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 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 Inspectors: F. D. Brown, Acting Senior Resident inspector - R. L. Bywater, Acting Senior Resident inspector R. L. Doornbos, Licensing Examiner R. A. Langstaff, Resident inspector 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 i DR ADO O 1 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 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 , 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 ' 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 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 strategic recovery program and performance measures used to monitor progress 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
. _ _ . - .- __. -_. _. ... _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ 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 R. Phares, Assistant to the Vice President B. Illif, Startup Readiness Action Plan Manager J. Sipek, Director, Licensing j 1 , I 5 j
. Attachment A Startup Readiness Action Plan items Reviewed by NRC 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. , 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
Plant Staff Directors / Assistant Director-Operations e
Work Control Team Leaders Facility Review Group Leaders e Licensed and non-licensed Operations personnel e e Shift Technical Advisors Systern Engineers e 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. e plant startup e single loop operation e leak detection e reactor coolant leakage e procedure adherence 1 , l l 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.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). ' 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
-- . 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. ] i 1.17 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. I l.19 Commitment: Review surveillance procedures for fidelity with Technical { 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 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
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
impact of operator actions and possibility for negative plant response e responsibility for placing plant in safe configuration e planning for the unexpected
procedural compliance is required even when no one is watching e 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 , had been conducted, and the Plant Managers summary of the meetings. The Plant Manager considered each of the interviews to be open and beneficial. 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 inspectors noted that, as part of their long term corrective action plan, the licensee planned to establish condition limits for the following equipment and conditions after startup: 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. Results of Review: The inspectors observed selected simulator training seminars and classroom training conducted and concluded that the training was appropriate. . 111. 1 Commitment: Roles, duties and expectations of personnel involved in 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 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 , inspectors concluded that licensee's actions were sufficient for startup. Control Room monitoring will be assessed during unit startup (IFl 50- 461/97012-01). 4 111. 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 . assuming oversight roles. 3 111. 7 Commitment: The Senior Management Team will conduct a self-critique of i 4 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 Nuclear Assessm'et surveillance supervisor and determined that the licensee i had changed hov.- * eveillances were scheduled to more closely monitor 2 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 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 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 Determine and implement float setpoints change for improved time e 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 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 Maintenance Rule Category A.1 Systems e 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. Develop Operability Determination Program for Clinton Power Station. Develop guideline for Reportability. Train appropriate engineering personnel on Operability Determination Program. 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 concluded that the licensee had taken sufficient actions for startup. 1 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- adequate justification for those that will not be corrected in RF-6. i 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. l IV.17 Commitment: Review the current population of identified Main Centrol Room 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 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY a i , 1 MEETING WIT-H THE NRC ! i { ! ON STARTUP AND t . ! . ! ! RECOVERY ACTIONS FOR CLINTON POWER STATION April 18,1997 .
,
AGENDA
- 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
- 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 INTRODUCTION 4
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
J l Stand Downs and Worker Feedback . , ! l l !
, - - . - . . - . . ._. . -. .. ..- .- ... - .- . . l DECISION TO EXPAND l STARTUP A3lD RECOVERY EFFORTS
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 - ! . 4 -
' l
- Components of the SRP
-
! ! . l . 2 Readiness Reviews !
} i Line Managers Responsibilities .
_. -- - - - - - . -. -. - . - . - - . . - - - - _ - . !. > READINESS REVIEW ELEMENTS
. ! i ! l System Readiness Review .
' i e
Programmatic Readiness Review . Organizational Readiness Review .
-. . . - - --- -. - - .-- - - - _- - .-
- s.
.i l STATUS AND SCHEDULE OF 4 STRATEGIC RECOVFaRY PLAN )
i
. \\ e IP Taking Deliberate Approach ,
- . i
i i !
- Readiness Review Implementing Plans
. - ! i l ! 1 l = Turn-Around Team Review l l t i ! i i e Vice President Decision on Restart i i ! , !
i e Long Term Improvement Plan
l i l J 4 )
- ,
. .- - - - . - . . -. .- - . ROLE AND STATUS OF STARTUP ' READINESS ACTION PLAN (SRAP) . SRAP Actions Incorporated Into SRP e Status of SRAP Action Items Total Number of Action Items 55 '
- 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 1.16 l . Startup Decision 1 1 ,
- -. - .- - - - --- . . - . i
PERFORMANCE MEASURES ' ,
- SRP Performance Measures
' .
i i e Applicability to Startup Readiness Action Plan Items ,
. - -_.- -. - - - - . - - - _ - - . _- .-. -
- i i l j.
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
e ?
l l > ! ! l 1 i l 1 < 3 t i l i 1 !
. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ - - _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . . .
- .
PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE .
i I . Major Emphasis on Procedure Compliance l
! .
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 . . i i IP Recognized Need for More Comprehensive
. ! Startup and Recovery Plans and Focused Management 9 . , i
l 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
. IP Will Not Restart Until the Plant, Programs, 3 and Personnel Are Ready
4 i . ? i
.. _. .-. - . . - . ._. . ATTACHMENT B-1 Performance Meas >ures Strategic Recovery Plan Startuo Readiness Action Plan Event Free Performance Culture Index Materiel Condition Operations in-Plant Crew l - Systems Monitoring Maintenance Task Performance Checklist Main Control Room Deficiencies Human MWRs Performance Materiel 1 Condition Temp. Mods. Operator Work Arounds 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 "9 Self Identification Rate ' Radiation Worker Performance -- Organizations Human Error Propensity 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, " $[9*" Programs Culture IndeX pe or7a"nce " 0s organ;. Operations In-Plant Crew Human Proceau e Programs Tlll7 Monitoring Performance compna-ce zations ygng Maintenance Task Human Procedure organi. p' 9' ** zations Performance Checklist Performance Comphance Main Control Room Matene, consegat y ,,3 g e m, r , e Programs Systems g9 Deficiencies cone. ten om ;nt y ,,ng Programs Systems MWRs M ^t i "* ' Conciton Pr 9'amS Systems Temp. Mods. Matene' Conctron d Pro 9'ams Systems Operator Work Arounds Ejl;$ o ograms Systems Long-Term Tagouts djli$ 4 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 dure A ,y , orgar'" program 3 Conditions Reports Due to Prx ea;re zatons Procedural Noncompliance comc: ance organ;- Condition Report Hun an 'qnww - Perfo<rnance Vuem 9 2 t*"S Initiation Rate ' organ- programs Significant Condition vam;ement zatens Reports ove's.gnt ' organi- Programs Self Identif! cation Rate M n 9* ""," zations oversigh, Radiation Worker Human organi. Programs 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 M i
iii 4 ,. I 1 ' @
+a . & ..r '
O <s. ? u c i. = , 4 e , .{A,. 'i . .w'* j
- - ' ' $ . mdO maw w W W W D M O Cd & .n .. m
- f#'If
h hfkE ~ .. .w. . x
%o ri I 4 W i O d w? dId a ~ ' ' .
... . - - , . - . - - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - . - - - _ - - . _ _ . . . - - - . - _ - - - _ ?- g - Goal: 21 Days Between Events Long Term: TBD . EVENTFREE PERFORMANCE , , 30 -
> Number of Events i i 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 34 30 i 18 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 5 N N N N N N N N 5 N N N I S$@5$$$$g]99ga 3S 8*SS$$$$$$$S$$S$$$SS 8$ 8 55nRSS^^^E55$SSS**T 5 5 3 0 5 5 5 - 2 e - , ' EVENT DATE ! l 5 4/1&97 , i , . . - . . - - . - --
- 1
! . .6 ,t>w . i l' >t ..t t* .t, l, i iI. . rae Y /s t - ino P 2 7 e s 9 - a r . / e - c 6 n 1 I A /
. / t - N m 4 n re
- p T
e - x )n m l l .a. u . t g is .o a r n n nG t ' . o t .oS L e n eo O V - i r a , - - dt O nU l c i \\ a r E P - m p nr m . Ifo - I ...
. ,0 n ...i...'.
- -
ei 2. . . : ,. ... . . . . 3 - .i....'
- f
-
- . *
. ..* . .. ...: . J* ' . .
ro
.
- ..: * . .l . -
.' . .. . . . * . . , . . . * , . .
