
~, sa
.
. ,.. -
m ~
. . n- /.2 i., ' ' '
i
OPEN STARTUP RESTRAINTS ON
, 90 ss sa CONDI110NREPORTS
~
70 - b> Qg_al
7~. 61
67 No open Otartup Restraints by
O"-z$ 60 - 54
y a s0 -
48 N
-
e -5
-1
1 h-
5
7
startup
1 4 y
g E e_ -
@,g i ! -
; as
e 5 30 - 20 b M v: i J '5 E
20
10 - f,j
y;[
(
$ L! -; h ;jfl g; i
7
29
g en $f
;d
I :J $1
;a
C i .:
g
3 3 MF 4 ?!$ , 4R s
,
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Owner W P Bousquet 1 C E. Calhoun
4
M
a ,
I I
i
!
i
i i
TOTAL SIGNIFICANT OPEN
k , so . .
COASiENTCONTROL FORAIS
4 ,
)
a
, m Open 140
1 -
- - - startup coai
j 12s .
-
- Leg-Term ooat
. . .. .'.
!
..
.g. .
o_o_att
!
100 -
Startup: Less than 125 open Significant CCFs
93
'
N Long-Term: Less than 50 open Significant CCFs
o
g 75 -
e
i 3
'
41
39
i
'
25 -
15
A 11*
3 3 4 5 4
2 1
0 "'" A " ".- -
-*
,
l i , ;
j ,
-i
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Owner W P ~iousquet / H Nodine
. !
TOT.IL CPS PROCEDURE CH.1NGES
' i
435 D Numt, r of Reusions Ft.Cs
, f"~}
'
O Namter or PDRs/TPDs
350 0 Numt;er of Prov.<1 ore Cnanges
: 350 -
ra) . 5!
- 200
251
, 250 - > 226 1;
-
m
) I 200 -- 180 180 i i l
0
l
*
f 150 -
132
i
3
Z
100 --
i
50 -
i
O '
, , ; , '
'
, , , , *
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
,
1996 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1997
$ Owner: W. P. Bousquet / H. Nodine
i I .emos
.
l CONDITION REPORTS ASSOCIATED
I
WI111 PROCEDURE VIOM110NS
160 -- .
l 147
f
140 -
l'pi 126
120 -- 6
ik I
[ 100
Wi 98
100 -
p g,5
j , 93 [jf y
99
]
E v, .. 87
ge ?.d,2 ", 44
W
m
ao -
d
u
n
M &
m i@
M
o
g
e
th.
.
fa -
m
ffi
% iA.
a 65
v. 3.:
b:7 :q r
v J 52
60 - K e sz 1s
;;3;
m
y
-
p.n
A
g[.,
m
.
>ff;
-
+g. 7
53
E
%
.,
g.
jh 4
.
!
C-
ik :k h [h Yd
_
B $ N
:u
\
,
", 9%
ip M:# M@
N 04
X
{id t M ?! @
E
'
$:
-- ~
':
;
.-p:
.
d
s.
Eh
3
f
s.,. 1( >w
". >
& -n
L'.
.m
'C- '
'A "7 '
'
< ~
y c-
.
g
~
- >
a..s ~
'
Ax * ;- E
", y M..
'
./; -
a, 2. r
"
., j' s
g
is a
.M
t
p
.
m. <
) s .- ^-
<
43 Sco C et h Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
t-s May Jun .;a+ Aug
y. .c
'
'% .~
:. r .c .
= :.: .
l > t !~ '
t. ' *
!.
. L 14. ).{. ! } '*f( .s;> \>* I f 'b' ) ff, ;Q 'f a[\'s f)e!.'
.
se Q_. !.'(
to #li)\e{rl.\'(!-
*s
a Un ' .
" /2 -
j
r (.p-, -
' /a - t cua :a or u nw , & t. mms ,
.. g i.
;- g '
~ ;ccrY par +J :n ObMrahCr4
-.
s M .' <
t
[3- ,,,m.'
. , ,, .i .
-
-
~- - : ,broerm Equal to or b , man 10% prootems
f j 10 CG (
puri corst ;o cowr unons
j
z a )] . m
w - -
v>
m
o 8 00 -
I4
2 6.31
uj 6 00 -
m 5.28
o -
E
G-
4 00 -
2 67
#
2 00 -
0 84
1.00
q 0 00 0 00 0 07
0 00 0 00 p 000
3rd Quarter 96 4th Quarter 96
.
1st Quarter 97 2nd Quarter 97
M RC A Emit Problems M Tnsker Use Problems =
= PCM Prouems =
' G AMM A 10 Problems " "
" Goat
Owner. D. R Morns
-
N
L
- . .-
I
!
Satisfaction of
,' Confirmatory Action Letters (CALs1
.
'
!
.
.
~* - 9/11/96 CAL Satisfied
-
Evaluation of and Actions for 9/5/96 l
Event
.
1/9/97 CAL Satisfied
Operations Understands Safety is
-
,,
Priority
Guidance and Seminars on
-
Conservative Decision Making
Review Selected Procedures
-
-
Management / Supervisor Training
Review of MWRs and Senior
-
Management Review of Deficiencies
Perfor.mance Measures
-
,
t
= 6/6/97 CAL ' Containment Coatings'
!
-
Loose Coatings Removal
Remaining Coatings Qualified by Test
-
.
.. _ _ . . ._ . . . _ _ . _ . .. . . . _ _ . . . _ ._ _
1
l
,
Conclusions
. .
%
'
_t . ' Completed CAL Actions
i
l
* Improvements Made
I
i
*
Restart Date ~
1
~.}
i *
Long-Term improvements
e
!
I
i
i
i
.
eu
**
_ _ _ _. .- ._ . _ .-_ _ _ _
1 \
ILLINCIS
t i
POWER
! '
.
, 3 i ,
-
- i
I I i i ! ,
i
l
-
!
l
.
k
i
t
!
.
.
--
- . - - - .-
Clinton Power Station
P.O. Box 678
Clinton, Illinois 61727
Phone (217) 935-8881
}}