ML20211Q599

Forwards Summary of 971001 NRC Oversight Panel Meeting W/Util & Plant.Meeting Was Open to Public.Meeting Handout Also Encl

ML20211Q599
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	10/15/1997
From:	Leach M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Subalusky W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 9710220367
Download: ML20211Q599 (65)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

\\y

)

October 15, 1997 Mr. W. T. Subalusky, Jr.

Site Vice President LaSalle County Station Commonwealth Edison Company 2601 North 21st Road Marsei!!es,IL 61341

SUBJECT:

NRC OVERSIGHT PANEL MEETING

Dear Mr. Subalusky:

The NRC Oversight Panel met with Commonwealth Edison and LaSalle County Station management on October 1,1997. This management meeting was open to public observation. contains the associated meeting summary. Enclosure 2 contains the handout provided to the NRC Oversight Panel by Commonwealth Edison during the meeting.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

/s/ Melvyn N. Icach Melvyn N. Leach, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety y

Docket No. 50-373

[' ()

,f Docket No. 50-374

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Summary

/

2. Meeting Handout See attached distribution DOCUMENT NAME: R:\\LTRS2LIC\\ CECO \\LASA\\LAS101.97 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box "C" = Copy without attach /enci "E"

= Copy with attach /enci "N" = No copy -

OFFICE Rlli E

Rlli M

Rill E

NAME Hills /co VCI Vegel h

Leach N vd DATE 10/ if /97 10/80 /97 10/ /5 /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY s

Q\\llll.lll>ll>l\\ l

[

9710220367 971015 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P

PDR l

W. T. Subalusky, Jr. oc w/encis:

R. J. Manning, Executive Vice President, Generation M. Wallace, Senior Vice President, Corporate Services E. Kran, Vice President BWR Operations Liaison Officer, NOC-BOD D. A. Sager, Vice President, Generation Support D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager

1. Johnson, Licensing Operations Manager Document Control Desk Licensing F. Decimo, Plant General Manager P. Bames, Reguistory Assurance Supervisor Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General State Liaison officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Distribution

• Docket File w/encls DRP w/encis OC/LFDCB w/encls TSS w/encle PUBLICig4(wlencis DRS (2) w/encls A. Beach w/ences Rlli PRR w/encls Deputy RA w/encls RAC1 (E-Mail)

Rill Enf. Coord, w/encls CAA1 (E-Mail)

SRI LaSalle w/encls DOCDESK (E-Mail)-

- Project Mgr., NRR w/encls a

/'oS 40,Io.,

9 UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEA3 REOULATORY COMMISSION g

REoioN lit

i. -

l 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD g

g uSLE. ILUNOIS 60532-4351 October 15, 1997 Mr. W. T. Subalusky, Jr.

Site Vice President LaSalle County Station Commonwealth Edison Company 2601 North 21st Road Marsellies,IL 61341

SUBJECT:

NRC OVERSIGHT PANEL MEETING

Dear Mr. Subalusky:

The NRC Oversight Panel met with Commonwealth Edison and LaSalle County Station management on October 1,1997. This management meeting was open to public observation. contains the associated meeting summary. Enclosure 2 contains the handout provided to the NRC Oversight Panel by Commonwealth Edison during the meeting, in cecordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely, Melvyn N. Leach, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-373 Docket No. 50-374

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Summary

2. Meeting Handout See attached distribution

l f

W, T. Subalusky, Jr.

-2 5

l cc wlencis:

R. J. Manning, Executive Vice President, Generatism M. Wallace, Senior Va President, Corporate Services l'

E. Kraft, Vice President BWR Operations

- Usison officer, NOC-BOD D. A. Sager, Vice President, Generation Support D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager

l. Johnson, Uconsing Operations Manager Document Control Desk Ucensing i

F. Decimo, Plant General Manager i

P. Bames, Regulatory Assurance n

Supervir.or Richard Hubbard 4

Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attomey General State Walson Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission 8

5 i

I I

j -.

s.-.

Public Meeting Summary NRC Oversight Panel for LaSalle County Station B."reJ1M&P.nsoement Meetina FM nwi.

he kure fri Aded the NRC Oversight Panel with a handout (Enclosure 2) and discussed

done. (f 14.nformation contained in the handout during the meeting. The discussion mrte,d "' Ad the status of three areas of the LaSalle Restart Plan. The areas discussed

~

cuan h

..he action plans for improving the corrective action and self assessment programs at ik,tation, efforts to ensure safe plant operations, and human performance improvement h

We;e> es. During the licensee's presentation, the licensee addressed NRC questions and c' *.nents.

k The licensee indicated the following with regards to the effectivenass of improvement actions and current plant performance:

Several actions to improve the effectiveness of corrective actions were implemented.

The goal for the corrective action review board acceptance rate of original root cause evaluations (greater than 60% acceptance rate) was adequate to ensure that root cause evaluations were be'ng performed and the corrective action program would be acceptable for restart of Unit 1. However, the goal would be increased in the future.

Plant personnel are identifying and documenting problems.

The results of a Commonwealth Edison (Comed) corporate assessment identified

=

strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of various aspects of the corrective action and self assessment programs. Action was being taken to address the findings.

Strategy 5, Corrective Actions and Self Assessment, was complete for restart.

The., goal for Strategy 1, Safe Plant Operation, was to establish a strong focus on operational safety through improved operator performance. Performance improvements would partly be accomplished through increased monitoring and performance feedback, reinforced standards and expectations, an upgraded operator work environment, and implementation of a restart and power ascension plan. In addition, operator work-arounds, temporary alterations, and main control room distractions would be reduced.

Plant processes that challenged safe plant operations were being corrected. Action plans to currect plant labeling deficiencies, the out of-scryice program deficiencies, and plant operating procedures were implemented.