. .. . - uty
- s.....
-
- . ..
- . .
. . .!
. . . . . . .....: - . . . .
.. . -
. . . . . . . . . .* i t . . . . . * . . .* . . . . . * * .. . . . . l
- i .. .. l b - . .. . ul . . . . . . . g. . . ..
.. ) . a . :... .*:... . 2
.
. .
- g
x- . . .-
. . .:... 9 . . - . i . ._ .. Cv ... . ... a . . . . . . . d9 . . * . e 9 . . : . . .. - .. .
- .
- .Aw .. .
= . . .. . 1 . . :. . .:
. a . . . *
- .
- .,.dw . ** ' . -
- .....
. .:..,.:l..* . . - .. . . .. .. . n ....!. . , . * . . . . . $.
. . 1 . . e ,. . .. ' . . .
.. . .. . . 9 so .: . . . . . . . . . . . .
- ..
.* . . ..mg....*. . .. 9 .. - . vd . ..- ...:., .* ~ .. e . . . . . . . 'i . ::. . e
-
- ..:.
1 . . . 'e. . . . ?
. .
,0 . .s . .. ( .. .. 3 ,. .i. :.. G *: O. . . .t. ,.; z.h .'. s . . .- . . g; - *
- '...
.: .: e......;.....
a . . * . * .: - 2 g
.#. .. - . . . . . .*
sb - .. .
- ,.
- .
.;.. n - -
. .. ::. .
- ..a
. . . .*
- . .
..:
i gt
.* . . . . . ...: t . s . , .
i. ... O
. ..t a . . . l . . . e *'.. . *. . . .. . . * ....,.....g
- .
. . . . . . . . . . n ...
. nl R
- .
- .. . . .
' .. ,. a .... .h... . - .
- . . .
. '
- .....
. . . - P . . . :,. i . : . e
. i P
, .....I e
. ,
. . . . . ... .i . .. . L t r .. .. . ..I... . . .Q .... . .* A ae . ~ . . .> .*
. . , . ' .
. ,. . . .* . . .. . w .. ,. S . . .-
- .
. . -
- ....e..
.. RP .*
- . :..
.:
' . o
. . ..
.; . ... . : . .si. . .. . *. : . . . . .. . , * ... . . , . . . . .. ...:... .*:.. ..-
. f. . . .
r
g,.. .. . . - . u . . : . Pe
. a
- ., * .:..
. . . g. . . a . . . . .
-
- :
. .. .;..: ...! A . . =., . . i . B . >
.* . . . . . . . .....:
- .
. . = . . . .
. ': c: , : ,. _ l Lc
- ..,
...i..6 . . ' . . . . . . . = * - . . 0 ._ ._ u 4 e - 1 _ AN 0 0 0 2 _ 1 0 4 - e x )0 . 4 S( r - ue9 . -. . _ t d 9 lun _ 1 _ Ci( _ _ . - - _ _ 7 7
. _ . . . _ - - - .. - . . - . .- - _ - . . . . . - - - . . - - . . - . . . - . . . . - . . . . - . - . - - CoalJ Startup: 3 j ' Operations In-Plant Crew Monitoring ""S*""' 5.00 4.50 -- - i , ! 3'81 3.83 i , .5 3.75 W 3.68 3.70 3.73 37, j 3.58 i g 3.50 -- - - _ - - 149 - - 3 44 - l 0 327 Se _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Y e 5m he 4 } 8 9 1
e as R s i 4 - A f ! ji I
3 3 3 $$ 43 J a f E ii "i 3 ]i [i l' !j ! ] ! ji il j 1 5j 5 ! 15 ! E
b k h 5 0 $ > K $h* ! } $ i Areas Evaluated , 4/16/97 { ! ! I v .
s.~..-.~~.-m.--._m.-- . _ ~.m-~_ - ______m. .. . _ . - . _ ._~ ~ ~ ._ _ l ! l ! ! l lgp m m egg gg 1 o ,
., - cn l !
\\ -
e 7 i S i E . - ' ~ m < v h ci, $ b i ii i! y
- ' o
o ^ ! 3g3 , . , . . 1 -
, n . ?_ ?t [M ' 1 ' l , l 4 s & J[.) W. ' i 5 C I5$k - h
- C
$$G W6 U
4 ? . E 3 E M4 : n a - n u . 8 p&gf re $.- E n paiWh.4e: 0 , . f ! $ o ' bN f a < B g%i.g .- i . l 0 o R$ . y 4 g/iN %li['MM .. wF:.
- %
%,M., ;d. i b C/) 1 .9% I rT s 63.; yr.g.'.;;e3 >}e.. - eM 6 ptV enh4 v.kp:? 4MWp . ,* .- i %nt - >, N[n[.I'(s'k $'bhh37. I NN N, : Nhj::,i ,[$"' ~.hff 87h?y[$ i, -ww. e.; . . < . .u.1: 7. - v.. nk q ~.e np .. f 2 -- . . . ,4 d O . .s+~ng,,te u rn n nb s?MDM,%:. W,n - 3 s , Pi 9m e $a x O %% 9. aM C3
' ~ - ~g,p g ~ mew .u w v
w a . , - '? ' $M 'w.'454. Tsi:. 3 a p " ~ 1: ' /'- M$' '.M DE i.Rs 5 63 FEM ,o Jgd..vc ' i% z e;;< pv;g M -fa WN.tc 4.w3f; - , y vM . -, - y.. '
- gi,
g F
- 63
. ye 2 1 Q
- q1 }
( f .:.6 T$ . W ff ' " ' .! ' ..'c , " O CQ . 5 C4
di , - 3 . Q - - . H I sn - F
- #a
o E,4. H . _4 & 'Mi m ,~ *. a va U %e \\ l Q{}s.t.'}'y ki WW' b
? p'li. j- k d0.? .S.g)f Q,N'] g:q,, ! sp?# .' en 5$}5%e
k.h 'c 4 a e> . Ow& -bg$ I & +w \\ en wy Y- h Y$$ 'l y . ! N. ?$$bdkkh$ Nlh5hi 0 h m. . m. ,;ew., g&.^l~;m.. w,.,~ w w e ,n, w:, .m. . a. , 1 m
.. .'
- -r::
- P .e s 2 m,o
' ' % . .. :-a. y,jt. < .iD -
. , .- , . "+ ?; " ~ Q. :' 'c <r;y . ? 'q . ! . '- 6 i i i e i . i 8 W 8 M 8 W @ $ $ W @ . i i i m , , , y n n n n e4 e4 1 i ! ! , . -- - - - , . . - , - , , - - ,, -- -
.. _ - - _ _ . _ - _ _ __-- ----,_.,_._.- .- -.. .-..~~%,.m+.um-w_A=~_m.-um 1 l l i i
!
! k Isk kkdNN ? I ' g . 4 n ' s i i " T j //
- !
LD , y -
N t" - i e. r' , o o '3 e v o- I'~ X f' <
[* @ 8 6. i ' ! o ca .= en o p (3 'r . rpr O l 0 F) J i c> " 4 Q. Y . b.x .s ' C m; u.. IM,[.r[Midr MM N M a. 18 . . 3 F $1rk!c f. cM k.mb%[N
- $ n)h.
h i e:x m . w C .C
- @ 5944%9 .pdf
3
O .m a . . r l . l L -[';;
- .,d.t W.UF L
y;W.. y . a \\ ' g. D
.
- &
b iSQ Q' ' l?*' !$
' . j
O m. MM f Tg $1*1 4 E ) 0 kf.,. h.'$f m w. fh - ' e w .A.,m%%g. w.O Nh i it Vy '* , e 2 z. Fr q.cc ,v.:n !,%> m.m . ~ W ::x fb h . !: i
'. . O - sw % a.1: a . . , o . . . "3.[,N, h.4,. i* I$.fh.;. h
- 0
$,.i. .. , , {,*1 l," }] e 3.Y.f.f:f h.Y,(}c - (. . .El 5 Y~' !y"?j:le ij;, hT.'
