ML20058J578: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:- | {{#Wiki_filter:-- | ||
CCT 31 1993 | CCT 31 1993 l | ||
Docket Nos.: | |||
License Nos.: DPR-71, DPR-62 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. R. A. Anderson Vice President Brunswick-Steam Electric Plant | 50-325, 50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71, DPR-62 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. R. A. Anderson Vice President Brunswick-Steam Electric Plant | ||
P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 | [ | ||
P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 4 | |||
Gentlemen: | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
- BRUNSWICK | - BRUNSWICK l | ||
Assessment Department (NAD)-related issues. A list of attendees, and a copy of your slides are enclosed. It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial in that it provided a better understanding of NAD's strengths and challenges, as well as actions taken/ planned with regard to strengthening | This refers to the management meeting conducted in the Region II Office on l | ||
assessment planning and issue closure. - Of particular interest were the | October 20, 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD)-related issues. | ||
Check Program, | A list of attendees, and a copy of your slides are enclosed. | ||
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a. copy of this letter an:1 its enclosures will be placed in the NRC public document room. | It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial in that it provided a better understanding of NAD's strengths and challenges, as well as actions taken/ planned with regard to strengthening assessment planning and issue closure. - Of particular interest were the r | ||
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us. | results of NAD's assessments of Unit I restart readiness and CP&L's Quality Check Program, j | ||
Sincerely | In accordance with Secti9n 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a. copy of this letter an:1 its enclosures will be placed in the NRC public document room. | ||
M Ellis W. Merschoff, Director | Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us. | ||
Division of Reactor Projects | Sincerely | ||
.i I | |||
.M Ellis W. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects | |||
'l Enclosures-1. | |||
cc w/encls: | list of Attendees i | ||
2. | |||
9 I | Licensee Slides I | ||
i cc w/encls: | |||
PDR | (See page 2) | ||
MhI | .j f | ||
9 I | |||
a 9312140162 931031 I | |||
hDR ADOCK 05000324-PDR MhI | |||
CCT 31 1933 Carolina Power and Light Company 2 | |||
Nuclear Services Department | cc w/encls: | ||
P. O. Box 1551 - Mail OHS 7 | i H. W. Habermeyer, Jr. | ||
Plant Manager Unit 1 | Public Service Commission Vice President State of South Carolina i | ||
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant | Nuclear Services Department P. O. Box 11649 Carolina Power & Light Company Columbia, SC 29211 P. O. Box 1551 | ||
P. D. Box 10429 | - Mail OHS 7 i | ||
Southport, NC 28461 C. C. Warren | Raleigh, NC 27602 J. P. Cowan Plant Manager Unit 1 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. D. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 C. C. Warren Plant Manager Unit 2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 Mark S. Calvert Associate General Counsel i | ||
Plant Manager Unit 2 | Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 i | ||
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant | Raleigh, NC 27602 j | ||
P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 Mark S. Calvert | Kelly Holden, Chairman Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 249 j. | ||
Associate General Counsel | Bolivia, NC 28422 Dayne H. Brown, Director L | ||
Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environment, | |||
~! | |||
Commerce & Natural Resources l | |||
N. C. Department of Environment, | P. O. Box 27687 i | ||
Commerce & Natural Resources | Raleigh, NC 27611-76B7 l | ||
State of North Carolina | Karen E. Long l | ||
P. O. Box 629 | Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC i | ||