The out-of-service program needs additional management attention before the errors associated with removing equipment form service are reduced to an acceptable level.

Actions for addressing thn problems are being implemented.

l Human performance improvement strategies included providing clear expectations,

+

communicating site dirsciions, coaching and mentoring, monitoring site performance, and reducing barriers to imptovement. Although improvement has been seen, human performanco is not yet at an acceptable level.

Instrument maintenance technicians were attempting to improve their performance by

+

conducting peer reviews. The peer checks are maintaining and improving performance of the technicians. The initiative was developed by the workers with management support.

Supervisory training in human error reduction and a first line supervisor assessment have been conducted.

During the discussion, the NRC staff communicated the following considerations:

The staff expressed concem that contractors at the station were not being provided training for the corrective action program. The lack of knowledge of the corrective action program and processes on the part of the contractors could lead to problems that were not being identified or documented by contractors. The licensee would review the issue and respond to NRC.

A recent change to the Site Quality Verification group should be reviewed to ensure ("st

+

the changes do not conflict with technical specification requirements.

The staff questioned to what extent a Comed corporate review of the LaSalle Restart Plan and the corrective action program effectiveness would be conducted. The staff believed that Comed committed to perform the reviews. Station management was reviewing the issue to provide clarification.

Additional dialogue between the staff and the licensee regarding the plans for resolving technicalissues was necessary.

Efforts to improve plant operating procedures would be discussed at a future meeting.

2

Meetina Attendees Nuclear Reautatory Commission R. Capra, Director, Project Directorate 111-2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation M. Leach, Chief, Operating Licensing Branch, Division of Reactor Safety, Region lit A. Vogel, Acting Chief, Branch 2, Division of Reactor Projects Region 111 M. Huber, Senior Resident inspector, Division of Reactor Projects, Region lli

. E. Duncan, Reactor inspector, Division of Reactor Safety, Region ill D. Skay, Project Manager, Project Directorate ill 2, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Commonwealth Edison E. Kraft, Vice-President of Boiling Water Reactor Operations, Downers Grove B. Subalusky, Site Vice-President, LaSalle F. Dacimo, Plant General Manager, LaSalle G. Poletto, Site Engineering Manager, LaSalle D. Farr, Operations Manager LaSalle J. Mcdonald, Site Quality Verification / Safety Assessment Manager, LaSalle P. Bames, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor, LaSalle

~

H. Pontious, improved Technical Specifications Coordinator, LaSalle D. Sager, Vice-President of Generation Support, Downers Grove J. Bailey, Restart Manager, LaSalle J. Gieseker, Assistant to the Site Vice-President, LaSalle G. Wald, Communication Services, Downers Grove D. Boone, Support Services Manager, LaSalle G. Benes, Licensing, Downers Grove R. G. Heisterman, Maintenance Manager, LaSatie S. Shields, NRC Coordinator, LaSalle J. Kutches, instrument Maintenance Superintendent, LaSalle R. Dunning, Instrument Maintenance Technician, LaSalle W. Rier, Corrective Action Program Manager, LaSalle Other-C. Mathews, Resident Engineer, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety T. Polndexter, Winston & Strawn P. Subalusky, Public R. Seiberling, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations 3

d C DSURE 2

!MPMI LASALLE COUNTY STATION Safe Uneventful Startup

+

Safe Uneventful Long Run Y

~

World Class Performance October 1,1997 Mazon EOF LaSalle ma n.

====== :

==;

"= ' or a.,

NRC Public Meeting

$$$f?!kbf October 1,1997 f

14:00 - 17:00 NRC Introduction Leach / Beach n

o LaSalle introduction Subalusky Restart Plan Status Report o

Corrective Action & Self Assessment Mcdonald

> Safe Plant Operations Farr

> Human Performance Dacimo Closing Remarks Subalusky o

NRC Closing Remarks Leach / Beach e

e LaSaHe

+-x 2

nmne t,wanwe a i

Restart Strategy #5 CORRECTIVE ACTION AND SELF ASSESSMENT cesgue 3

RWMi Corrective Action Program o !ssue

> Implementation of the Corrective Action Program is Not Effective Resolution Methodology e

> Based on PIF Data, Demonstrate That Station Personnel Are Effectively identifying Problems Before Events Occur

> Overdue Corrective Actions <15 per Quarter

> > 60% CARB Acceptance Rate of Original Root Cause (In Process Indicator)

> Repeat SCAQ Events s; 2 per Month LaSalle b-4

pggggf Corrective Action Program o

Actions

> Performed Training of CARB Participants, Root Cause investigators, Management Personnel on New CAP Process

> Established Process and Line Ownership

> Implemented Formal Action Tracking Procedure

> Performing Weekly / Monthly Performance Indicator Review

> Implemented Formal CARB Procedure

> Established Dedicated Root Cause Team l

.- Assigned Effectiveness Reviews for Past Significant Events LaSalle

r L

=== = = = :

====

5

- =.., - - - -

4 Overdue Corrective Actions M,#WBM

'""."P Fe.lf Rs and C ARs that weet 160'-

metag fresa NOVs eteedse dereg the month. The enMs NTS sems o

~-~

-eh. o.e im - me. so. s uoo.ne...d 3 e n..'