,. . , . , n., l & C , . - ,' 'f ~ U paed'n('IdhIk-igb }., h ~
c- . i C m.w e ' m% J. 5 i e, e I M J6..>.d w.u.,a; sg 2
tt SYZ.7. ' $, .%B !$fW.55$h $$i" *:d{,i , y
> "iM 6gMij@35$ $p, -
C
- G W# M
h esm '~ o i c . . ew(c'Th,i,r.g ;$ g4.b , .w ?(ll y \\h? . ;.; . < j [ > ,-? S'$ O' - ' ? h, g>h?,
k
- ".n*
O ' !; ' N h D '
"lde; pR,,$s.# 7 r m it ir - -
- --
3r n r wg., &.14 - C . Mf : Vi dw . E ,,Q',4*M ,M$:2ke ,, t%
ci ' " .4 MC O % .i - M W - C . . . . ..p*. p .m in Q y@- cn y
- '.
.. . , i es=e w_,.. , a m t 4 & % 14 % y,; ppy. 3 Ji
- 'g'ah2
.' .-p. tD g;- l 7* h J'.& ," . . < i cl.$)5N/Lgi MJ .? 1Rv';j&' . CD , w i ~ @;;:. , i.%ii4: 5%Q:,&c G c0
G
. ) _ y ,i f ;' . U a,$ '.' w s.,?.: FLY... .. , @ .. . 6*. , l'ti k . th' . ?N .h. f k,
. t u.e u r.~ - : e p y j U %. i Eh N ~ " q$d,g@M -F - o , - 2; mit m.v. m, 3 . > . . ty -ipt - M/g 4.(5, i's i $ , ( .i- - , ' , - lW;.J. '-
- ? p d rp
, .f. ' ' ~_ 4 g.4 f.'.'Ug 3 r c e# : 1 4% <re $*;#ja . v ,, '; m yd.
J. ,t
, s y . . f f.- m . .v t ,. . ,4, % ' a v W. em n.y. .-=.um. w , . . ,. . . . .a. r x.
{ . o . n i a 4 4 i 6 4 4 i o to I C h. 9 . g g . h. 9 to O q C to o P. C. 5 9 1 to n n n ~s m m m m o n i . lt f A a. . - . . - - - , - .- - - q,, - -
I . , Tactical Plan Elements
MEASUREMENTS ' ' .- -
Human ErrorPropensity Index i \\ ] \\ Applicability l The purpose of;the Human Error Propensity Index is to determine ' l time indicat. ors allow management to react to \\ i ea . also help moititor the direction of an organintion during significant ch
ents and The Propensity Index (PI) looks for the prevalence oferror drivers , ' perceived time pressure, weak lateral integration, etc.) and error catch reduction techniques, field surveillance, etc.) to establish the likelih . problems. ' Process i The meaning of the index and the data collection processes should communicated to the involved parties in advance of the actual data collec addition, the survey process should include a feedback method to de . issues that wbuld detrimentally effect the PI results. achieve statistical significance),20 of which are - supervisors. 'Ihe results.of the evaluation, which can be obtained by eit questionnaire, are then used to establish the baseline score. l The changes in the PI score correlate strongly to the changes in the h the organization. Therefore ifa changeis d t t d i e ec e management has the opportunity to , respond immediately. In addition, the scores have been benchmarked to t industry values and scores above 60 require immediate action, s severe events are imminent. est
Timing- . Measures will be established prior to startup and be periodically asseszd t performance improvements. !
( .
.-._....-----~_.,,m m....,_,.~._,..,.,.m..w.m._-,_ - .-- .ma...s_.mu...am.=4.- wsu-- - ___..a_.-~. . li l l v 4 l l r 4.M'3 QAE f.SE 3 '"
~ 4 MW3 '56% ^' , I e M[w.t% 3 - , ^' 3 { b g ' 3 .S$.h( ,g'8E$ .. ' ' 'l M -* - ..,: fM & , ! 5h .,. l 7, .jp O JV Wl4,v,.h. a; g ., . . . - ?i, ... ,. L.. ,. . e , g m.pt , , m e v , h r ?, > ? Ta'* .r. ,: .4 , f 23 3 E h c.n . h4 d::.r:>( k.,{6$ Y' > h d' NNy.;
-<- 5 m om 2 n. 2 k: y .*g$@M s . . . I .n e . h, .
- EP,
s ^ M }b{ ., ,. -
- j- ~ ~
,' ^ N#5 as ,, '
, ' . . _ ,,,y. g. ,, d k) I . hf - 1 % , !M?! if.p i bD MN w4.. ' ' .C. l:~ '
- W!
m
odj,IIf,:. r s .m- y - - Q Q
- '&
C'QslJ. t u ' '
. o O t .?' .B. 94f6fx.,, . .. . . U .Y Y;hk1 .u.v.. m )f ! p, h g.e w %'.5 , k > e - w
- 1
mA e v - . - kh., m ... y [ i,kh h . $ C* <C I~ 95:;O;YM NV; ?]y a:,i..ar ,h '/; " .,; .i , ,c m / c.m . 7T --- - - - - - - - O
, m .~ m.u; a@,;t.,f N kl,1 @... $ w .. & & . +: u - > - & '. ; }?,&, A .{'5..f.~t: ' W
~ . see <z.. <, ..a g. A ., Q {,pf,.;., W b," 'WG %L%: g.LlSL p -y 'ph f,h g, g ,sf gn' u X * *'n',\\ yp:? ' J.'W:;y,y ,l % x,e:;~; b: N, G o . a ' !' ' ?: a . 1 18 %gt ;gn - l d lf4 i.,1$: h$?.p .- }D: l5R" y ~~'.l" E!E?,& "L' t.0 ~?$5- - w i - ,gki v;qy;,' g,=4.qg a.m , - ~ ', ss .. s .wi .s <9. . ; ~- -y i
- =*
,'. , .g; } ,,:l', C., .:,^,- r <. . .
- s
$.w y w.y gs e.2y; 3yy c. 0 - b, . . ,q . _d U - ["" " 1 (,) . .; - 9,, ~ g;g y.g ', c 3 . . . . . _ . . .w e;4;, ., e
- ~
w. .. . . \\ . U $; : ... Y.Q G{$m. ?*l<l 5,%. , i tr; w 'l UE a$q plV f
.n%: M. :f 7!,' %ff; MHi
- a .
- a m
c . e e r,w gm &
- E
- O a '
2 .M.y :ib.JW@ "* is
- g-
O . - , ~ . ' ,- a a . a. . . w;he .g:40hf'hI[ ,, o. fi i - ., h f . y [h ' a w ' w go .'?? \\ i.';W' i 4 ], : *f.'y$. ~ k ;Y C= i:s.s 3.dik ' L- ,j , - $ Q o.T9fy.'G ;9 3 } y 1 a .w O ~. . . r. . . -,& Th & %. ? , . D'.h' x. m .u h2:^)f
~ n;: m~ %ph .gna Nh. . . %.. . t, . f ONO w mw-m W ' f.lfQ f Q & ', :); , , , - - > ., _ WdMidd?M ..~: - Wycw e < - i- S f bi.h d' i B 1 !i .. WQ 5.$l& q.jM ' E ~-U JM.s. ng t, G .g ? ':h . ', ' c _;, I 4 i L b n r 5 l t i C tri O W O W O m C W O 9 N. 9 N 9 b. 9 N 9 . 9 m 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 , , y 15 . 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 i Startup: 3 1 .l Maintenance Task Performance Checklist tong rerm: 3.5 Overall Performance l 40 i ! ! 35 f' 3.2 , . 3.1 ! 30 I r I l l 2.5 - l ! t l
2.0 - ' ! t 1.5 - i . 1.0 l ! ' h 0.5 - i " I ' I 00- i i --- - . , - -- - -
Feb Mar Aptd May June July l t GRADING SCALE l_ D TRT^t- ! l 4 - Excellent 3 2 1 - Unsat 4/16/97 i ! t I !