Raleigh, NC 27602 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director | P.. O. Box 29520 Raleigh, NC 27626-0520 I | ||
Public Staff - NCUC | bcc w/encls: | ||
(See page 3) l i | |||
l i | |||
{ | { | ||
] | |||
7 -.- | 7 -.- | ||
Carolina Power and Light Company | Carolina Power and Light Company 3 | ||
NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | CCT 3 i t993 bcc w/encls: | ||
Star Route 1, Box 208 Southport, NC 28461 i | t Document Control Desk H. Christensen, RIl P. Milano, NRR NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Star Route 1, Box 208 Southport, NC 28461 i | ||
f t | f t | ||
i i | i i | ||
i Rll - | i Rll - | ||
RJ I;>DRP RII DRP L c] | RJ I;>DRP RII DRP L c] | ||
R | (~)& | ||
BHaap/93 10/t | R r. | ||
1:tj BHaap/93 HC stensen 10/t 10 | |||
/93 10/3/93 l | |||
i l | i l | ||
r | r | ||
I' | I' j | ||
4 I | |||
i i | |||
ENCLOSURE I LIST OF ATTENDEES l | |||
LIST OF ATTENDEES | Carolina Power and Liaht Company R. A. Anderson, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Plant L. I. Lofliri, Manager, Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD) | ||
M. D. Bradit:y, Manager, Brunswick Project Assessment, NAD l | |||
L. I. Lofliri, Manager, Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD) | J. P. Cowan, Plant Manager, Unit 1 l | ||
M. D. Bradit:y, Manager, Brunswick Project Assessment, NAD | W. Levis, flanager, Regulatory Affairs R. E. Rogan, Manager, Nuclear Licensing. | ||
R. E. Rogan, Manager, Nuclear Licensing. | |||
{ | { | ||
Nuclear regulatory Commission | Nuclear regulatory Commission i | ||
E. W. Merschtff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII | L. A. Reyes, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RII) | ||
: 11. O. Christensen, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1, DRP, RII | E. W. Merschtff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII i | ||
W. T. Orders, Senior Resident, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII | A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII | ||
R. E. Carroll, Project Engineer, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII | : 11. O. Christensen, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1, DRP, RII l | ||
1 | C. A. Julian, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS, RII l | ||
I | P. D. Milano, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Isegulation W. T. Orders, Senior Resident, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII R. E. Carroll, Project Engineer, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII l | ||
1 I | |||
ENCLOSURE 2 k | ENCLOSURE 2 k | ||
CP&L PRESENTATION NRC/CP&L INTERACTION MEETING ASSESSMENTS 9 | J CP&L PRESENTATION NRC/CP&L INTERACTION MEETING ASSESSMENTS 9 | ||
afUi | afUi BRUNSWICK-NUCLEAR PLANT Atlanta, Georgia October 20,1993 i | ||
BRUNSWICK- NUCLEAR PLANT Atlanta, Georgia October 20,1993 | l | ||
L | L 1 | ||
AGENDA ai i | |||
Introduction R. A. Anderson i | |||
Development of Self-Assessment W. Levis Plant AssessmentsNalue Added J.Cowan NAD Overview L.1. Loflin Summary R. A. Anderson i | |||
l 2 | |||
i 4- | |||
l | |||
4- | |||
L | L i | ||
INTRODUCTION l | |||
CP&L is Committed To Continual improvement At i | |||
i Brunswick Effective Self-Assessment is A Key Factor in Improvement Ensures Things Are Done Right Finds Better Ways Of Doing Things Achieves Higher Standards Of Quality And Performance 3 | |||
e h | e h | ||
e.- | e.- | ||
------__----.-e, | |||
,----.~,.-.~n n~ | |||
---~,--->,n.. | |||
<--v~-- | |||
1 b | 1 b | ||
I 2 | |||
SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT | SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT | ||
,l l | |||
lJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG' | lJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG' SEP OCT'NOV DEC! | ||
_ _j _ . ., | i | ||
_____ _ _j _.., | |||
i | i | ||
$ issue PN Dec ' 2 i | |||
$ issue PN Jan '93 I | |||
i l | |||
l | i l | ||
$ Issue Unit 2 Startup & Power jscension Plan - Feb '93 l | |||
i l | i l | ||
i | i i | ||
$ Revise Al-101 Feb '93 l | |||
l | l | ||
$ issue PL,P-25 May '93 i | |||
i l | i l | ||
$ Revise PN-31 (Unit 1) - Jul '93 i l | |||
1 lIssue Unit 1 Startup & Power l, i | |||
i i | |||