140

1. during the meoth)

,! 120

~

~

-~-

I 100

- ~-

Thresnoid: Greater tnan or equai to is per j

5 80 1

}

60

~

5 40

^'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

20

~~~~

0 MJb i 7

B'4W BYR ZIN DRS LAS ODC 2Uri a 3rd Otr 97 g th Otr 97 4

1st Ctr 97 0

0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEE OCT NOV DEC BRW During i

1 5

3 1

0 4

3 2

2 0

0 1

0 End BYR During 5

1 2

1 0

9 3

0 End 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

/IN During 53 48 41 37 24 2

4 3

End 12 9

12 4

0 I

1 1

DRS During 2

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 End 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

0 f.AS During 5

7 8

1 0

End 79 113 3

3 I

i 0

l QDC During 14 9

14 21 6

0 0

0 End 0

0 1

3 3

0 0

0

• = No Da*a Avalat%e Graph ts tcAal number of overdue correctre actms Table displays overdue during the rnonth and nurnber stdl overdue at end of rnonth.

h h

h ih,

' l f.,...

- V 6

Number of Problem Identification Fonns n

SV- 0" fla'f.h.} f f-I s:

v,imgn]

ryg; yy,gggy 7000 e osfinition: The nunter or as areen by the s te.

6000 d

~ - '--

5000 Threshold: Trend sor e meatne se esteesen 6. sed g

4000

' - ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

~&

~6 E

e i 3000

- g g

3 4

2000

~

~ h

?

~

1000

~

E J

a 4

0<

BRW BYR ZIN DRS LAS ODC D1994 TOT D1995 TOT D1996 TOT g 1997 TOT L

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC BRW 354 331 487 550 449 382 542 392 llYR 283 475 453 359 315 336 370 333 ZIN 546 568 480 552 501 487 495 503 DRS 746 858 892 1183 730 597 518 566 LAS 653 904 929 514 435 696 573 668 QDC 283 289 672 842 434 249 275 307 Graph despfays total number of PIFs written for the year Table displays monthly PtF generation rate.

LaSalle

- ~ - -

7

munnsmu -

l MMMS%f CARB Acceptance Rate

,100%

l I

m Accepted (Accum) o Rejected (Accum)

90%

l l

Percent Acceptable j

20

}80%

i l

18 l

70%

. 63%__+.63%_+J23%_, 63%

y3W l

57% _. Sf%

7 56 %

9, 12

+ 50%

o 10 10 l 40%

10 g

g g

g g

77 30 %

[i

~

[

l 20%

5 4

l

]$3 l

4 4

3 3

3 3

T3 f10%

l

?

5 7 /97 7,97 7 6 97 7/23 97 7/30/97 8/6/97 8/13/97 8/20/97 8/27/97 9/3/97 9/10/97 9/17/97 9/24/97 10/1/97 ON O

{l fWkki%$n":

8

yng[p[g[y Repeat Events

. f6

~>7

[

7j d 140 /

MIrtitiOft:T he somberof ewents that ocs arved se the paet sn.sth wth completed root cause sevestegatise cepevts, mast h are sees enably a enisr en nature se evenes 120 9

..t.

ed..e yst d m..ths.st b.,,..e., m.

o f the s ame sses casses. taoferpeat eveces permenth) i.4 1

. _ ~

,,[

s 73,,, n o,, : o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

i 80 E

i N~~

I 60 t

.h 5

i 40 a

s Z

1 G/

q q

BRN BYR ZN DRS LAS 00C i

1 JAN FE13 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC flR W I

1 3

3 0

1 I

2 BYR I

O 2

1 0

0 1

0 ZIN 3

4 4

3 10 1

0 2

DRS I

2 6

1 0

0 0

0 LAS I

i 1

3 0

1 1

I QDC 6

3 1

1 1

1 0

1 Graph dsplays total number d repeat events Table esplays number d repeat events per rnanth.

h* hi E~

~1-~--"

^ - - - & -- - l--

~LI-

^

u.

9

e PGDM9 Corporate Assessment Results Issues / Weaknesses a

> ineffective Resolution of OOS issues

> inconsistent Quality of Self Assessments

> Radiation Protection Not Writing PIFs for RPA l

l Lockouts

> Functional Area Responsibility Not Clear

> Performance Indicators Not Proceduralized

> Root Cause Investigators Not in One Location LaSalle

!=me= n..

10

MMGMil Corporate Assessment Results-e Resolutions

)

> Contracted Industry Experts to Perform Root Cause Investigation

> PIF's Written for RPA Lockouts; Extent of Condition l

> Written Functional Area Expectations Communicated

> NTS Action to Provide Instructions For Performance Indicators

> One Location For Root Cause investigators l asa!!e Exam,e

= = = = = = = = = - -

'I

?*?Ms Corporate Assessment Results

" Strengths / Conclusions

> Strategy 5 Quality and Effectiveness Satisfactory

> Senior Management Commitment to Root Cause

> Effective Use of Industry Experience

> Q&SA Prepared to Overview Restart Activities

> Senior Management involvement with Self l

Assessment l

> Self Assessment Progressing.at Satisfactory Rate l

LaSalle 12

=

e..a

Ek%2filCorrective Actions /Self Assessment Summary e Strategy 5 is. Complete for Restart

> Qualitative Evidence of Results

> Performance Indicators Meeting Targets

> Continuous Improvement Process in Use

> Problems Are Being Identified By Station

> Programmatic Elements In Place 1

l.8 S& !!'G r 3 3 =; W s :O

=== ~ ~ ^

~ - '

wiumvwastmeia

\\

u eir:

Restart Strategy #1 Safe Plant Operations LaSaHe r,.-

