ML20134Q218
| ML20134Q218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1996 |
| From: | Wert L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Mcmeekin T DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612020182 | |
| Download: ML20134Q218 (235) | |
Text
... i 'd i
p Novernber 22, 1996 Duke Power Company
' ATTN: Mr. T. C. McMeekin Vice President McGuire Site 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville. NC 28078-8985 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION
Dear Mr. .McMeekin:
)
This refers to the open Management meeting that was conducted at the NRC Region II Office in Atlanta. Georgia on November 8.1996, to discuss the status and results of performance initiatives at McGuire. A list of attendees and a copy of your presentation handout are enclosed.
l It is our opinion that this meeting was beneficial as it provided the NRC
! staff with a good overview of your self assessment of performance at McGuire
-identifying those areas where progress has been made, strengths are discerned.
l and challenges remain.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2. !
l Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations a copy of this letter and its !
L enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely. ;
! original signed by:
L. D. Wert, Acting Chief
, Reactor Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50-369. 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9. NPF-17
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Licensee Presentation Handout cc w/encls: (See page 2) e i 9612O20182 961122 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G PM _
l i
^=
. o .
DPC 2 cc w/ encl 1:
James Snyder Peter R. Harden. IV Regulatory Compliance Account Sales Manager Duke Power Company Power Systems Field Sales 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Westinghouse Electric Corporation Huntersville, NC 28078-8985 P. O. Box 7288 Charlotte, NC 28241 Licensing - EC050 Dr. John M. Barry. Director Duke Power Company Mecklenburg County Department l P. O. Box 1006 of Environmental Protection i Charlotte. NC 28201-1006 700 Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28203 Paul R. Newton Legal Department (PB05E) Karen E. Long Duke Power Company Assistant Attorney General 422 South Church Street N. C. Department of Justice ;
Charlotte. NC 28242-0001 P, O. Box 629 ;
Raleigh, NC 27602 ;
Mr. Robert P. Gruber l Executive Director Distribution w/ encl 1: l Public Staff - NCUC V. Nerses. NRR ,
l P. O. Box 29520 S. Rudisail. RII !
Raleigh, NC 27626-0520 L. Wert. RII i N. Economos. RII J. Michael McGarry. III. Esq. R. Baldwin, RII Winston and Strawn NRC Resident Inspector 1400 L Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20005 Distribution w/encls 1 & 2:
l PUBLIC Dayne H. Brown, Director Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Envlronment.
' Health & Natural Resources P, O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 I County Manager of Mecklenburg County 720 East Fourth Street Charlotte. NC 28202 l
OrFler ptf Pop SIGNA 1URE NAME ., udisail DATE 11 1 / # / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 I
- COPf? YE$# NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OrFICIAL ntLOKU LOPY DuC&lLNI NAMt; 6;\Mi65UM.MLG i
L -
l l
- .; 4 .
LIST OF ATTENDEES ,
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
l S. Ebneter, Regional-Administrator. Region II (RII) ,
J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RII i
- A. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS), RII l' L. Wert, Acting Chief, Branch 1. DRP, RII i H. Christensen.. Chief. Maintenance Branch, DRS, RII t K.
c Barr, Chief, Plant Support Branch, DRS, RII i Shaeffer. Senior Resident Inspector, McGuire, DRP, RII
- b. Forbes, Reactor Inspector, Plant Support Branch, DRS, RII S. Rudisail, Project' Engineer, DRP, RII H.- Berkow, Director, Project Directorate II-2, Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
V. Nerses Project Manager Project Directorate II-2, NRR l
I ' DUKE POWER COMPANY l E. Geddie Plant Manager, McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) .
l B. Dolan, Safety Assurance Manager MNS i L
R. Jones, Operation Superintendent MNS ;
M Nazar Maintenance Superintendent, MNS 1
- P. Herran, Engineering Manager, MNS J. Thrasher, Modifications Engineering Manager MNS- !