. . Goais ! ' Startup: 3 Long n= 3.5 > Maintenance Task Performance Checklist Procedure Usage and Adherence I 4.0 -
3.6 l 3.5 - 3.4 t 3.0 25 l 0 .I b 2.0 ! eo
1.5 1.0 i I 0.5 ! ! ! l 0^ i . . . Feb Mar Apra May June July j 4 ' l GRADING SCALE [__._ne'T6TA 4 - Excellent , 3 ! i 1 - Unsat 4/16/97 l l ! f i ,
. i 7 ) ~ ~ -www ! $ 8 $ $ $ $ 0uououo 6 -
o ' l ' - ' , , , 1/20 -
. i i , i ' 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 l m.2 , , f . , , 5, 3/3 --.~ m, z c . 4 l gi . 1/6/97 w o m % m e ntses e 'I { i i E' E ' i 5- ca . _ , , l {j 3/18 < > < - m .i ~ " 3* ! u i > i i o' I ( j O ' ' 1/20/97 wrmsuum:xnwa E a/2 0 m_.- .c . x . 3 i l I,! 4 a . l' l Q 4l16 - ' O ~- nu , a _ 2/3/97 newesn wwowN 5- % u"z O O 3 uu s v, & - " oeoooo ! 2/17/97 wwore.*omweg4 O - g h 1/20 .-.. .y $, 1 - - > 7 i. o. ' ,. o - . - i a. o 3/.,> 3/3/97 w etew e ce w e u .i ~ wx _ . , 2 3 _ ~~ i ! o, o - . ,
'. 2/17 - 1 1 "* o g =. i m - - >
- i = , i 3/18/97 - - - - =a I -- ! O i (N
- , i. 3/3 - > - - - , a I - , ; a i l ; e. l , i -- i 3/13 _--i ! 5' ' 4/2/9.7 V :*.w.=2 c"a -- t ' " -- l y - -I 4/2 4/16/97
- =.... -- ='<5
4/16 1 --m-"' . . . . , c- eo o u o h A E c t d D o - , s - u u W . e > d O, , - < e ' c Q N n c-m& O E - > l m 3O - a c A a oo 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 CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE MWR AGING ! aoo .. MONTHLY , p 250- summmusMWR Average Age (Days) <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 G o o m o l NOVEMBER tf i i DECEMBER G [ JANUARY $ FEBRUARY G , .. ! d ' MARCH c O i . >
, r
- { APRIL d
8 ' ! A i ' ' 3 4 i m i s yay , f 5 I E 8 O i " 5 E O ! 3 JUNE (f) [ i __ Z ! @ JULY . > I __ r ! r , m ! AUGUST Q [ t .. i SEPTEMBER ~ h l .- [ ' , f OCTOBER p r- to o l 0 5 o ' S 3 E c wi t A NOVEMBER ME i N 3' tA f - i c) ' ce f r l N .@
k O" DECEMBER [ 1 , L p t i f l ' r t , I > I i ~ - - . . . . - - --.m.-,_.____ - - . . - - - - . - - - - . - - - . - - -- -
NUMBER o w o G U U U $ $ a o l l I l JN!.*l. N,[f.:;,l -[ f- G ! November
1 5 t I December G l ' January .r . ' ,';c . 9.' , . - G . J '. - ..:.,. ..., , t., .- r ! ! February '[ '{ [;.t f.,f 'f; l- . 0 l O ! _. . . . . . . .. m March . . . ' ~ . . .' 'T , .- cm @ l , = . - . . . . . . . l , i ! ! > - - H Apni l l l . Q l 2 , mv g E o , ' x z ' ' June ! O ! C Jufy Z { i O ' ) I August (/) l d i I , September l
, r October o G o d3 3 E., c d V a ' t a g IA ) November .. o - , U Ch
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 l 100 - 90 -
80 NW , ' 69 70 % gg , $ 3 , $ 60 - - - - - - - - - O e h g 50 - - - 5 i f $ 40 - 1 5 _E_lllIIEMI . , 30 - - - - - - - - - - f - j , i ' 20 -- - - - - - - ~ 16- 14 , i ! 10 --8 ' f ' '
- - -- - - - l 0- 10-Mar-97 24-Mar-97 7-Apr-97 21-Apr-97 5-May-97 l < [ BTotal Long Term Tagouts E Tagouts with Completed 50.59 l 4/16/97 l ! ! . . i
REFUELING OUTAGE (RF6)$ -ISTARTS/FINISHESISCHEDULE PERFORMANC TGT6L 00 TAG EVEN CURRENT SCHECULE --- (IB) 24000} '22000 - - T.-~~~~~~~~~"" . .E., 20000 -
. _ _ ... o a 18000- ' ~ f 9 I6000- E 14000 - y N b O U
M i2000-
. . -urns __ . 10000- '. E 8000 { v . E
N e T 6000 - 3 g ' 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 M M 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 I 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 l LL SYS LL SYS LL SYS j - FP SYS , f ' 12 3y . 10 10 j '$ - - -
- --
10 -g- 5 Y i Yf $ 8 ! , ! l %Ij- . l3 ' fj 6 - d^4 ' {- - '.;, .' i i ' ' /; . 4 - . - l- - . 2 - - - - - f . - ---- - ' f,T .. ! 1st Otr 96 2nd Otr 96 3rd Otr 96 4th Otr 96 ist Otr 97 ! I Calendar Quarter , 4/16/97 I !
t i , - . . - . . . . - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ 1 ,
- .
Go:is Startup: <!25, None Startup - Related - TOTAL SIGNIFICANT CCFs I t.ong rerm: <50 ' - OPEN BY MONTH , 100 -- , i - (Estimated) Criteria - , to be established 1 87 [ . 75 -- , . . b -o-1997 l 0 50 . -1996
8 . 44
= t 37 .! ' '
25 -- ' ! 15 l =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 W O b W
, LL s < 2 7 ' < -m- O. z o .f
?, 4/16/97
i . . - - - . . ~ . . - - - . . - . - - - . ~ . - . . - - - . - -
. . . _m..m_____ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - l Total CPS Procedure Changes 500 450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 i 415 i ! 400 l ,
l E 350 -- - --- - - - - - I ! en i E E PJumber of Procedure b300 - - -- - - ,
- "9'S
y Total Procedum Changes t 260 Since September-96 = 1533
f , 0 226 ' 5 ~ l200 jgg - 180 _o E i' 3 150 - - - - L40 _ ____ 132 i, . 100 - I 50 j- l , 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 l ,0_ !
120 - ' f , i
-- . - j 100- ! 3 / - - l f ' i 80- ! ,. _ _ _ l / l l 60 . l 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 f i 450 437 424 f l ' D Condrtion Report initiation Rate ' E Human Performance Rate
} C3% HP Ratio '- . I i _ _ _ 4 350 --- - - _ . _ , __- _ _ ! .; ) I 05 296 300 ___ _ . . _ 280 250 __ 42 { 22, 209 l 04 200 _ l 93 66 f 52 l tso _ l f f ' iii , , 100 - _- j 5 9 72 59 10 is 73 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 U*" Significant Condition Reports
. - - - - . . _ . - - . . . . . - 50 so
45 alssued -- 44 ! - _ i B Closed . . > 40 _ 1 _ 3, gn ,. _ j _ , D Open with Plan (Cumulative) - - 35 O Open without Plan (Cumulative) - - - -' ~ [. - M - 30 30 ' . ,j ' 30 --- - -. - - . - 25 b. .I $8 - i e; ! 25 . 22 I J' - ' , .,c. v - . ,_ . 20 '
- ^
^ ?'::: - ( 16
- =L
.'.