14

MiWW Safe Plant Operation I

Strategy Objective e

> Establish a Strong Focus on Operational Safety

- Action Plan 1.1 Improve Operntor Performance

- Action Plan 1.2 Reduce Operator Challenges

- Action Plan 1.3 Correct Processes That Challenge Safe Plant Operations LaSal/c

= a;s e A D.

= = = = = = = = = = -

=.

15

EDW5Gl1.1 Improve Operator Performance e Action Plans

~

> 1.1 A Monitor Critical Operations Functions

> 1.1 B Improve Operator Work Environment

> 1.1C Restart and Power Ascension Plan LaSalle

===w 16

Bpf?M! 1.1A Monitor Operations Functions Probkam Statement o

P Corrective and Performance improvement Actions Have Not Been Effectively incorporated into Daily Work Activities.

Objective l

c

> Improve Operator and Supervisor Professionalism and Ability to Sustain Safe Plant Operation

- Goai/ Measurement Standard

> Improving Trend in Comprehensive Scorecsrd Error Rate Operator Rounds Errors Missing Log Entries

- OOS Errors

- Procedure Errors

- Communications Errors

- MCR Performance Weaknesses La Saile

L, w L -

-==-

~

17

NOD Operations Depanment

?

Scorecard Program P.

Placing an OOS (Rev. 0)

EXPECTATIONS Poic.s importance Total (see station procedure)

(P-10)

Factor Points i

Operator performs the OOS checklist in the correct order and 4

places equipment in the speciGed condition. Selfchecking *;.d a questioning attitude (STARQuest) used throughout this 7

process.

. Special instructions referred to prior to p! acing cards.

. Radwaste notified prior to draining systems.

2 00$ cards are hung on the correct equtpment. Self checking 4

and a questioning attitude (STARQuest) used throughout this process.

• Cards are placed in a manner that does not obscure

. indications and controls.

. Independent veriGcation properly performed, if required.

. Appropriate procedure (s) performed to place system in desired condition.

3 OOS cards are hung on properly labeled equipment or 3

equipment with an AR tag that requests labeling.

4 OOS reviewed for completeness.

2 5

Master OOS card hung in a timely manner.

V4 I

Total Points Observer:

Individual (s) Observed:

Date:

Crew:

Total Points:

Divided by 140:

Comments / Observations:

(if an item is NOT applicable, modify " Divided by" value) e Conduct a one on-one review of the individuaitsi performance immedately atter compteuon ut this am:ssment.

Comments and feedback should be documented

. Obtain the individual (s) perception of their performance.

• Discuss positive feedback and constructive comments with each performer.

Summanze management's expectauons/Operauons Standards for performince of this task.

+ Determine performance dericiencies and discuss actions to irnprove pertormance.

Provide positive reinforcement to the mdividuatt s) at the conclusion of the assessment.

. Obtam signature acknowledging that feedback has been provided.

• Retum completed forms to deugnated Operations Department coordinator Feedback provided. Signature of person (s) observed:

Signature of observer:

iA

jlf j l

A O

O O

OOOOO OOO O

O O

IN 7

d s*

o OiO OOOOO OOO O

'O O

e 3

O n

N m

2 0

s r

O j, O OOOOO OOO OreO O

e o

f e

O f

d o

.O Y

e

?

p r

r d

?

?

?

ll o? o e. e s

te e) h ie t

ps c lp

.j s /

b

?

~

lp?

u' d ? ed e a pe d r

s e s a2 t

e n

y ic e

mle qV e

r t

n t

n it on t

1. m e

r n

u mtum? o e d

a s

ei&

s r

no s n

o d

o b g ob e d t

n s

i ar uhV o n n

aie s. e emid e c ra cis t

c o?

nf cO s s t

n i

o g e?

c ti v k

os se(

n 'v

'q gr r

s C

yi o

s a6 1

r n d u

J ps o e e ie d i id lee ita ol f

m.

n-a s o t

g n e kmsp t

sp s h se a

. i /

b ht l

Wr r r r

une st o h s r v md a

o it a s e ge p c lar it 1 f

jal k n g io e

o t

r e r

e a ic t a e v

ol ek id od n

.S u

c e s nr ts c d s e1 i t

ta wboAin i

a ie o ue h e r

e o. a t

h iat ioi t

E v

v i t uiw r

r a

r n

t p

mv?

h o e

t u

v rd v

_H sr ot d ct r

t a u ib k

s u Wipe l

s st f

r v k

e n sp ws ninaeme d

d r

r q y o e id o a f

r r

g e

r s e e d e e eg miemk ur r

I o e st e oio sf r

r ri e k ini u e e k

r s

_l ugu o

b s co e e t

dminqmc h d r

n u k n s s u

I d

r mq b O e s,

gk e

o r W

oir o ou ms de O r

rp idt wo vmngc p c ps n wd s

r y la uo f

o e a g - es us qf wwd it a A r.

on l

t o

n weoi r

f r v y

r J

iya c p sf is c

ri s o o ve d n ee f f

r t

e o pe p sctsf y f f

f p o ot o o o u f

l ec io r miumu e b eer me

!a la s

i r !a d s n ivi ll s

e i

o r r v r r r r s

v se smo vuar m

t r

i l

o o d

eb e d a a e

t 0 e e ee it t

r wb x c b b b v t

e si sU r

llacQCF c e ee e d oic t