J. Boyle, Engineering Manager, Civil. Electrical and Nuclear, MNS l J. Snyder, Regulatory Compliance Manager MNS l M. Kitlan, Regulatory Compliance Manager, Catawba Nuclear Station ;
1
- i I
e
- Enclosure 1 l
l
l 1
s l . =
\ *' .,;Y-%
$ N 3 .
w 3
}
- Vf_.V M . h, M %.:lh :)4 l
i ', E,I E( yh 1 i I '
l M.c wr .." en a i V ff,R4E.
a
),3,%(;g; ? isf1 ~ h r t i
. .~.M$.' g ',( ffff77 pa **i -
15 4 1 '} 5 {}
~ g r:Q s (,,.' .} }f g .. $-i?^;&,n?$ '-
E yte
- Ty$Qll.N .y.-3 Qu, 3a i
l r"' -
r;,<
40
.;pW:
g,t l j,'j'# i '
jg %'gf '
@0 d[
- d
,# p[/j}V
$ , g ' 1-7 s w. X
.c we
.e f .,&-i . m . .g
'.7('f T' '.,"'N' .# i + i 5 ',,J[
ufr : r Q
,f .k.,By ;.g.
p ?'l{
.h. T:,Q i.yy3?K 7-Q cm
~,
- yM1 m,
. {f'. fD' t "
9 4
., ,4 Jr?
- . , 3 Tg'
[9 t 7-
- 4 <,.
.X bGd, 7,/ vaf;$p f.,; ;' f ' . 'y 7a!
v L .; ' f
.J ': ::?!.6
- ZuQy4 / .4 -
~
Y' '
2 -
bl5$);}hs&,&, - _l .! 3*
6,WkQ,hhh,k l ggw mg, . . 4 - , ^9:.. . A r1 -
~,.-;,,. 'f ! % " \)
-l g . g
- p. 4, 4 <'*
,, r
! .t 3 : J.q:L.j w<g -
~
,;.-- I.
, , ! . -' .'i h) 1' f ,5 4 1 a'C .l
, , f. t l- .
Y k,9 h .'
f;
(( .
k } j"r- T .... N
..f
, '. . s.-
'k., '
h'
^~
%?.1]t,Q.:.',(p - . . , -
v* .
\
QW ,M
- ,n61 % -l.?g w rg$' ..
=
.? ... I: '
) . vW & a * '.g}'*. 4 5Q'ty ..-
)
a % W c: m .
-r
- M l hh -k ,N fh,y - T (
~'
%,7(.,
. I l.,<.J.TvlilaM.W.f :!* W W g ; s ,
M.a g 2,u;: ',
/
- [ ll' hw. ;. i
.s.,,-
.. e j Uh '
. . - . . . .s. ?
- fMS,m
- w h% ;. T. w s 4: quaryg-4 q.
l
.r 1.,. ?e e. -u .
Yl.f. MR.l,t0~s e l *9' g *
.f p .
,, 6, n [}n.) pt,3
, l;? ; 4 ", _
._ h H .WA.,(;
m.. s. n..a_m .
,y . .
.y w_a. -s
- m. .,.
e W. a a U?~ 2M.s.y, ~
M;.y: ' +.: u :: tR .<. W ~.
N &y 4, $!n; W&
\ : ,
.. x;
- s; :;
'* h & M - , k; M.f'5fy ;
j.,3 ,QV '
9 G: [*i-;. [?f ) , M'h n fb sf .yp' 6f mus.g; ;=: 1 .< g ' ,
~f , / , ' lj
, w ;;:e - , e.~s a g
~?& e. s , . ,, . ~ - .
m.e,,s M b} '
y s ;ir ,
e .
l '
.,; $ y Nf 1
gL Q. m%.c @:.wh.l .. h $?hf~' f _[Wp.k h; & +' ._ #. ~wwM fygt?%':2. s :
..,+.