- .
n - P4 14 E. ' 9 I . Q ' - , 10 ') U $ ' ~ ' 14 ' I ' s - d - fi F . ' 10 - A _~ .- y!; f - % y -
- )
A {j - ' * , e . .t X [[ - ff - '?-~. $p - ,. $ ,! - Nf
-y- i? 5 ' ' ' k- 7 } Q } 1 $ f 0 I l-@. M 0 - - {- -- i -- ' m---+- . - --{-- - -- - - i -- - - - - - 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 ,
}.p? ; .'.i . -- - 40 rEI . _ 3 .- . ( _ .; 7
r > _ l;_ :[
20 ~d ~ ~ ~ ' - ' ' i i i ! 0 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 f E ! 35 3
f 30 -- - - ---- '
20 - - - - - } 0 '
Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 f End Of Month i 4/16/97 ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ - _ ___ __-_ _ _ _____- ___ _ ____ _-______. - . o , S@lf Idsntification Rate 90 % Y 'm. / \\ / \\ - 80% [ " '"*" --- x / O pin op ,,,on. g ( """O "RadakmProceren / \\ -x s.. ! \\ O 70% --\\- s ,_, / \\ \\ y' 's / o ,/ ,# .N, \\ \\ / ' ' f g o y '~ %- l \\ ' 60 % ' / \\\\ / [ 1' \\ f , , , \\.N \\ /o s\\ / % 7 . x._ - 7- x . v4.(/ 1 - 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 . . - - - - - - . - - - . - - . - - - -
, ,. - 1 HUMAN PERFORMANCE / TECHNICAL CCFs I 25- ! i l 20 - j ! ! l ' 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 l ! I i ! , 1
' $lartup: <10% ! Radiation Worker Performance i Long Term: <10%
, f 20.00 > l t 18.00 ! ! 16 00 .--- --- -_ ! ! '
' 14 00 -- - - - - - f I to 5 12 09 ! = 12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! 11.16 ( h ' 8 h - - - - - - - ---- - - t 10 00 3 10.00 - E } S I .o 1 e i , n. 8 00 -- -- - .-- - -- Y t ' l 6.31 6 00 - - - - - --- - - f < i ! ! 4 00 - - - - ~ - - 2.67 t ! 6 ' 2 00 -- - - - - - g -- 0.84 . j 6 0.07 t r 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 - -' - l 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 ! I ! , ! . _ _
.. . .- . . _ . - . . - - . - . . . . . _ _ . . . - . . . . . . _ . - - - . - - .. - .- - .. ' , ' ATTACHMENT C j ., .
J ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY (IP) l . MEETING WITH THE NRC 3
ON STATUS OF 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 - Feedback and Corrective Actions - - 4
MATERIEL CONDITION . NRC COMMENTS
CONCLUSIONS
. 4 3 %
i < i e
. . . - . 1 INTRODUCTION - ! . STRATEGIC RECOVERY PL AN(SRP) TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE RESTART AND RECOVERY PLANS i i l ' . SRP DESCRIBED IN 4/18/97 MEETING . . READINESS REVIEWS ARE IN PROGRESS . RESTART ON MAY 30,1997 i !
_. - . . _ _ _ _ _ .._ .. _ . . _ .. _. _ _ ._ . _ _ , , ' OVERALL STATUS AND RESULTS TO-DATE
i e STATUS OF STARTUP READINESS ' . ACTION PLAN . l SRP READINESS REVIEWS ! . . TURN-AROUND TEAM HAS . AGGRESSIVELY EVALUATED DEPARTMENT IEVIEWS ~ RESULTS TO-DATE .
_. . .- . . - . . _ - . . _ - - . . -. _ , - . HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND l PROCEDURF, COMPLIANCE = GOALS OF SRAP NOT FULLY MET ' = 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 ' ON HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND . l PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE , s . i e MANAGEMENT'S EXPECTATIONS ARE: - J ! ! - Questioning Attitude - Conservative Focus on Safety i - Strict Procedure Compliance
- Self-Checking ! ! l MANAGEMENT HAS COMMUNICATED -
ITS EXPECTATIONS 4 i ! 4 - Stand Downs i - Management Charter on Safety - Performenee Principles - Revision to Procedures on Procedure Compliance ,
. .. ; _ . . .. . . . _ . _ ._ _ _ ____._._._ _ _ ,
. 1 TRAINING ON HUMAN PERFORMANCE AND . P~ OCEDURE COMPLIANCE R
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 - .- PROCEDURE ENHANCEMENTS
- REVIEWS TO ENHANCE PROCEDURES
, ' e REVIEWS AND ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDE: - Exercise of Frocedures - Review Procedures
- Reviews of Surveillance Procedures , . ENHANCEMENTS TO PROCEDURE ~l .
REVISION PROCESS c , 1 ' l
i i < s
, 1
. - _. . _ . - . . __ - . i 4 i OBSERVATIONS, MONITORING,
AND OVERSIGHT OF - ~ l HUMAN PERFORMANCE ,
AND RROCEDURE COMPLIANCE i 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 > Number of Human i Performance Events Events is a 90-day rolling Goal - - - The numerical values indicate ' 25 - Average number of days the number of days since the between events previous Human Performance Event. ........................................ ............................ 20 - Goals: ' The short-term goalis 21 days between events. g y 15 - o A long-term goal has yet to be established. 10- ! S- . 5 34 20 18 3 30 13 .h. ....O.O. . h. . .h. .h. o . . . . . .. . s c s s s s s s r- N s s N N s3$8 $ $ 8 8 $ $ fj $ ^R S 8 $ $ e S 8 8 R R a a a L M ^ E E E S 5 5 9 a - - 5 5 5 V V ' -- m owner: P. D. Yocum EVENT DATE , 4/30/97 . -- s. .r- .. . - - . . . - . . . . - -
l , ,' [ ti ; ' !' !! i. . .. ~ . - _ _ _ 4 6 - Er[s'] l3i.! u IM5' ed l' 0:l ~i% - !3 !I 3 tn - e m - evy - r o e yr o - pt r m o c mf t a 5 e n ci t s 4 y94 , h le a si 3 i2( 3 c f t s le isd a c es - t a x aen n e i E SNU e. d - ~ - - - 2 i1:l a 0 000 r - G 5 321 f:. E !? I (i:fi3 - GC 7 NN sgba$ ! l ildhilI 13 1 h7l i ,l de! ! , l ia 1{i - 3 ! I A - RM 2 O - h.E9$s? ,- - - 6 f$FWM M !buf~ f48 i T R 3 . I O - NF 5 _[2M9$ahhy$dMpd" Wfga3% 9 :j P" - . n 9 sj 5 OR 3 7 9 ME D /8 E 2 P g $ F ks { Ig @ W%M' $ RE3m+r5 E 0 i - d 3 !i !l& T / W W 4 A F U E O L R E S
A - .Maf_ Mg$$[p4$Rh7h=# ii1I V $ ie A 3 k C R u E D C S E A S T 02 m he$ d n E $Ngik?WC29tm0A !i # R NE A D
- V
3 D r V A O P - I U I 5 T T A KG hah $g$5Qe[fe* t. . ! ia i j i- - s 0i . .j 4
. p tf T 3 A A A L D - R U 65 _yn h- ,~ EPM ' ia {# 3 2 - OU 5 " .- C !i;I - 2 ' 6 _ M' i .1f e 3 ~l3if - gji i! w- 1 0 2 st#E s iij i' 3 - 3 - ta - o 8 " y8cN? ' 2lpl8 - .a G 4 3 ii p - u t - ra 4 '. I n " . g' $gqE*%- - 6 y. !: . !ni jj2 " - v , t
- $
. S 3 . j ! eli3 ' " 0 0 x. 5 o. 5 0 7 0 o 0 0 5 0 4 3 2 1 t 0 o 9 / oa 0 t 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 l Attentiveness l l Nuclear Safety ~ l l 1 Verbal
- y
Communications ' l Procedure gg
Compliance 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 l ! ' i Q aint & Sum gggytyfq4u,3gg,gggg,gg,,ygt9g3pgggggg p - R Activities 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- .-71% { 3 a '^ -- -. _ 22% o to M a
e n Annunciator Response 'u . . . . . s.. ..... N. . b N NN . . ..
- Y
I .. . a ..n - l . . I MCR Annunciator g l Status
e l I Problem g , , Identification ' ' - Overtime Control ! - i ' 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 - , , , , - ,-.m-, .,--r- - - , , , , . . . .#~.-,_.- . . . - - . . . .. - . , , . - , , - , . . , _ , , - - . _ - - - - - . , , - < - , . . - - - . , . . - . - . , - , , . . , , - , - - , . - y .- - . ,,
. . . . 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 30 J - I $ Startup Goal: .