nc e t

p e u es e

e e e e

e g

e idfi i i r

r n

e imma mmn p

r r

r f

a t

u oq os of r

db e v u ue u u ui rh o

eio e

f W Wi W N D d DnWr NNt NNf wS t

S S Dr Dle D e a. b c. A t

e h

J s

1 2 3 4

5.

6 7 8 9 0 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

d 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

r 1

1; 1 1

a A

. OOOO X

O O

C XMMM xx

/

c N

r o

o N

OOOO OO O O O O iO O

.O n

c s

b S

YB OOOO OO.

'OOOOjO e

e o

OrOh e

J

?

e p

t n

P s

g t

e)

? le o?

ir r

n u

e

!a ps t

o a

q 'V n p?

y e u?

i o m !e f

.dic dy

's

?

r ein&..

t f

o.

i n

t n

a e

s d ob d

s

.s uhV ci n

n r

a e a

. 's

.k p

i e e v

e p

cQ s g s

e?. yi

. r v

r k s na cim lse(

n n os o

d r

B s

e t

r r

ot t

t o

d lef n

a ioih sp ee me ew i

o u r

swi e

t r une st c

tar s

b wc b

o n i.a npao idod n t

v d

t o 1

r a a ek s

cr c

i t

s e oir it u oi of ue ah t

n. d e8 n,

~

v i

J o d sd mt

. er stf e iat in c

r I

i dct tsu ot iv s

h O

b k mis t

s g

.l a er o n r

e d

er 2 r on a Ini se r

r n in o

naeme ws r o a e mief t

r y r d ugu

,aiu ymdmnqmt f

r e e n u v s o

P a

r h ioo eh qsr u e i

o gk i osf kI lor oiar osh vmngo ppl e no r

o d y la i

c wr w ?'

r o

uo es u s v

r n

oil

. v w. rved n o

C i ivd eoi n

f f

uct yi t

ya o a

o eps nt d

n sct r

n i mc p

sf o

yi i

r ee e ab eer e ec ivi imb ed t

nt 3

h hbbt t

v u lar d u e

p o

f a

sn i a a e

b oooao uL l

i o e s v

l B

mreJJPSCsL lacQCF d st oi c Inc e e

. n ri r

a t

u e e

e es r

o of e os dr d b e s n

Wab.. e

. D e a. b c.

l f

i e io a

l

. cd Dle Dd Dn Wb n

f f

f o

n r

a

. 2 3

4 5 6

7 8

l e

t m

a 1

l' u

. i J

H m.

A MMXO OOOO X

O O

i d

/N m

o o

N OOOO OOOO O

O O

t n

a s

e Z

l OOOO OOOO O

O eOh a

/

n e

r r

Y a

g

?

t p

g c

w in s

l e)

?

e?

ir st r

n e

u' e g la g

t s

qV n

itn ps O

e e

t y

e u?

r n

i

..?

v d ei&

o t

di m?i n

d te c d y o

i n

t di' e uhV s

i n

n u

c t

p n

a e a s

t o

e et e

o a

n cO s g m.de?

yi i

L a

v M

th s

lse(

n i o id le6 t

m n

o! s c b u oi o g ue ime tew s w.

m r

c s

s e

o n

o s

a t

, d ugm m une s c

ls e t

h c ta a

cn v

d o

r e

l a

i a

d od n r

s isi e

u iv a e a

v r

c t

tah D

r e

la d gb r

6 ieo i at i n c d s e n,

e C r

7 v

u gn oti d dct i t

/

r s u u

ib k

t W

r v

mis p

t n

i ni lopv o

d inni a e me le d

e io a

se u p g

d l

eat ema qmk n n u mti e S e s

i n u gu r y y

t v wl d ci d e

a u

ni l

v!

vmnt go o n i c sf k I

B D d iu.

r i o fol e

r f

d e

n e

r c wo? d y la o?

v o

e T

f f s s a

r n

s o

o u m e o e il g es u s wn r

v n

r s ct y a o e

r r

u eu r

u s b i n c e n Nr i d n c;

e o

t e s sf e

e er pb ec i o y

n D

s n

r h

v i n a b

s e S U U W llo r

u la n d e

a nn a v

s n i t

a y

b m

e t

t o e e b e d a s

b n

v O

acQCF d amci nc r

r t

t l

O il' mr u e e

e ic i fs e

n e

e s

of.

. e oe df d

it es

v n

i m i.

r n

y e a

J Wab cd De ab c NDht Dd Dn Wb f

i e io r

. o t

o f

e o

i s e e v

o m

s t

t i

mr ta b

a i e t

o g

c I

2 3

I.

6 6

d S O D T P A C s

l

ll

WBiBEfBIScorecard Comprehensive Error Rate 4

30%

25 %

20%

0

\\

c O

i

$ 15%

I e-r--

/

g

/

o

/

a.

10 %

5% ;

-- f - -

I t

I 0%

L_

February March April May June July August

!. R 02 f!G

1. MLisin - ~

l

^

20

W!& Mil Pareto - Scorecard Error Rate 100 90 80 1

?

60 A8 50 0

g m

=

z E

?

c e

h 5

I f

!?

=

O LaSalle i++: :.

= = = =

21

Number of ops PIFs R

W 9

A R

A R

S E

m o

,, 14-Sep

,\\

4"

. 31-Aug

,/

/

17-Aug

/

\\

3-Aug

- ;:engs.>

",f nn urw~

. enny a f-20-Jul

@ M l1Wi:i $

\\

F

. p}nd c yhe--

> 6-Jul

. M%g' qme=

g

.5}[ho 6 Dh q

% Jun h

. h%QM4 b

!=h s

. 3'f igh ma gg t 8-Jun h

>a n

ngq.

w q

ras m=*4 Mfgj

, 25-May h

---

. aseg'""""""

5 ljA hf gi 3D-h N

6

' hwd/$ "

> 11-May E

=====.%~~

.o u

y R

/g 27-Apr D

\\

13-Apr

~

k

\\

D c

L

, 30-Mar A

Q d

L i

16-Mar n***

.e f'

_g

]4 2-Mar N

C I

k.--e16 F b L

_r./

)-

49g Rup*-

2-Feb 7

g El@h eeE s

t d'j3 b 19-Jan (U

Y I

(Q D

\\

/l 5-Jan CU s

y

+

n s

u

.s

=

.. w 4

. Ill II, I (15 ( If k Nl Il{ }('{I!l}

'A E.,llA

I(h P'

Number of Days

?)

wg 0

D f[5 g

P 9/14/96 (b

l/

9/26/96 l

5 Q) y[

10/1/96 h

i 10/8/96 D

10/21/96 D

10/27/96 -

I>

D 11/2/96 11/16/96 3

gg 1

212/14/96 gM g

i p12/27/96 :

8 l 1/31/97 :

(g h

2/7/97 :

i 3 2/14/97 f',

g%

3/4/97 :

l gN 3/29/97 :

(

i g

4/16/97 :

D i

5/31/97 -

6/9/97 :

i 8

6/18/97 -

h 1

7/2/97 i

k 7/14/97 -

b i

7/23/97

/