I | I | ||
' Ascension Pla,n - Jul '93 i | |||
i I | |||
l l | |||
$ Revise Al-114 Jul'93 l | |||
i i | |||
t | t t | ||
k | k J | ||
i DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT 1 | |||
PN-30, " INTEGRATED RECOVERY METHODOLOGY" | |||
- Established the methodology for the recovery of BNP Units 1 and 2. | |||
- includes identification, completion, categorization, integration, scheduling control, and completion of open items. | |||
5 4d.e,-eem + .ey e,- .aw+---g..+-*+-+,.-_,-ysn'w | 5 b | ||
s 4d.e,-eem | |||
+ | |||
.ey e,- | |||
.aw+---g..+-*+-+,.-_,-ysn'w w | |||
y-+- | |||
e | |||
* - - + | |||
m | |||
.e | |||
: u. m- | |||
-,,__4.- | |||
--a-- | |||
-.4 | |||
- s | |||
__,_._,___.___,.m___ | |||
m | |||
A l | A l | ||
DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT PN-31, "LINE MANAG$ MENT SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR RESTART OF BNP UNIT 2" | |||
- Developed and documented information to support a determination that Unit 2 was ready to safely and reliably restart. | |||
- Scope: | |||
People | |||
* Plant | * Plant Process | ||
- Personal Accountability | |||
~ | |||
k | k i | ||
J DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT i | |||
STARTUP & POWER ASCENSION TEST PLAN | STARTUP & POWER ASCENSION TEST PLAN | ||
- 4 Assessment Hold Points | |||
- 3 Decision Hold Points | |||
- Reinforced PN-31, Philosophy 7 | |||
7 | |||
~ | |||
x | x 2 | ||
t | DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT s | ||
t PLP-25, "SELF-ASSESSMENT": | |||
- Built on Previous Success | |||
- 3 Year Plan item l | |||
l | |||
- Specific Unit Plans Strengths Weaknesses Follow-up Review 8 | |||
i | i | ||
~. | |||
L | L J | ||
LEVELS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TODAY ANNUAL PLAN SELF-ASSESSMENTS | |||
- PLP-25 SELF-ASSESSMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS | |||
- Al-101, Management Surveillance Watch Program | |||
- Al-114, Management Responsibilities for Housekeeping INPO ASSIST VISITS l | |||
OTHER | |||
- Management Review | |||
- -Unit 2 Performance Reviews | |||
- Manager on Shift | |||
- STAR i | |||
9 | |||
e - | e - | ||
a w | |||
FUTURE PLANS | __m a, | ||
.s.w_ | |||
a a | |||
a,. | |||
sm | |||
.a ma a.a. | |||
em.- | |||
m_. | |||
.2 | |||
_in-L. | |||
-1m.L a | |||
s 4 | |||
3 4,4, 3 | |||
FUTURE PLANS DATA EVALUATION ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES l | |||
GOOD PRACTICE INFORMATION 10 k - -..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-.. _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ ____--... _ _..._._,_ _________ _ _ _ _____ __ ___ | |||
J i | J i | ||
l | t l. | ||
MANAGEMENT SORVEILLANCE WATCH l | |||
c l | |||
I l | I l | ||
OBJECTIVES: | |||
I | I | ||
- Identify barriers to achievement of excellence from the management perspective. | |||
i l | |||
- Ensure that: | |||
l | field personnel obtain management support management expectations are communicated procedures are meeting expectations | ||
[ | |||
IMPLEMENTED FOR UNIT 2 STARTUP AND | |||
.i CONTINUES TODAY. | |||
11 e | |||
11 | m | ||
. m m | |||
m | m c. | ||
~~ | |||
BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PLANT | BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PLANT NAD INDICATOR 1992-1993 t | ||
NAD INDICATOR 1992-1993 t | CURRENT STATUS 140 19 sues Opened (new) 6 120 issues Closed by Plant 1 | ||
CURRENT STATUS | Issues Oosed by NAD 0 | ||
19 sues Opened (new) | - y-m 100 g | ||
100 | f issues Pendng a | ||
Rant Oosu'* | |||
2 80 | |||
--VI | |||
< 4 mos 6 O | |||
> 4 mos 9 C | |||
> 8 mos 2 9 | |||
60 s | |||
ds | ds | ||
+ | |||
Isgues Pendng Cmective | > 12 mos 2 Isgues Pendng Cmective | ||
-- g, - - | |||
Action Confirms: ion by NAD | 40 Action Confirms: ion by NAD | ||
/ | |||
/ | |||
-;y | |||
;j; | |||
'K< | |||
< 4 mos 0 | |||
20 v- | |||
> 4 mos 5 | |||
1 1 | |||
>8mos 11 | |||
> 12 mos 23 0 | |||
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP IDENTIFIED 83 85 86 87 90 94 95 98 99 107 107 109 115 CLOSED BY PLANT | |||
{F 19 20 23 36 39 49 49 62 73 80 87 95 96 CONFIRMED BY NAD n 8 | |||
9 9 | |||
16 18 19 20 20 36 44 56 57 57 current as of 10/08/93 Monthly figures are cummutative running totals | |||