-$ - - 3.0 ? - ---
- ---- - : - - - - - - --- - - ~ , ! j ' - ' } [i 2.5 - _ f c , - i i 2 W ? O 2.0 ? I " $ - 8 i ?! i < f t.S - s ,k. 1.0 - f , - 7 } ' , 's f 0.5 - . 1 ^
4 0.o ' . . Standards Professionalism Safety Radiological ToolUse Self Checking Documentation
controls ! Owner A. E. Mueller AREAS EVALUATED ) , 4/30/97 I l - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - . - - _ _ - _ ____ - - . _ . _ - . . - _ _ - . _ _ _ . = _ - - =___- ._. -
- . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . - .
i P TOTAL SIGNIFICANT OPEN i
,5o 7 COMMENT CONTROL FORMS i ! ) Open - - - Startup Goal 4/27/97 125 - . . - Long-Terrn Goal - -------------- 115 i Goals. ! Startup: Less than 125 f 100 - open Significant CCFs ! . h Long-Term: Less than 50 87 y open Significant CCFs O I 75 - b m - E t 3 ! Z l 50 - - . . 4l 39 i E " ' Ill37 . l i ! 25 - { f 15 11 ! 3 3 4 5 4 2 1 - 0 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 _ llh 250 - 226 Q Lu j Mi h [ W x k . 180 Q- 200 - 180 $ '$ - * _ ! #
$M !- g $ 150- g; % N- 132 2 W { lj ~ (. 5 $) ff ) Z , ' , 100 - ' ] I f h h iff E I Mi li),
- H i
- 5
g Us '
j j g g$ g , s0 , , , 3 l C Eiii T .TC. !Il f l ' h N N ,l l . h!$1 1 k % Nsi ?b'?5 %. ,:. g 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 VIOLATIONS ,s0 147 'li ' l[ b 126 h ! 120-
.{. E E j d; 99 100- ' 87 ' W i &@ ^M e ul
- l;
! Et ) - . {[ g ,[Q . 80 , f . lf 2 65 7
62 4/28/97 i; 'd % e 60 -
- ~
. , ., ,; s - < 48 , MJk 57E 40 - , g;. - i , 30 y me < . I i 2K@ _ j ,f W (
20 - 1 l l ? [t ' ' f }hrg ' j , ' i ] ?N - 'j i {@
- 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
' d,{l ' Human Performance Events , , one Humar Srformance ' Event on u..a Condition 4
- .
Yr Report. 7 g -+-Human PerformanceEvent to ) P C Condition Report Ratio (%)
h j{ 350 - M 4
k % i} e $ 305 ' 299 T' M 296 300 - 8 _ j/ - 280 _ L . n. @ @ 1 8 - ~$ $ 4 ! $ g 248 %. A 242 4/28/97 I 250 - t r1 - @. f m d e a a d - [ i. g 221 3 a s g
+ D - R @ $4 204 2 209 209 ' lE y 3- T+ Si t 9 6 'h ~ k $ h ,i 393 ( $ k - a @5 200- d e 3 a c# 72 - $ p ? c- 42 160 166 ' g na }v{ y - t ' - 152 dj p:p g ~ ~ $4 - - 150- - p (s y m, ,,- a 4 , f .h g til . 8 i E B $ U " g i f 'g 3 $ Bi g g , , I'! 9: t E 9 $ % E r y 's g h , r 100- y we
s j d 72 79 77 75 [ I Y f 5 N D 82 . 79 gl' - 9 {! 69 Y. 70 . Ell ,MD M 62 m - 72 N 23 61 g%ky ire h ? r, F % -- &; ir
11 %
g - g ti .D.. a. 4" 54 l"
0' i 5 & 5 & k 5 55 h $ ik 5 f 5 5 it e i d p r 9 ?,! ?,; +R 2 ? 4V t; %. C' it 2* g g g y ..
- e y
t: $
- 4
ti @ p y e , 0 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
. _. - . _ _ _- _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . ._ . _ _ _ , - i .. MATERIEL CONDITION 4 ' . l UPGRADES FOR DEGRADED VOLTAGE 1
. d INSPECTIONS OF BREAKER.S !
4 INSTRUMENT ACCURACY
HOUSEKEEPING IMPROVEMENTS
. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
.
. . . . RIGNIFICANT CONDITIONREPORTS Olssued 4/28/97- 50 - a Closed 47 O Open With Plan (Cumulative) - 44 45 43 4' O Open Without Plan (Cumulative) - - 40 37 38 y y > _ _ _ ~5 - ~ ' 30 4 30 ! , , 'J a 30 - - 3 - 2E . _
y 27 + lj
u> s. y 25 -
4 22 3 - . i - S 20 - 17 5 k " ' 16 l [ 12 k 15 13 w l gg ij 33 ?g - !) _ si . 8 b ' "E -" I I 10 - 7 8 ' - 'i 7 i f [ 1 b f 5- 3 f 3 3 2 2 g 0 E I ? $U 1
E
"
T " ' o ~ 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
$$ y, 95 ._ $ 100 - or equal to 180 days 84 - TZ iM -g g i !! B I ! $ $
$ $ - 42 45 - Aug 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 Less than 20 outage MCR 7 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 _ DEFICIENCIES Goa's: =' , e0 . . Average Age 160 - - Goat Less than or equal to 84 -- 14- m 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. Recovery Plan elernent reviews. 70 Long-Term: Average age of g gg , y Cfp MWRs less than or equal 50 ' 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 CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE MWR AGING goo .. MONTHLY 4/27/97 250'~ MGM MWR Average Age (Days) g - - - MWR Average Age Goal ' 200 -- z Q . . ... . @ 150 -- l Lu k 100 -- 5 l k 50 -- This is a new indicator beginning in 1997. 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 -- L Instaned to Support Outage m in Testing as Permanent Modification Awaiting Permanent Design / Implementation m Others > - - - Goal . 20 -- Goals: l 21 f Reduce to and maintain no more { than 8 installed at any one time 1 }
- 87
15 -- 16 g % 15 33 Nf 12 12
2 11 fn i
h h z 10 A: At {j g 10 -- g ! y p. _ _ . . O . . ?-2 . . N . .N . ...7 . . . . . . .... . . . .... 50 If @ @ ! I N is I i 5- !g g$ $ m Ji 3p i p $$ { 4 a g p < , il fE Ni $y ' 6 gr 4 ! l 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Owner. M. W. Lyon 1996 1997 l !
4/30/97 l ' l
- _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . .. _ . . _ .. _ _ __ _ . _ _._ . _. ___ . - __ . . . . . , -'%.4 ' , S s f ., OPERATOR WORKAROUNDS 25 - a-~ i Number Goals: - Goal - - ' Both the startup and 1997 goals are less than or equal to 20 - 10 Operator Workarounds. 15- Z uJ ID 12 12 12 2D w %?, 11 M] gy __ Z 19.' d t ep. ., Og -------I 10-
- W
a's ~ -- -- -- - - -- ------------------------- h k t "N; ygg 8 8 _y w ^ $1b f.% Tit $?h ?* d $d m $- $y;,c$$ w + n
- c
- :
${7: - j,, %K1 f,; 5- fy_ y !Q % T & it:i ', 1% 4(T4 r,'
- &Q
%y - '
- D
i i ., 4 't y
v1
- >g
. .: . m" $f Q< hri j v- j s - T , ,G,it LM .M.,, g; y , =, - g. $ps { '{ ?j W 5 0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Owner: J. A. Purauskas MONTH , 4/30/97 . - .m m .m. . . .. ...mm . . - . . . . _._ -- _, -, - - - - y ,<w - - - -
. . - - - . . . . - . . . - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - -- -__. - - - _ - - - .- _ - _ . - - . - . - . . - - - ,.l . ~ > Goals' I
LONG-TERM TAGOUTS Startup: No long-term tagouts , a Long-Term Tagouts , gg , , without a completed safety , m 50.59 Completed analysis screening or safety evaluation. j ' 90 - 87 ! Long-Term: Goal to be l 80 established. ! 79 80 - 70 ~ 66 s . ! 8 80 @ . ' l-- O 50 - 6 8 e.
e 30 - 28
- 20 - 16 16 to . 8 g i 0--...-- - 1 1 i t i i i 10-Mar-97 24-Mar-97 7-Apr-97 22-Apr-97 28-Apr-97 12-May-97 19-May-97 26-May-97 Owner P. J. O'Brien , 4/30/97 i i - . . . . . - . . J
. _. . , , . . i
CONCLUSIONS . . CPS PERSONNEL ARE MAKING l PROGRESS . ! I !
- NUMEROUS ACTIONS TAKEN
1
- PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE IS
I IMPROVING ' . l - e MANAGEMENT CONTINUING TO STRESS
! AND OVERSEE PROCEDURE . .