8/11/97 i

e 9/4/97

\\

?%lBM 1.1B Operator Work Environment Problem Statement n

> The Operator Work Environment Requires Physical Improvements to Support Standards of Professionalism, Ownership and Effective Plant Operation

> Objective l

> Upgrade the Operator Work Environment to Achieve Improved Professionalism, Ownership and Effective Plant Operation Goal / Measurement Standard o

> Complete Actions Steps Associated With Plan IaSalle L:

==

g

=

=1

' ' ^ - -' ' ' ' " ' '

5%2881 1.1B Operator Work Environment Completed Actions a

l

> MCR upgrade

> Shift Briefing Room upgrade

> Shift Manager Office upgrade

> NLO ready room upgrade

> NSO ready room upgrade Future Actions a

> Additional MCR upgrades LaSalle

M:n: L 25

= = = = =

%gMTR1 1.1C Restan and Power Ascension Plan o Problem Statement:

> Need to Ensure Effective Management Oversight and l

Conservatism in the Startup Process in Order to Achieve Error-l Free Performance l

l

> Objective:

> Develop a Restart and Power Ascension Plan and implement the Plan During Unit Restart in Two Phases: Prior to Restart and During the Startup and Power Ascension to Full Power

> Goal / Measurement Standard

> Minimal Human Performance Errors During Infrequently Performed Activities

> Improving Trend for Operations Event Free Clock LaSaHe swan

^ -

=

26 m

mm WM No. of Tests 74,,#

F

~.; gj g

5 G

8 N

8 8

g h'm DJ 6/1/97 6/9/97

[;

y

.R 6/17/97 h

i C

Nia 6/25/97 7/3/97 ll}

7/11S 7.)

il 7/19/97 i

1 i

7/27S 7 i

i I

{

l lg 8/4/97 8/12S 7

@. I 8/20/97 8/28S 7 9/5/97 f

9/13/97 9/21 S 7 7; j

9/29/97 ;j 10/7S7 :-i 10/15/97 D

[

10/23/97 : !

Q

(

f k

D 10/31/97 D

11/8S 7 11/16/97 y

n 1

11/24/97 : ;

[

12/2S7

[

12/10/97

/

12/18/97 i'

i/

12/26/97 ~ f 1/3/98 1/11/98 1/19S8 L---

_ ~ - - -

W@BGB Power Ascension Testing 120 90% plateau Feedwater lleater Level Control P

80

/Mo plateau,/

Reactor Water Level Control 0

civ stroke Testing ifeater Drain Purnp Feedwater lleater Level Control C

Reactor Water Level Control r

in 40% platcau QU APRM Thermal Cal "E

C"U EllC Pressure Reg 20

/

c:v :=u =

/ RCIC OP Testing

/

RWCU Post Mod 0

Test Performance LaSalle 555=D

= - - - - -

28

Egi@7&iB 1.2 Reduce Operator Challenges

" Action Plans

> 1.2A Operator Work-Arounds

> 1.2B Temporary Alterations

> 1.2C MCR Distractions LaSalle

======~:

=

~ = -

=

=

29

MyBRM 1.2A Operator Work-Arounds o Problem Statement:

> Plant Operators Are Unnecessarily Challenged During Operations Due to a High Number of Work-Arounds Present Objective:

e

> Reduce the Number of Work-arounds That Require Compensatory Action by Operators in the Normal Course of Their Daily Activities Goal / Measurement Standard e

> Less Than or Equal to 10 Work-Arounds Exist at Startup

> No Safety Significant Work-Arounds Exist at Startup LaSalle

==w

= = =

= = = = -

\\j1,jll l

- 1 3

0

/

1 l

C.

ao

/

G tr a

ts

/

e su R

ta t

S s

/

tner 0

r d

C u

n

/

u

/

ev

\\

ru o

C,

n r

w

/

o e

d p

A

.o kr c

o

_a W_

/

na k

it I

i-r t

n r

/

r U

.ta s

o la

.e to

-t T-s W

n

/

.sa e

.i

.g v

.i r

r u

/

_v C

r n

w o

o t

/

d kro a

W r

/

tra e

m, tse

/

i R

p O

m

/

+

=

.s

/

I%

e o.

o 0

0 0

,2 1

/

l s

G la

=.

'*s.:, e. 2 E - [.

S k

a H

L M

l'

W61R?BM 1.2B Temporary Alterations Problem Statement:

o

> Plant Operators Are Unnecessarily Challenged During Normal, Abnormal and Emergency Plant Conditions Due to a High Number of Temporary Alterations to Plant Systems

> Objective:

i Reduce Challenges to Plant Operators by Reducing the Number of Temporary Alterations to Plant Systems That Unnecessarily Challenge Them During Normal, Abnormal and Emergency Plant Conditions

> Goal / Measurement Standard

> Less Than or Equal to 10 Temporary Alterations Greater Than 1 Refuel Outage Exist at Startup

> No Non-outage Support Temporary Alterations Greater Than 30 Days Old Without an Action Plan Exist at Startup

> No Significant Temporary Alterations installed at Startup LaSalle

=As= =-

32

~

gyggggj Temporarj Alterations 100 90 80 C

S 70 M

l 0

i 60 -_-

50 p-g

- - N,_. _ _ s 40 E

30 16 T/As tied to temp heating 20 10 0

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

{ '~

Current Status

_._.Workdown Curve l

LaSalle sta=

= = = = = =

~

33 m__.

g

6MyG@!

1.2C MCR Distractions Problem Statement o

> Plant Operators Are Unnecessarily Challenged During Normal, Abnormal and Emergency Plant Conditions Due to a High Number of Distractions in the Main Control Room

> Objective