k A | |||
MANAGEMENT ON-SHIFT OBJECTIVE: | |||
- To communicate expected standards and provide direct coaching of personnel for an extended period of time. | |||
IMPLEMENTED SEPTEMBER 1993 | |||
- Line Managers Assigned for Week Maintenance, Operations, Outage, Tech Support, E&RC, Training, Work Control | |||
- Involvement with Specific Activities within the Protected Areas 12 | |||
~ - | |||
~ | |||
L | L 2 | ||
i i | Il STAR 1 | ||
I i | |||
i STOP - THINK - ACT - REVIEW 1 | |||
OBJECTIVE: | |||
- Began implementation May 1993 to establish the self-assessment work practice as a way of life at Brunswick SCOPE: | |||
l | |||
- All aspects of plant operations l | |||
t RESULTS:. | |||
- Numerous examples of questioning attitude revealing areas for improvement 13 | |||
~ ~ -,. - - ~.. | |||
~. - - - | |||
,---.s-m- | |||
-e | |||
l | l L | ||
A l | |||
EXAMPLES OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS L | |||
l | 1 l | ||
l i | |||
i TECHNICAL SUPPORT OPERATIONS WORK MANAGEMENT f | |||
6 e | |||
I4 i | t I4 i | ||
t 4 | t 4 | ||
i PURPOSE TODAY t-NAD STRENGTHS NAD CHALLENGES UNIT 1 RESTART ASSESSMENT i | |||
QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM 17 I | |||
I | |||
QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM 17 | |||
A A | A A | ||
NAD STRENGTHS l | |||
l 1. | |||
EXPERIENCED CAPABLE ASSESSORS | |||
- 33 with technical degrees | |||
- 70% recent line experience | |||
- 19 year average nuc! car experience | |||
- 16 Senior Reacter Operators PERFORMANCE BASEp | |||
- Located at each plant | |||
- Daily and back shift observations | |||
- Discipline aligned (i.e., Operations, Maintenance, Engineering) | |||
USE OF EXTERNAL SUBJECT EXPERTS | |||
- CP&L Peers | |||
- Non-CP&L Individuals | |||
k | k NAD CHALLENGES d | ||
NAD CHALLENGES | ISSUE CLOSURE | ||
d | - Plant corrective action | ||
- NAD followup i | |||
PLANNING OF ASSESSMENTS | |||
- Content j | |||
i | - Schedule P | ||
i 19 | i 19 | ||
W | W Y | ||
~ | |||
CHANGES TO STRENGTHEN ISSUE | CHANGES TO STRENGTHEN ISSUE CLOSURE 1 | ||
CLOSURE 1 | |||
P l | P l | ||
30 DAY PLANT RESPONSE TO NAD ISSUES | 30 DAY PLANT RESPONSE TO NAD ISSUES NAD EVALUATION OF PLANT RESPONSE MONTHLY SENIOR MANAGEMENT OPEN ISSUE STATUS LETTER MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF NAD ISSUES l | ||
FOLLOW-UP AND CLOSURE OF ALL ISSUES AND WEAKNESSES 4 | |||
2o l. | |||
k | k E | ||
I ASSESSMENT PLANNING | |||
~ | |||
Better use of Operating Experience feedback Target areas of weak Self-Assessment | d IMPROVE CONTENT Move ahead of industry issues Better use of Operating Experience feedback i | ||
Target areas of weak Self-Assessment IMPROVE SCHEDULING 28 assessments at BNP in 10 months of 1993 Tech Spec driven Performance driven Revised Tech Specs t | |||
Tech Spec driven | Movement of assessors among plants' Better integrated scheduling Better assigned coverage 25 7- | ||
---m. | |||
a b-w | |||
Movement of assessors among plants' Better integrated scheduling Better assigned coverage | --+t-eaw N | ||
w ra + iten | ee=+ | ||
+-e-=+m-- | |||
eure W,p vr"--4+- | |||
w ra | |||
+ | |||
iten | |||
,w-vy-. | |||
g,-owem-w | |||
=cee r"- | |||
+T*-. | |||
e+ | |||
mae r | |||
+Mwg g-am | |||
= | |||
c-ee m | |||
i a. | |||
c-y e- | |||
= -....- | |||
L | L 2 | ||
1 | STARTUP ASSESSMENTS 1 | ||
1 UNIT 2 | |||
- Startup Readiness Assessment - conducted February 1993, identified three issues for resolution prior to Unit 2 Startup Management involvement in evolution preparation and event i | |||
follow-up Work scheduling and coordination | |||
' Outage work scope and sequence 1 | |||
1 | i l | ||
l 1 | |||
22 l | |||
l l | l l | ||
m | |||
.~r e | |||
-m.-. | |||
,..ew | |||
..~e- -.. | |||
3 | |||
~ | |||
L | L 2 | ||
STARTUP ASSESSMENTS | STARTUP ASSESSMENTS t | ||
I k | |||
i UNIT 1 j | |||
- Startup Readiness Assessment - conducted August 1993, identified one issue for resolution prior to Unit 1 Startup Management of Refuel Floor activities I | |||
I i | I i | ||
l 23 | l 23 | ||
- - -. ~ | |||
A | A UNIT 1 RESTART TEAM t | ||
UNIT 1 RESTART TEAM | TEAM | ||
- 19 members,5 non-CP&L | |||
- 7 on Unit 2 Restart Team | |||