COMPLIAN~CE , .1 i 4 h ! i
i i ,
, . - . . - ._ - .. -- ' ILL N'D S - \\ POWER Amc m o ' i . 4 0 < / %' * n s / _ a. s , <- , . , .v
i
- ~ . , . 'j //-Q ,k
. ' . .
- -
,i! I i!'\\,\\ , _ _ , . - . _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ , t- -. tl:p;;7. ;.,;;,y- 1,' : : ' ' n.$_m_!,7 ,! h. m . . i {} } bib, .. ... f.fi'% f , . g t i <, i ' I ,. _. .. . . .. '. , y-m. . , i ._ - ,r , D ita . D . j ,_ ghy ' "M' g) [_M . =s.- .-~g ,._.n- m, '~ _ ~ - ,s M 4, N yd * .! m -C , - - -- N ,A_- . ,',s.g3. ,~d,. _ _ _ _ _1_m_ war _mnin_nimme nrat_ _ _f - _ -- . www , .. . _ - - - _ w -- ,.- . ,~.. _ :::= : : : _ -
- - :: =::--
~~~~~~~=c55555555=;;5 sss;5555x -_ a:: _ : ::_ :_ : _ .~.~.- _
- = _ :::::::::: _ _:_-:__~.
_: - - - - _ - _- - .-_= : =n = ==: =: :=: _ _ - - : : : _ _
- =
- _
= = , .. 7 . .y -- . g;;_: -: ;; :5 ;
- _ - :: _ - -
. - i i Clinton Power Station
. Illinois Power Company Meeting with the NRC on Status of j ' 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 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 - IP Response to NRC Questions by May 16 . 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
- f .i
4 i . September 11,1996
i
.
January 9,1997 .
I
. ' i
! 4 ? d i
! i l l 1 i 4 i i l J 5 . I ! $
$ 1 4 i
.. . - . . -- - -. . . . ' 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 43 Review Activities Still Outstanding i - - 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)
. . Additional Actions Based on Results . i j Additional Restart Constraints identified -
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 . Recent Issues . 1 L Seismic Qualification of Breakers - Suppression Pool Strainer Operability -
, - 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 1 i ,~ i . ' ! h /I ,4 ~f , , l e :e,W M ., .- . . .^ ! l \\\\ - - ~ . ___ .. N'E 'dkfiki)"kN[f$!!!h,flf!.dl$ . UMN i 3 I-d - D. gi - Qy '16 ti I l . - 8 we !?! - " , ] 'JE N ) $NeL ll. &g !""$"1gM;gs) n f],% h t" % r> < ,
- 8
' AM/T m . <- 3( i a J x~ v _ ~
n
' ^ ' 5555555555555555555555555555-:-:-:-:-:-:-:_:-:_ "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 Clinton Power Station May 28,1997 ~ . %
..__ __ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ - _ . _._
- .
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
Startup Readiness Action Plan 3 s 55 Total itsms . t
i
3 Items are Post-Restart
'
.; 52 Pre-Restart items Completed by IP . .
< 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 . TOTAL CPS PROCEDURE CHANGES ~~ Total Procedure Changes Since m er of RemenWACs 415 _ 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 ,
[ h 7 7 148 E 150 i k - }} N b
132 3 A e b- 5 4 z 3 % {! t e I. _ S ~ fi - h 177 YX h li (,; i & $ . $ $ Ei ${{ h il $ 50 - w ?! s 1 ! $ 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 ~ .
_ _ . -- . ._- .- -. - . - - - - .- _ . _ . 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 ! I Circuit Breakers ! .
I Revised Test Plan < - . Increased Inspections - ! Outstanding Questions - Will Demonstrate Reasonable i - ) Assurance 4 j i - [- l A.B.B. K-Line Breakers I Westinghouse DHP ! Westinghouse DVP I ~~ " ~ ~ i! Breakers Breakers j
' l l 4
O 8 Not inspected.1esteh ' 28 1 # inspected,1ested ,
26 j 4- - y .- - i ) 24 _ _ , . %h.'f ' ' , lh j g y i j 22 I 20 $1} ' '#4$ I i q 18 [ i 4 Safety Related is qA- f - t , n 16 , '8 ,! G.E. Magna-Blast 34 , l ! Breakers jo g , ! l l12 i 12 .Ni N l ' 'o B ' 6 6 L ' j ., ( . - . . - . - - . . . _ , _ . . , 4 4- ' [ 2 2 - , 5- WQM , ' ' ' 0 -- ---. ~ : 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
_._ -. .- - _
.--- - -.-.
_..--
.
. .
l Long-Term improvement Plan 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 .
e , .- . . . ._. . + .r
ILLING S PGMR Atracaneni r . 1 . .- ._ m, ses[ ,. - v x. n.. b 5- ,L ~ ' , , . . . j .~ ,- _ , , . . , _ . - . . . _ ,, , _ ..._! _ .' ._i '.} .t . ;d! , - , . ~,t 'g y! u n . c =.: ,j ; mc . 'e r,., 'W*$. *i - .-a... ._, .
. _ .w. i.- . if ,i ' , ! I .I J 11 gl.f 2 --9 . .' e. Cms M- - 2 '! 'L
, i I .s-.m - ;f! .I!, , si, . Q
!! y + .r,4a=: 1w !
- >\\
c
' ~ ' h '.' - . t 7 k l .- , + c b [ . --J Li k h "','"' " "I $ w w .6_ a ky ' ' m m _ e ~__ ~ _ ..
m _=_ _ _ - _ _ - := 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ z_ m -- - rw - - :- _Z_7_;C,LL1-T- -Z-Z-1-7- -1-112 . - -1-2- -1- ~ - -- - - -T-:- -Z-1-Z , - -
- - : : : : : :- -- : :
.. __ . -~:5:: ssse: =-:e:ss-:5-:se:sS-:;;s1___ _ _
- 55:^5:^~T-55 5SS.55555555555 ^5:-^5:15555:l^ ~
- _ -__ _ = _ - -- -_:-_. ._. -: . .__ . _. = _;_ - .- -. < . Clinton Power Station
. l . Illinois Power Company Management Meeting with NRC on Readiness to Restart Clinton Power Station June 13,1997 - i 1 + l ILLINSIS P4WWER __
.- - . 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 . Degraded Voltage .
1 ' Circuit Breakers . , , ECCS Suction Strainers / Containment . Coatings Main Control Room Light Sockets . 1 . l l ILLIN91S P@WER d
. - - . _ Startup Plans I Startup Plan Developed . i identifies Hold Points for Evaluations e j Specifies Equipment Conditions and = Activities for Evaluation j i Staffing Adequate - ! Systems Ready - Crews Briefed { - Lessons Learned from Previous - Evolutions i ! l i l i ) I 1
ILLIN 91S - P(WWER i ,
_. . - . - . .. .. .- .. -. _ . Long-Term improvement Plan . Covers Systems, Programs, and . Organizations , , identifies Elements for improvement ~ e
Including: , Leadership / Accountability - j Work Control - j - Self Assessment Corrective Action - i !. ILLINGIS P&WER .-
. . . - - - -. - .. . l L ! Conclusions Restart Date . ' 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 Management Meeting with NRC r I on Readiness to Restart Clinton Power Station i , July 3,1997 -
- b
. . . . . . . . m M' . .h @' (-.- . - . _ .. . _ ... _ . . _ . . , . q. ~. , , , , . . e .* _ $ -_ ._. .___ _.._.._. t... _, 3 .- ss.e:e :RC.c..= nr.w M g!!4j-iW &.. ,.~ w .n1..oo,w# f y!',jM g % . : c- 1 a m-empb f:f j/MNc 7hj ' Ce , - i g .......;-....__. s . _ _ __ % ..[ , $ __ _l_ _gA'flO0gaudsue=== ymA___7 . --.o:0:co:0:c_:o:0:ce:0:0:o 20:10:o 0:0:0: _ m _
- _::::::: _: :_
_ _ _ _ _ - _ =_ ^_ _ _ _ :: __---^^-_^.-^_--'-_^_^^__^_::.m- --___
- _ :
- _ : - :_ _ _ ::_- _ ::::_ ssss_ ss' s-:sss =-
. = ssssssssssx--ssssss - .