> Reduce Challenges to Plant Operators by Reducing the Number of Distractions in the Main Control Room That May Unnecessarily Challenge Them During Normal, Abnormal and Emergency Plant Conditions

> Goal / Measurement Standard

> Less Than 10 MCR Distractions That Cannot Be Supported by 12 Week Schedule Process Exist at Startup i

LaSalle

+-

~

= =-

u

e :

% kQND h D 3MNDN k D D 3 b ~. %D e,Dy%

a l'

' +k 8

o

\\ l" i '

7

'< i /

hf 9T(7 }

r; t f

}77

-I 8

e id

/ ef=

p sig5 *2;E 8

f /

/'

yt, 7 S

/

8 f

//

S}

r f

t mgieI3 7

T 7

o c

c n

~.

t m

n d

d d

g g

p p

r r

r y

y c

e e

a a

p p

a a

u J

J J

u u

e e

o D

D J

M A

A-M M

N J,

3 7

1 A

A s

s 1

3 9

1 8

1 3

4 8

1 5

2 2

1 7

0 4

8 2

1 1

2 1

2 1

2 2

2

}

I c giA m ga 1T CkE E

P3Ui4D i

) b

)

y

]i!

4 O

[

1

MRi%%i 1.3 Correct Processes that Challenge Safe Plant Operation Action Plans o

> 1.3A Plant Labeling Program

> 1.3B Out of Service Program

>1.3C Operating Procedures 1

1 LaSalle 36

.e E!s?BM 1.3A Plant Labeling Program t

Problem Statement:

o

> Weaknesses in Plant Labeling impact the Ability of Station Personnel to implement Safe Plant Operation and Maintenance and Has Contributed to Many Out-of-service Errors

> Objective:

> Implement Labeling Upgrades to Plant Equipment So That the Potential for Out-of-service and Personnel Error is Minimized.

j Implement Upgrades During Unit Shutdown to Plant Equipment Located in Areas With Limited Access During Normal Operation and on Sensitive Instrumentation So That the Potential for Unit Trip During Normal Operation is Minimized

> Goal / Measurement Standard i

> Labeling Deficiencies identified During Procedure Walkdowns Are Corrected i

_0 - c?

?

$rmw.A 1

. ~~

~ ~~~~~~^~~ ^^ '

--:L-~~~

~

37

g925W Labeling Project Restart Plan 100%

y I

i 90%

l- ' y! h t"_

'/

i)*/

Labeling Project - Unit 1 Restart 80%

i

/f i

I i

l 70%

'./ l I

I j

j l

o 60%

H

_q _-

t g

I E

J o

50%

MU i

j o

i y

l l

u4-!- t 8

40%

t t

l; Q.

30%

)

j 33 Lab'els Remaining to Reinstall l

20%

J i_. 1,

After Painting 1 A DG Control

!l i

Panel l l-j

}-

3304 Labels - Total Restart Scope 10%

[

0%

s s

s s

s s

s s

s s

s s

s s

s s

e e

e e

e e

e e

e, e

e e

e e

e e

a w

c w

cr>

m e

o w

m a>

m w

a c

W c

W 3

E B

E it c

w c

5 c

W c

m n

v v

w w

s w

w c>

an a

_ _ _ S c h e d u le d Actual LaSalle

&L.

= = = = =

38

V1 C589 1.3B Out of Service Program Problem Statement:

o

> Many Out-of-Service Errors Have Occurred With Human Performance, Process and Procedure Problems Being the Largest Root Causes of the Errors

> Objective

> Utilize Self-assessments to Identify Problems and Implement Corrective Actions Goal /iVieasurement Standard e

> Average Time Between Station Clock Resetting Due to Out-o'-service Errors increases

> Decreasing Trend of Out-of-service Errors identified Per Month LaSalle

= =

39

iBMEff 1.3B Out of Service Program Root Cause Team Findings and. Conclusions e

(preliminary?

> LaSalle's Procedure is Cumbersome

> " Cultural and Implementation Issues" Exist

- Workers Are Not Following the Procedures

- Operators Are Too Accommodating

- Poor Communications Between Work Analysts and OOS Writers

> The Outage Schedule Frequently Changes

- Scope Changes

- Date Change LaSa!!n 25:::.;.m

- =: = = = =

40 EE

V 7%7 Next Steps Hold People Accountable for Following

=

Existing Procedures

> Develop Process indicators to Monitor Performance Revise LaSalle OOS Procedure - Streamline &

a Consolidate implement 6-site NSWP for OOS Process

=

> Train Workers on New Procedure Continue the Focus on Managing the Outage e

Schedule

> Limit Scope Changes

> 7 Day Frozen Schedule Continue In-field Monitoring and Intervention a

> SCORECARD Observations

> SQV Oversight Role LaSalle 41 M mM M

1 5%g$8% Event Free ClockResets due to OOS 35.)

i i

l Y

l 30

...-- I

.a - i-7

~

/p l

\\

$ 25

/

r'v' l

c:

i y

b Y

s c

i i

20

_n

-, -4

+

c 8

l/

4

_. _y s

,e j

F i

l o

1 1

I I

3 10

-n k

l i

t l

(

?

5

-_L l

j i

0 u

h l

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

LaSa!!e 42

= = = =

A y1uoW q sluaA11 soo 4

g>ec_97 Nov-97 Oct li li-97

~

Sep-97 4

/

D Aug-97

'N

/

Jul-97

/

- Jun-97

- May-97

- Apr-97

- Mar-97

?

?

Feb-97

~

, en cc kh

'.lan-97 ik

$$4.

wllM9 1.3C Operating Procedures Problem Statement e

> Poor Quality Procedures Challenge the Ability of Plant Operators to implement Expectations for Procedure Use and Compliance Objective c

> Review and Revise, the Operating Procedures 1

Necessary to implement Safe Unit Restart and Power Operation Goal / Measurement Standard e