- 10 SRO's,1 STA COVERAGE AREAS | |||
- Operations | |||
- Maintenance | |||
- Engineering / Technical Support | |||
- Management | |||
- E&RC | |||
- Startup Organization and Plan | |||
A | A | ||
~ | |||
REMAINING UNIT 1 RESTART ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES l | REMAINING UNIT 1 RESTART ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES l | ||
l | l PHASE 11 OF STARTUP READINESS ASSESSMENT | ||
- Follow up Previous Restart Assessments | |||
- Follow up Assumptions Made in Restart Assessment | |||
- Resolution of any Emergent issues | |||
- Material Walkdown | |||
- Shift Coverage (1-2 weeks before Rod Pull) | |||
- Provide Independent Assessment of Readiness for Startup SHIFT COVERAGE OF STARTUP AND POWER ASCENSION TO 100 % | |||
- Independent Assessment of Startup Activities 25 i | |||
J | |||
F.j QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM | F.j QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM i | ||
BEGAN 1984 AT HARRIS, EXPAND TJ TO BRUNSWICK AND ROBINSON IN 1987 HANDLES APPROXIMATELY 100 ITEMS PER YEAR REQUIRING RESPONSE | |||
- Sources: | |||
Drop boxes l | |||
Walk in/ Phone in Exit interviews Continuing interviews 25 | |||
j | j h | ||
3 CURRENT REVIEW OF QUALITY CHECK OBJECTIVES | |||
- Gauge the environment within CP&L to raising safety concerns | |||
- Gauge the condition of the quality check program PROCESS | |||
- 80 interviews at 4 locations Complete | |||
- Data Summary Complete | |||
- Validation of primary themes Nov.12 | |||
^ | |||
- Program attribute review Oct. 25 | |||
- Recommended Actions Dec.1 27 6 | |||
.--,,,-,.,rar,we, | |||
-.. +. -.,, - | |||
we--.m%.i--mi-.. | |||
--we-=++* | |||
w-e -. - ~, =, | |||
W | i W | ||
RESULTS TO DATE | RESULTS TO DATE | ||
.I | .I PERCEPTION OF OVERALL NUCLEAR SAFETY CULTURE HAS IMPROVED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE LAST YEAR, ESPECIALLY AT BNP HOWEVER, THERE IS STILL A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT FEELS IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED 28 | ||
E | i E | ||
l', | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
CP&L IS TAKING AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE RECOGNIZED WEAKNESSES IN SELF-ASSESSMENT AT BRUNSWICK AND WITHIN THE COMPANY | |||
- We can identify our problems and solve them. | |||
EXPECTATIONS REGARDING SAP TY, RELIABILITY, AND COST ARE BEING TRACKED AS PERFORMANCE GOALS AND COMMUNICATED TO EMPLOYEES KEY TO FUTURE SUCCESS 29 | |||
RECOGNIZED WEAKNESSES IN SELF-ASSESSMENT AT BRUNSWICK AND WITHIN THE COMPANY | = | ||
se | |||
,y3 | |||
_}} | |||
Latest revision as of 08:41, 17 December 2024
| ML20058J578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1993 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Richard Anderson CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312140162 | |
| Download: ML20058J578 (32) | |
Text
--
CCT 31 1993 l
Docket Nos.:
50-325, 50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71, DPR-62 Carolina Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. R. A. Anderson Vice President Brunswick-Steam Electric Plant
[
P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 4
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- BRUNSWICK l
This refers to the management meeting conducted in the Region II Office on l
October 20, 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD)-related issues.
A list of attendees, and a copy of your slides are enclosed.
It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial in that it provided a better understanding of NAD's strengths and challenges, as well as actions taken/ planned with regard to strengthening assessment planning and issue closure. - Of particular interest were the r
results of NAD's assessments of Unit I restart readiness and CP&L's Quality Check Program, j
In accordance with Secti9n 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a. copy of this letter an:1 its enclosures will be placed in the NRC public document room.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely
.i I
.M Ellis W. Merschoff, Director Division of Reactor Projects
'l Enclosures-1.
list of Attendees i
2.