- -_ _-_ :_ ::_
__ : : - . -
- _
_ _ _ _ . -_ _ - . _ . _-_ :_ _ _ . _ . .
.- _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ._ 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 . .. - - . - _ Startup Constraints _ t . Degraded Voltage
I Circuit Breakers . i
. ECCS Suction Strainers / Containment . Coatings w Neon Lights a , a u .
. . .- . - - . - i . Overview of Startup Readiness
' Action Plan . ~ 4 ' 55 Total Actions
- - 1 3 Actions are Post-Restart - . 52 Pre-Start Actions Completed . Improvements Made in: . Procedure Compliance / Adequacy - y - 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 - _
,
! Overview of Readiness Reviews t . ' 132 Total Readiness Review Activities . i l ,_ - l All Activities Are Completed . i Additional Restart Constraints identified and . Completed ' . l; 44 From System Reviews - ' 28 From Program / Organization Reviews - '1 Program Weaknesses identified a 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 improvements in Performance , '! ' Management Expectations . __ -
Procedure. Compliance l . Procedure Enhancements . . Event Frequency . Plant and Control Room Deficiencies o Management Observations and . Measurements of Performance > . b k
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - __ _. -. _ _ .__ ..-_ _ ________ - _____--_ _____ _ ____ _ ______ - _ _ _ __ i i ,w . - . . _ -,. - -. c GRADE DAYS l o - N w s. 0 o . - - S O 'n Q U' U' o & & n & t,u un s. v. o; - O $ 1/1/97 - + b 1 . > -< c e . tiMtf 5- a hI ~ , &
1/13/97 i % . . . . f 1/igr97 5 k ' , 3 c m - e g 3 1/;597 j._ y3 l l ,P {{F j Q ' Rg -g3 g %
- -
-4
v f f31/97 ; gg a e o , g y a 2 .
, , > 8 - 4's.} Q 2'G97 i }$ l ' R
~, . - 1 p*J a
c ' rit y,97 : o a B, . . . . . -.< g B - ~ - g a, g w , , a 2'1837i gg
" -- Q 2/24/97 i $ $ k , g 4 - T2:97 i 3 E 3 > M. - - Ke g
e 3/8/97 5- 8 $ 8 %+ . <
' $" m' --_ d . . m %;
3 y ... <n e V 3/14;97 '
- N
. , , - , . . Q 3CO,97 i @- e W .n . I .D ,1 326.975 %v
i .2 E E a.1/97 i %j 4 . r h$7 % -
%
a. t . " " - 2 a
N N '% 4,7fg7 :
% ' 51 i:= i 4/13.97 - Q ] a , D 4/19/97 i e N i
-O N
- :.-
e' $ L^J 4.25/97 2 ~ .y P w N - % . . d 5'Ir97 p g g g' A
N , [ 56/97 h [3$
s e . . ; .. g a 3 , a ' M 3 '97 :P ?g Q . , g 519/975 'g k hl5 e c , , ! 5/25/97 I [ O g='n @ ' o " E l M' [ Sa !
6 6 g l 5/31/97 : , m , ! n . . eR7 7 b&s7 : .
- g
.. " .m . . g 6.12;C7 - -
& 9 o e m 3 } Si18,97 i j ' i. N.'407 i f I f o 97 I ...h (
i ! d - - - . . . - . . - . . . . - . . - a - . , ~ . . . - . . e
, MAIN CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES 90 - ~ O Totai Non-Outage Willi FIELD WORK REAIAINING M Total Outage EN1 70 - g - Less than 20 outage MCR , __ \\ ~ Deficiencies at startup 47 - Less than 25 Non-Outage MCR gg_ 33 - , i 41 39 z
30 - M Deficiencies at startup. 31 ' 20 - j i ! 10 - '4 -
- 4
y o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nas Dec 7 Owner J A Puzauskas A VERAGE AGE OF M:llN CONTROL ROOll DEFICIENCIES aco -
, m_ ic7 g33 F ~ "A * o n + , g,a , %Y m
- 5 ~'
I . = ic 1 3 2 5 m Coa l ted "$ P i3- 3- INj .'@ 3 O!il m ~ ':?1; .. hM 5d "' 'l. i $1 bii . . $ 9 t T W Lu 70 _ 541 - @ - -:
- y;
$ %
- g;
gi M i ' - .. le =+-( z " . - ,; _j..k.__ _ V" P - .w v ..,. ,.. ~ ~, sa m ~ . . - . . n- /.2 i., ' ' ' i OPEN STARTUP RESTRAINTS ON , 90 ss sa CONDI110NREPORTS ~ 70 - b> Qg_al 7~. 61 O"- $ 60 - 67 No open Otartup Restraints by 54 z 48 N h- startup -1 y a s0 - 7 g E e_ - @,g -5 1 - e 5 1 4 y i ! -
as e 5 30 - b M 20 v: i J fl '5 E y;[ $ L! - ; h
- j
g; i 20 29 f,j ( $f I
- J
7 10 - $ 1 C i .: en 3
- d
3 MF 4
- a
?!$ 4R s g g , 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
TOTAL SIGNIFICANT OPEN k COASiENTCONTROL FORAIS , so . . 4 , ) m Open 140 , a 1 12s . - - - startup coai - j - 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 75 - g e i 3 ' 41 39 i ' 25 - 15 A 11* 3 3 4 5 4 2 1 0 "'" A " ".- - -* l ,
-i j Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun i , , 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 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec , 1996 $ 1997 Owner: W. P. Bousquet / H. Nodine i I .emos
. l CONDITION REPORTS ASSOCIATED WI111 PROCEDURE VIOM110NS I 160 -- . l 147 f 140 - l'pi 126 ik 120 -- 6 [ 100 Wi 98 100 - [jf ] 99 p j 93 , v, .. g,5 87 ?.d,2 ", 44 y E ge W o e d n m i@ th. fa - ffi . m m ao - u M & M g % iA. 65 b a v. 3.:
- 7
- q
r 52 v J K m - p g[., A - e E sz 1s
- 3;
y . >ff; +g. _ 4 60 - 7 ., 53 % g. .n m . jh ik
- k
h [h
- u
{id Yd B $ N \\ C- 9% M:# M@ ", N 04 , t M ?! @ -- ip
$: X ". ' E L'. ~ > .-p: d Eh f 1( 'C- ': . s. & -n .m 3 ' < ~ y c- g 'A "7 s.,. >w . ' A
- ;-
E - > ~ a..s ~ ' ' x y M.. ./; - a, 2. r is " ", s . a j' ., .M s .- g m. < t ) p ^- < 43 Sco C et h Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun .;a+ Aug t-s y. .c '
- . r .c
'% . = :.: .~ . l > t !~ . L 14. ).{. ! } '*f( s; \\ * I f 'b' ) ff, ;Q 'f a[\\' f)e!.' Q !.'( #li)\\e{rl.\\'(!- ' t. '
!. . > > . s se _. to
- s
a Un ' . " /2 - j r p-, - ' /a - t cua :a or u nw , & t. mms ' (. , .. g i. g
- -
~
- ccrY par +J
- n ObMrahCr4
M .' t -. s . , ,, .i [3- .' < - ~- - : ,,,m ,broerm Equal to or b , man 10% prootems - . f j 10 CG ( j puri corst ;o cowr unons z a )] . m w - - v>m o 8 00 - I42 6.31 uj 6 00 - 5.28 mo - E 4 00 - G- 2 67
2 00 - 0 84 1.00 q 0 00 0 00 0 07 0 00 p 000 0 00 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 - .
.. _ _ . . ._ . . . _ _ . _ . .. . . . _ _ . . . _ ._ _ Conclusions , . . %
' _t . ' Completed CAL Actions i Improvements Made
I i Restart Date ~
~.} i Long-Term improvements
e ! I i i i . eu
_ _ _ _. .- ._ . _ .-_ _ _ _ \\ 1
ILLINCIS
POWER t i ! '
.
, 3 i ,
- i I i i ! , - ! l . k i t ! . . -- - . - - - Clinton Power Station .- P.O. Box 678 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Phone (217) 935-8881 }}