.. r - . e : k m a.. g;g::.r.a..,p 6 5.L l ' " **#9 .." :y
. f_ l@ pap.g. : '"
hk.
~ .' ?i
<~
i MQ; 1;'C ' sy; ,
., K y~a%.x .- Y'h1.-2-:a y... .+ .
$ +, -!(.
3 s s " ' ',<
kk,bW e
A
' $K4,1 l l. -d. 7ll 'I
? .'ul. "S: W. ,1}.i; h[. ' ~ h;f';,'.* , @'h h ; -[ -
- hi I
- f. 4 - ,.:s x:
s
\
$hf 5e w g h : $ -e. $..
i 1
J
l
{ s' i
q i
..i AGENDA
+ INTPODUCTION EMG l + 2EOC10 REFUELING OUTAGE REPORT EMG i
i + SELF ASSESSMENT: i i
! + ENGINEERING PRH '
i l + OPERATIONS RAJ
+ MAINTENANCE MKN i
+ PLANT SUPPORT BJD l + SELF ASSESSMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION BJD l PROGRAMS -
+ WRAP-UP EMG l
l >
"4W.,rr stiee 2 i
i 4._.--___
l l
- RW +
l J, P NRC / INDUSTRY ISSUES i
+ UFSAR ACCURACY i + LICENSING BASIS COMPLIANCE l + 10CFR 50.59 PROCESS
! + STANDARDIZED TECH SPEC 1
l l
i i
i
""" L" L suas
{
L__ - _ _ __ _._ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
lll t
l McGmre Performance Measures - September,1996 '
Vision "To Be World Class"
- Productim Cost in Top 10 in 1996 (pg.1)
Team Effectiveness g _
- Capacity Factor in Top Quartile in 1996 (pg. 2)
EEy -EEE e INPO Rating in Top Quartile in 1996 (pg. 23)
EMPLOYEE ___-
EERSONNEL _ __ M a NRC SALP Score in Top Quartile by 1997 (pg. 24)
$ (amnmanami 3
+ eh. ~4
> (G.se.) (senenenemi 5 e Zero Recordable Injunes by 1998 (pg. 3)
- Zero Reportable Environrnental incidents by 1998 (pg. 34)
Operating Excellence - Nuclear System v oer -
muerer* 7" "
-~
GENERATION ' OUTAGE " UCLEAR FOffMANCE[ INPO SALP CT. FULL TARGETS !-
- RATING SCORE s' a.seN. ro.. > as ss 11 immi 23 asem uni 24 l Operating Excellence - Cost Control 3 ,, ,, ,, , --.
SYSTEM NON-MAJOR 1
" " ' C6 {" FSTEA WG W M MARKET BASED Bu" ion.85Ef'2.<-i cEEF 27 S^d.,&^NG run 2 - ' g- -
asf.'g*jM .
sa i
Stewardship m su us- ~
"""SIO EN RAEASTE E 5
'" A""'S 34 io i 3. R.L 4 3T ? 3 as ve o- -* @ "'
"~*"
Site Focus - The Biggest Barriers to Achieving Our Vision "**'7 % *""
vrD White - Currenny Unreported SYSTEM Quarterty YTD '
RELIABILITY cunent siatus i l l ($ Represents Site inceneve Goal j
! MODIFICA 1
%) 56 l
1 4
1 -
b E$Y.c ^ g n
i~ f INPO SELF-ASSESSMENT I -
! + Highest level of Self-Assessment l + Previous Findings turned to Strengths -
l
+ Strengths Recognized i
+ Operational Focus j + Performance Indicator Improvement
)
1
+ Self-Assessment
+ Use of Operating Experience
! + Personnel Safety and Reduced Errors
+ Low Solid and Liquid Radwaste
{ + Training i
i + Needed Improvement . ,
i + EDG and Motor Failures
! + Abnormal and Emergency Procedure Implementation t
rasssur norr Slide 5
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _.-_- _ _____ _ _-- . . _ _ .-_,.,__..,_,...,_,.,_,u.
i 4
- au, .