Licensee Slides I
i cc w/encls:
(See page 2)
.j f
9 I
a 9312140162 931031 I
hDR ADOCK 05000324-PDR MhI
CCT 31 1933 Carolina Power and Light Company 2
cc w/encls:
i H. W. Habermeyer, Jr.
Public Service Commission Vice President State of South Carolina i
Nuclear Services Department P. O. Box 11649 Carolina Power & Light Company Columbia, SC 29211 P. O. Box 1551
- Mail OHS 7 i
Raleigh, NC 27602 J. P. Cowan Plant Manager Unit 1 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. D. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 C. C. Warren Plant Manager Unit 2 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 Mark S. Calvert Associate General Counsel i
Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 i
Raleigh, NC 27602 j
Kelly Holden, Chairman Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 249 j.
Bolivia, NC 28422 Dayne H. Brown, Director L
Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environment,
~!
Commerce & Natural Resources l
P. O. Box 27687 i
Raleigh, NC 27611-76B7 l
Karen E. Long l
Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC i
P.. O. Box 29520 Raleigh, NC 27626-0520 I
bcc w/encls:
(See page 3) l i
{
]
7 -.-
Carolina Power and Light Company 3
CCT 3 i t993 bcc w/encls:
t Document Control Desk H. Christensen, RIl P. Milano, NRR NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Star Route 1, Box 208 Southport, NC 28461 i
f t
i i
i Rll -
RJ I;>DRP RII DRP L c]
(~)&
R r.
1:tj BHaap/93 HC stensen 10/t 10
/93 10/3/93 l
i l
r
I' j
4 I
i i
ENCLOSURE I LIST OF ATTENDEES l
Carolina Power and Liaht Company R. A. Anderson, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Plant L. I. Lofliri, Manager, Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD)
M. D. Bradit:y, Manager, Brunswick Project Assessment, NAD l
J. P. Cowan, Plant Manager, Unit 1 l
W. Levis, flanager, Regulatory Affairs R. E. Rogan, Manager, Nuclear Licensing.
{
Nuclear regulatory Commission i
L. A. Reyes, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region II (RII)
E. W. Merschtff, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII i
A. F. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII
- 11. O. Christensen, Acting Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1, DRP, RII l
C. A. Julian, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS, RII l
P. D. Milano, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Isegulation W. T. Orders, Senior Resident, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII R. E. Carroll, Project Engineer, Reactor Projects Section IA, DRP, RII l
1 I
ENCLOSURE 2 k
J CP&L PRESENTATION NRC/CP&L INTERACTION MEETING ASSESSMENTS 9
afUi BRUNSWICK-NUCLEAR PLANT Atlanta, Georgia October 20,1993 i
l
L 1
AGENDA ai i
Introduction R. A. Anderson i
Development of Self-Assessment W. Levis Plant AssessmentsNalue Added J.Cowan NAD Overview L.1. Loflin Summary R. A. Anderson i
l 2
i 4-
L i
INTRODUCTION l
CP&L is Committed To Continual improvement At i
i Brunswick Effective Self-Assessment is A Key Factor in Improvement Ensures Things Are Done Right Finds Better Ways Of Doing Things Achieves Higher Standards Of Quality And Performance 3
e h
e.-
__----.-e,
,----.~,.-.~n n~
---~,--->,n..
<--v~--
1 b
I 2
SELF ASSESSMENT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
,l l
lJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG' SEP OCT'NOV DEC!
i
_____ _ _j _..,
i
$ issue PN Dec ' 2 i
$ issue PN Jan '93 I
i l
i l
$ Issue Unit 2 Startup & Power jscension Plan - Feb '93 l
i l
i i
$ Revise Al-101 Feb '93 l
l
$ issue PL,P-25 May '93 i
i l
$ Revise PN-31 (Unit 1) - Jul '93 i l
1 lIssue Unit 1 Startup & Power l, i
i i
I
' Ascension Pla,n - Jul '93 i
i I
l l
$ Revise Al-114 Jul'93 l
i i
t t
k J
i DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT 1
PN-30, " INTEGRATED RECOVERY METHODOLOGY"
- Established the methodology for the recovery of BNP Units 1 and 2.
- includes identification, completion, categorization, integration, scheduling control, and completion of open items.
5 b
s 4d.e,-eem
+
.ey e,-
.aw+---g..+-*+-+,.-_,-ysn'w w
y-+-
e
- - - +
m
.e
- u. m-
-,,__4.-
--a--
-.4
- s
__,_._,___.___,.m___
m
A l
DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT PN-31, "LINE MANAG$ MENT SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READINESS FOR RESTART OF BNP UNIT 2"
- Developed and documented information to support a determination that Unit 2 was ready to safely and reliably restart.