> Trends improve During Unit Operation For

- Procedure-Related PIFs

-Temporary Procedure Changes With Permanent Change Required LaSalle 2

44

OMA GIG

+

b

' ;:yn Co a

a a

a a

a a

a w

e D

4/27/97

[

~

5 l/

/

,~

%..m.4 v

S/18/97

~

\\

\\

i _/i

/

..' i i

~

6/15/97

~

ir I

i i

i N

I I

l l

l i/

l D~

i 6/29/97 f

g I

h 1

2 l

s !'

l l

l 7/13/97 I

i l

]l l

I l

7/27/97 i-

'm l

l l

l f

i I

i o

8/10/97 g

i k

8/24/97 L

e m

m

/7 3

l 9/7/97

?

F F

9/21/97 J

s I

J e

y 9

-/

10/5/97 f

4 g

g a

I

$ hk N

h 10/19/97 o

r a ao

)

=u.

a m

Eg l

~

11/2/97 nh 1 -:

a h

11/16/97 t

y l

11/30/97 p I

i 12/14/9]

l

?

-e 4----

---

- - +

~ ' ' - ~ ~ ~

si

! l

.E i:s

.4 ll: ~ lll; fly llllj 4h

' ! r-

L;;

Procedure Ade uacy RelatedPIF's 80 l

i 70 t

l i

l l

60

'h,

i

~

~

~,

h E

~

S

's 40 5

i

~

Z I

30 I

\\

i l

i

-f

-} -.

20 10 0l i

January February March April May June July August September LaSalle 46

= - -

= = -

=-

HiiX@lHW TPC's with Pennanent Change Required e

~J l'

50

~

j

~

s 40

~

2 l

~

~

t s

O 30

_y __

b l

m 20 1-I i

10

.L_

<- i-i

- u usa

=n

=-

47

A

>s#skW Summary Progress is Being Made in All Areas e

Performance Indicators Are Trending in the "Right e

Direction" e We Project All Startup Plan Goals Will Be Met a The Strategy is on Target for Closure Later This Year l

LaSalle

,w-

.a

O

,-a..

B BGEMf Restart Strategy #2 Human Performance l

LaSaiIe

=+ w

= = = - -

49

_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

lMtM1 Human Performance Initiatives o Goal - Achieve a Near Term Step Change

> Improvement in Human Performance o Objectives of Strategy

> Provide Clear Expectations

> Communicate Site Direction

> Coach and Mentor Workers

> Monitor Site Performance

> Address and Overcome Barriers to improvement 9 Performance Measure

> Event Free Clock LaSalle

+=

so

E!qE!Bgf Human Performance

^

initiatives

> Operations High Intensity Training

> Engagement of Work Force - Example: IMD Peer Check, Procedure Upgrade Teams l

> Supervisory Training in Human Error Reduction

> First Line Supervisor Assessment LaSalle

=~.:

---=====---:====

51

MEMGM Human Performance initiatives (Continued) o

> OOS - Timeout Site Survey Cards

> Ops Scorecard Program

> Procedure Upgrade Program

> Cultural Survey LaSc!!e

=us;.2

= = = = = = = = -

e I

79/4/9 3

_ 79/9/8 l

kO

__ 79/22/7 ne

__ 79/12/6 OC 79/03/5 2so a

79/2/4 YN 2

n n~

79/52/2 DE i

g

__ 79/1/2 3h

• js

~~

._ 69/72/21

c. 69/72/11

.J i

69/71/11 1

[ 69/31/11 G

h h,

Q yy w

Q rgfg

___, _ __ 4_. _ _, 69/5/1 1 Q

m___

a o

o oc nc A

m o

m a

a a

D

)m h2%

77

e BWM!R01 Percent Rework Definition: The per1ornance of any physcal

*"'*"*"C**"""'**""*****

4.0 rroney w thh a tw he nonth penod. The total rew ork dhrided by the total nunter of VWR w ork ri 3.5 '.

ine pow er diock that is Greater than EWCS status 50 arri not equal to status 95. (% for the 3 precedeg

""'*h* **h1"""th h'"*"'*1 3.0 '

~

~

~

~

"" ho* **** 'h*" *

• to '* -

2.5 g

5 n.

p 0.0 BRW BYR ZN DRS 1.AS COC JAN FEI MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC llWD 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.1 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.6 IWR 4.0 4.6 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.6 ZIN 4.5 10.9 10.5 6.2 3.5 2.1 2.4 2.8 DRS 4.2 4.7 3.6 3.4 3.5 5.2 5.6 3.3 LAS 5.8 3.6 1.8 4.5 4.6 3.7 3.9 3.9 QDC 3.0 2.3 1.6 3.4 4.2 5.1 2.4 2.7 Graph and tat 7le display currem rework rate

^

• t c

s4

Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

MEMh10b' Human Performance Errors Dennaton: urors or omsson or corrrnsson IO '

by any kendual during plant activdes leadng to submssion of an t.ER LERs w th a prrwy 16 cause code of A are incbded in this ndcator.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I

34 i

12 Threshold: Grester than or equal to 2 per rronth per site.

j

~

-[

j 10

~

j6 d

["

8

- r i

-~~e I

0

~

4 i

2 j

i

'~

BRW BYR ZIN ORS LAS QDC 199575 g1995 TOT m ir17 TOT l

c 1994 TOT 0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC llRW 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

0 llYR 0

0 0

0 0

1 0

0 ZIN O

O 2

1 1

0 0

0 DRS I

O 5

1 2

3 0

i LAS 0

0 1

I 2

0 1

I QIX' O

O 2

4 1

0 0

0 Tatse d. splays number of enors per month Graph displays tctal number of errors for the year.

LaSalle w=

=

55

lCd5MW Conclusions Human Performance is improving n

People Can Safely Operate Plant e

Continue to Monitor and Assess Effectiveness e

l

== = m LaSaHe ss

~

_