?
i af f McGuire Nuclear Station Recent Outage Performance i
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2
! OUTAGE MEASURE EOC8 EOC8 EOC9 EOC9 EOC10 EOC10 i
i i
Recordable Injuries 7 9 11 7 4 2 i
j LER's (Personnel Error) 2 2 0 0 0 0 Personnel Dose (rem) 209 161 171 174 128 126 l Duration (Days) 94 75 69 49 41 39 ,
! Cost ($ millions) $ 28.4 $25.1 $ 25.6 - $ 23.3 $ 14.9 $18.4 l Solid Radwaste (cu. ft.) 7,820 10,200 5,500 4,340 1,840 1,800 i
l 1
r t
! razssur Neurr Slide 6 l
l l...._----._..---..------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ~~~~~~ ~
1
i
,I ,
! n s 2EOC10 i
REFUELIlVG OUTAGE REPORT 1-I l + MAJOR WORK ACTIVITIES
+ TURBINE / GENERATOR The scope of this work was to perform limited inspections on the "A" and "B" low pressure j
turbines, and perform normal preventative maintenance and inspection of the main generator.
j j
Upon completion of the main generator inspection, a leak test was performed per procedures.
j The results of the test indicated leakage from the radial leads in the generator. A plan was developed and worked around the clock to make necessary repairs. The plan prevented any j schedule impact due to this additional scope of work.
j i +
STEAM GENERATOR MAINTENANCE All four steam generators were found in better than expected condition. Inspection of the cold i
leg tubes for circumferential cracking revealed no cracks and further inspections were not required. A total of 180 additional tubes were plugged. This work was completed on schedule and resulted in removal of nozzle dams during the "no m, ode" activity period, preventing a j
second drain of the reactor coolant system, improving the shutdown risks, and saving a j significant amount of dose and money.
- + REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS This work included a motor replacement for the "A" pump. McGuire is in a program to refurbish all reactor coolant pump motors for both units.
j passsdr a slide 7
- - ~ . , . _ - , , . . _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , . , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . , . . , . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-
, _ _ , . - , _ _ .... _ . - .. .. ~ ,-
i 1
R j 9 2EOC10 i
- REFUELING OLTAGE REPORT i ~
! +
i MAJOR WORK ACTIVITIES (Continued)
+ VALVE MAINTENANCE i .
Maintenance was scheduled for 487 valves in the outage and work was performed on 551; the j
additional scope (64 valves) was primarily corrective work found during the outage. The j breakdown of the 551 worked includes:
j . 266 general valves
] . 177 motoroperated valves j . 108 air operated valves.
1 The valve work went extremely well with very little rework associated with the valves. Leakage l has been found to be extremely low, especially in regard to reactor coolant unidentified leakage and leakage through the reactor coolant loop isolation check valves.
+ DEFUELING/ REFUELING j .
The entire core was offloaded to the spent fuel pool to support defueled maintenance and control rod shuffle. Radiochemical analysis demonstrated no leaking fuel pi,ns for the cycle and no UT inspection was required. Prior to core icioad, a substance was detected on the surface of the control rods. This substance was sampled and determined to be an oxidation agent (hydrated i
ferric oxide) from a surface coating placed on the control rods in the fabrication process that
! interacted with the spent fuel pool environment. A detailed review of this residue was made including a thorough review of OE data. It was determined to not affect control rod operability.
This substance was removed by vacuuming in and around the control rods. The core was
! subsequently reloaded without impact to the schedule. -
b slide 8 I
_ . _ , . , , . _ , . , - . _ - - - . - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - " - ~ ~ " ' " - - - " ' " " " " ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' "
4 1
I i
4;r 2EOC10
- . .r ;
REFUELING OUTAGE REPORT
! +
i MAJOR WORK ACTIVITIES (Continued) i
! + ICE CONDENSER f .