- Scope:
People
- Plant Process
- Personal Accountability
~
k i
J DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT i
STARTUP & POWER ASCENSION TEST PLAN
- 4 Assessment Hold Points
- 3 Decision Hold Points
- Reinforced PN-31, Philosophy 7
~
x 2
DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT s
t PLP-25, "SELF-ASSESSMENT":
- Built on Previous Success
- 3 Year Plan item l
l
- Specific Unit Plans Strengths Weaknesses Follow-up Review 8
i
~.
L J
LEVELS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TODAY ANNUAL PLAN SELF-ASSESSMENTS
- PLP-25 SELF-ASSESSMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
- Al-101, Management Surveillance Watch Program
- Al-114, Management Responsibilities for Housekeeping INPO ASSIST VISITS l
OTHER
- Management Review
- -Unit 2 Performance Reviews
- Manager on Shift
- STAR i
9
e -
a w
__m a,
.s.w_
a a
a,.
sm
.a ma a.a.
em.-
m_.
.2
_in-L.
-1m.L a
s 4
3 4,4, 3
FUTURE PLANS DATA EVALUATION ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES l
GOOD PRACTICE INFORMATION 10 k - -..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-.. _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ ____--... _ _..._._,_ _________ _ _ _ _____ __ ___
J i
t l.
MANAGEMENT SORVEILLANCE WATCH l
c l
I l
OBJECTIVES:
I
- Identify barriers to achievement of excellence from the management perspective.
i l
- Ensure that:
field personnel obtain management support management expectations are communicated procedures are meeting expectations
[
IMPLEMENTED FOR UNIT 2 STARTUP AND
.i CONTINUES TODAY.
11 e
m
. m m
m c.
~~
BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PLANT NAD INDICATOR 1992-1993 t
CURRENT STATUS 140 19 sues Opened (new) 6 120 issues Closed by Plant 1
Issues Oosed by NAD 0
- y-m 100 g
f issues Pendng a
Rant Oosu'*
2 80
--VI
< 4 mos 6 O
> 4 mos 9 C
> 8 mos 2 9
60 s
ds
+
> 12 mos 2 Isgues Pendng Cmective
-- g, - -
40 Action Confirms: ion by NAD
/
/
-;y
- j;
'K<
< 4 mos 0
20 v-
> 4 mos 5
1 1
>8mos 11
> 12 mos 23 0
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP IDENTIFIED 83 85 86 87 90 94 95 98 99 107 107 109 115 CLOSED BY PLANT
{F 19 20 23 36 39 49 49 62 73 80 87 95 96 CONFIRMED BY NAD n 8
9 9
16 18 19 20 20 36 44 56 57 57 current as of 10/08/93 Monthly figures are cummutative running totals
k A
MANAGEMENT ON-SHIFT OBJECTIVE:
- To communicate expected standards and provide direct coaching of personnel for an extended period of time.
IMPLEMENTED SEPTEMBER 1993
- Line Managers Assigned for Week Maintenance, Operations, Outage, Tech Support, E&RC, Training, Work Control
- Involvement with Specific Activities within the Protected Areas 12
~ -
~
L 2
Il STAR 1
I i
i STOP - THINK - ACT - REVIEW 1
OBJECTIVE:
- Began implementation May 1993 to establish the self-assessment work practice as a way of life at Brunswick SCOPE:
l
- All aspects of plant operations l
t RESULTS:.
- Numerous examples of questioning attitude revealing areas for improvement 13
~ ~ -,. - - ~..
~. - - -
,---.s-m-
-e
l L
A l
EXAMPLES OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS L
1 l
l i
i TECHNICAL SUPPORT OPERATIONS WORK MANAGEMENT f
6 e
t I4 i
t 4
i PURPOSE TODAY t-NAD STRENGTHS NAD CHALLENGES UNIT 1 RESTART ASSESSMENT i
QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM 17 I
I
A A
NAD STRENGTHS l
l 1.