The ice condenser work was performed on schedule. The scope was to unload and replenish j
181 baskets.
! + MAJOR MODIFICATIONS .
j .
Ten Nuclear Station Modifications (NSMs) were implemented this outage. Two NSMs dealt i with resolution of"thermo-lag" issues. These modifications replaced controls and added 1
l check valves to provide separation in lieu of use of the thermo-lag.
The venturi flow sections were replaced with ASME nozzles employing low pressure taps in the sidewall to permit more accurate indication of power in order to get more output from the unit without exceeding allowable reactor power limits. This modification prevents feedwater f flow venturi fouling and therefore, allows a steady power output versus decreasing primary j power as flow venturis fouled indicating a higher feedwater flow. -
1 l
i i
?
k 5 '
russsur m.rrr Slide 9 3
I
- - - . . - - - , . . . _ - - , - - _ . . _ - - - . . - - . - . . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - . - - - _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ . - - . . - . _ . - - _ _ . , - - - .,...-._.,a
l n "
2EOC10 l
i REFUELING OUTAGE REPORT i
l + MAJOR WORK ACTIVITIES (Continued) i i + MINOR MODIFICATIONS Forty eight elective minor modifications were implemented during this outage to improve plant j -
equipment and replace components th.c were obsolete or unreliable. The most significant of these improvements involved the replacement of all the main condenser expansion joint seals.
l This replacement was to improve unit reliability by eliminating the potential for failure of these joints due to fatigue as has occurred at other stations in the industry, including both Catawba
- i and Oconee.
. Several of the minor modifications involved improvements to valves and/or valve leakoffs to reduce the amount of unidentified reactor coolant leakage that the unit has been experiencing l during the recent past. Leakage calculations performed have shown that the unidentified
- leakage is much improved.
i j
i i,
)
"Eur
- m. um slide 10 1
t j
t 1 R, .-
l "3 2EOC10 i
REFUELING OUTAGE REPORT
+ OUTAGE AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT i
j + In-processing and retention of contractor resources l + Adherence to preoutage milestones and planning processes I
+ Need for Site Focus on long range planning 1
l j -
I
{
l t
l r"azEuWrmm slide 11 A i__.__-.____________._____________-- ___ _ _.____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ -
i i
l
[ 2EOC10 i
REFLELING OUTAGE REPORT
+ OUTAGE SUCCESS STORIES i j + Personnel Safety l + No LERs
! + Low Dose -
1 The overall low radiation dose of 127.1 rem was well below McGuire's previous best.
j Planning for an initial cmd burst and clean up as well as adding shielding and good ALARA
} planning helped to achieve a record low dose.
j- + Operations Support 3 1 .
r Operations use of four rotating shifts for unit coverage and deployment of the fifth shift for i
outage coverage improved the ability to have work available at the appropriate times.
i + Paperless Work Control Process I .
Use of electronic work packages in lieu of paper pac) cages allowed work authorizations to be
, made in a more timely manner and improved the accuracy of cre'w schedules.
j- + Quality Maintenance i .
The quality of all maintenance continues to improve. There was minimal rework during the i outage.
k '
i f
PRE.1ENT W sI5M N i
i i
i i
. 1 2EOC10 i
REFUELING OUTAGE REPORT -
i :
! +' OUTAGE SUCCESS STORIES (Continued) j
? PM Execution For this outage, all work scheduled was performed indicating much improved performance in
{ planning for electrical work and in execution.
! + Third outage in a row completed on schedule.
- + Outage Duration was best ever at MNS
- 39 days 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
l i .
A second drain of the refueling cavity was avoided due to good execution of the steam generator l work. A second drain has normally been scheduled to allow removal nozzle dams and closure of j the S/G manways and permit refueling to begin early. This work was completed prior to the
{ refueling phase. This reduced the nuclear risk due to draining with fuel in the core and saved dose j and cost.
1 i
i I
l i
i '
V "MN eurr Slide 13
^
--_--.-_._~__..._______<_m._,.-_-._m___-._____.__,._..--v.--,___.m--,-- __
l 1
j
('
- m i !
i IE SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE i
i i
t
+ SELF ASSESSMENTS l
+
BENCHMARKING
+ OPERATING EXPERIENCE l
1 t
l
" 7mm Slide 14
b i
! 2 .
n 3 DEFINITIONS i
i i
i l + STRENGTHS 1
l + Results are meeting expectations / high standards. Continuous l improvement is pursued.
+ AREAS OF PROGRESS I ,+ Meeting minimum standards. Improvement plans being implemented /
, have been implemented with recognizable results.
I
+ CHALLENGES '
i
+
Not meeting expectations. Improvement plans unde.r development / being i implemented. Trending / monitoring to assess results. Also includes I
emerging issues or other significant concerns.
f i
i
- %""""im sue is
. . . , _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ " ' " - - - ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~~
i I pm I
l.
h l
e M
o%
i M>.
T c=k.
e
i i
ENGINEERING TABLE OF CO3TElNTS i
1 l + MMGM
+
+ AREAS OF PROGRESS l MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
+ SUPPORT OF REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT
{ + OPERAllONAL FOCUS ON PLANT PROBLEMS j +
+
REACTOR ENGINEERING INTERFACE WrlTI OPERATIONS SYSTEM AND COMPONENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING
+ SAFETY SYSTEM AVAILABILITY (IMPLEMENTATION OF ENGINEERING SUPPORT PROGRAM)
} ,
! t + PLANT ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE (SROffNC)
INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT +
^ CLOSURE OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10 (MOV'S)
+
+
LINE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN TRAINING TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS (TEPR)
+ WORK MANAGEMENT f +
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED BUSINESS
+
i SOLUTIONS 1EMPORARY MODIFICATION PROCESS I
+ BENCHMARKING EFFORTS * ^
+
- USE OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE ~
+ SELF ASSESSMENTS
- + CHALLENGES l + SPECIFIC MAJOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY
- Diesel Generators f + Large Motors j + Vital Batteries
- I
+ COLD WEATHER PROTECTION
+ CURRENT REGULATORY ISSUES l + UFSAR Accuracy i + ISTS t
i + 10CFR50.59 Process I
+ 10CFR50.54(f) Request for Information
) + Configuration Management
+ MAJOR REPLACEMENT PROJECTS j + SUPPORT FOR MAINTENANCE RULE i rusemusurusorr Slide 17 i
-,--.-~,e-.-.----. -..m.,..w,,- -,w_ _ - ~ . _ __,-_.,_r~,.-.,.,mm.m - . . - - . ~ . . . - , , , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . -- -r-* -- - n--r- w ,,
,i 5
l
. o i
3 ENGINEERING STRENGTHS t
I + MANAGEMENT FOCUS ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
! ~
- + Following the site reorganization, the engineering team identified (hat a fundamental l responsibility of the engineering organization was to support nuclear safety of the site j
through conservative decision making to protect the design basis. This was reinforced by l the site Vice President charging the team to make conservative decisions involving plant l operations. The engineering management team has made several conservative decisions.
i Some recent examples of those conservative decisions are:
i .
Cut out and repair of 2RN-276. UT and visual examination showed weld OK. RT performed as j i additional inspection for 'MIC' showed poor quality weld.
j .
Infrequently performed evolution review conducted to repair valve INC-45, pressurizer liquid sample valve.
Detection and correction of a Main Generator hydrogen leak around the radial lead cable seal.
This corrected a potentially significant safety hazard pri,or to startup from 2EOCIO.
l .