EXPERIENCED CAPABLE ASSESSORS
- 33 with technical degrees
- 70% recent line experience
- 19 year average nuc! car experience
- 16 Senior Reacter Operators PERFORMANCE BASEp
- Located at each plant
- Daily and back shift observations
- Discipline aligned (i.e., Operations, Maintenance, Engineering)
USE OF EXTERNAL SUBJECT EXPERTS
- CP&L Peers
- Non-CP&L Individuals
k NAD CHALLENGES d
ISSUE CLOSURE
- Plant corrective action
- NAD followup i
PLANNING OF ASSESSMENTS
- Content j
- Schedule P
i 19
W Y
~
CHANGES TO STRENGTHEN ISSUE CLOSURE 1
P l
30 DAY PLANT RESPONSE TO NAD ISSUES NAD EVALUATION OF PLANT RESPONSE MONTHLY SENIOR MANAGEMENT OPEN ISSUE STATUS LETTER MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF NAD ISSUES l
FOLLOW-UP AND CLOSURE OF ALL ISSUES AND WEAKNESSES 4
2o l.
k E
I ASSESSMENT PLANNING
~
d IMPROVE CONTENT Move ahead of industry issues Better use of Operating Experience feedback i
Target areas of weak Self-Assessment IMPROVE SCHEDULING 28 assessments at BNP in 10 months of 1993 Tech Spec driven Performance driven Revised Tech Specs t
Movement of assessors among plants' Better integrated scheduling Better assigned coverage 25 7-
---m.
a b-w
--+t-eaw N
ee=+
+-e-=+m--
eure W,p vr"--4+-
w ra
+
iten
,w-vy-.
g,-owem-w
=cee r"-
+T*-.
e+
mae r
+Mwg g-am
=
c-ee m
i a.
c-y e-
= -....-
L 2
STARTUP ASSESSMENTS 1
1 UNIT 2
- Startup Readiness Assessment - conducted February 1993, identified three issues for resolution prior to Unit 2 Startup Management involvement in evolution preparation and event i
follow-up Work scheduling and coordination
' Outage work scope and sequence 1
i l
l 1
22 l
l l
m
.~r e
-m.-.
,..ew
..~e- -..
3
~
L 2
STARTUP ASSESSMENTS t
I k
i UNIT 1 j
- Startup Readiness Assessment - conducted August 1993, identified one issue for resolution prior to Unit 1 Startup Management of Refuel Floor activities I
I i
l 23
- - -. ~
A UNIT 1 RESTART TEAM t
TEAM
- 19 members,5 non-CP&L
- 7 on Unit 2 Restart Team
- 10 SRO's,1 STA COVERAGE AREAS
- Operations
- Maintenance
- Engineering / Technical Support
- Management
- E&RC
- Startup Organization and Plan
A
~
REMAINING UNIT 1 RESTART ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES l
l PHASE 11 OF STARTUP READINESS ASSESSMENT
- Follow up Previous Restart Assessments
- Follow up Assumptions Made in Restart Assessment
- Resolution of any Emergent issues
- Material Walkdown
- Shift Coverage (1-2 weeks before Rod Pull)
- Provide Independent Assessment of Readiness for Startup SHIFT COVERAGE OF STARTUP AND POWER ASCENSION TO 100 %
- Independent Assessment of Startup Activities 25 i
J
F.j QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM i
BEGAN 1984 AT HARRIS, EXPAND TJ TO BRUNSWICK AND ROBINSON IN 1987 HANDLES APPROXIMATELY 100 ITEMS PER YEAR REQUIRING RESPONSE
- Sources:
Drop boxes l
Walk in/ Phone in Exit interviews Continuing interviews 25
j h
3 CURRENT REVIEW OF QUALITY CHECK OBJECTIVES
- Gauge the environment within CP&L to raising safety concerns
- Gauge the condition of the quality check program PROCESS
- 80 interviews at 4 locations Complete
- Data Summary Complete
- Validation of primary themes Nov.12
^
- Program attribute review Oct. 25
- Recommended Actions Dec.1 27 6
.--,,,-,.,rar,we,
-.. +. -.,, -
we--.m%.i--mi-..
--we-=++*
w-e -. - ~, =,
i W
RESULTS TO DATE
.I PERCEPTION OF OVERALL NUCLEAR SAFETY CULTURE HAS IMPROVED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE LAST YEAR, ESPECIALLY AT BNP HOWEVER, THERE IS STILL A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT FEELS IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE QUALITY CHECK PROGRAM HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED 28
i E
l',
SUMMARY
CP&L IS TAKING AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS TO RESOLVE RECOGNIZED WEAKNESSES IN SELF-ASSESSMENT AT BRUNSWICK AND WITHIN THE COMPANY
- We can identify our problems and solve them.
EXPECTATIONS REGARDING SAP TY, RELIABILITY, AND COST ARE BEING TRACKED AS PERFORMANCE GOALS AND COMMUNICATED TO EMPLOYEES KEY TO FUTURE SUCCESS 29
=
se
,y3
_