NSM 22455 - add check valve downstream of 2CA161C & 162C
- +
Improved communication of Engineering operability evaluation inputs to Operations.
l Additional communication standards have been developed for interfacing with Operations j on other issues such as recommended procedure changes and detailed instructions or guidance to the Control Room.
nssswr nr slide 18
- -~~~*-ww ww ws vm es--unww m+s -,er tr w * *mt w m w e t e w ww e - e _ _---me- +-==-wsw=w--=,m--mw,==== +.w.mi..-mem'----*msm=+=ma+---++e==-s-==+=--w-===--w ==ow=--- - - - , - - - - - --e==e-w-w-r-ww-*e-*e"*-**~'T*=.. = - - - w---e,ane-
l
- - i
! s -
l .
mi f .
ENGINEERING STRENGTHS j
I
! + OPERATIONAL FOCUS ON PLANT PROBLEMS l
l + Each morning at the 0700 Plant Status meeting, plant concerns that were identified in the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />
- are discussed and assigned an owner. The owners are almost exclusively Maintenance and Engineering. The i
progress and followup on plant concerns is discussed each day at the 0730 group meetings and the 0830
- management focus meeting. The assigned owner for longer term or more complex issues is carried on the unit
- " action register". The owner for action registeritems must give the Operations Shift Manager a status update prior to going home on the day of assignment and a written update each week until resolved. (Action i Register Problem Resolution items - ARPR) i
- + Assigning ownership in the daily plant status meetings, along with implementation of the Top Equipment i Problem Resolution hocess (TEPR) which provides focus for long term problems, has significantly improved
- the timeliness of corrective actions to plant system and equipment problems.
i + In the process, management expectations are communicated for conservative decision making, operational j focus and team support of the problem owner.
i .
To facilitate effective communication between Engineering and Operations, the contents of the plant status meetings (including Action Register Report) have been added to thb McGuire computer desktop.
4 4
1 i '
I rassen wr Slide 19 I.
i
i a u,rn .
~
~t i.f ENGINEERING STRENGTHS i
W I
i
- +
i OPERATIONAL FOCUS ON PLANT PROBLEMS (Continued) l <
Engineering support of Operator Workaround program continues to be enhanced. TEPR Management Team I
reviews progress on correcting operator workarounds monthly with emphasis on those work arounds that require essential actions within our emergency procedures.
l .
Engineering has been a key player in supporting planning and execution of our outages:
Selected En ;ineering Managers own pre-designated " outage windows" where they provide leadership in both
! planning and executing the window.
During outages, Engineering Supervisors combine to fill the outage function called "ESPOC". This
- 1
" engineering single point of contact" is a point contact for resolving technical issues immediately on around-the-clock basis.
1 l .
A Critical Interfaces Matrix for Operations, Maintenance, Engineering and Work Control. This matrix clarifies the i
I roles and responsibilities of each of these groups in support of such functions as equipment troubleshooting, procedure preparation, plant testing, etc.
l Management / Employee Development focused on increasing Operational focus TNC (Technical Nuclear Certification) Training - 8 Engineering Managers / Supervisors completed, remainder i scheduled through 1998.
t SRO rotations OPS /ENG - 15 candidates involved since 1994.
. Other rotations - INPO, Training, etc.
" "s.J Wr . suae20
- - . - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~-
l
i i ENGINEERING STRENGTHS l
+ OPERATIONAL FOCUS ON PLANT PROBLEMS (Continued)
+ Engineering is a full participant in the Materiel Condition and Foreign Material Exclusion Programs.
+ Engineering / Maintenance management meet twice weekly to review plant and programmatic issues.
+ Engineering / Operations management meet once weekly to review plant and programmatic issues.
! + Engineering / Work Control management meet once weekly to review planning, scheduling, and programmatic issues.
j . Station / Engineering quarterly advances focus on planning, emerging issues, areas for assessment, and integration of I
- activities for both divisions.
1
- . A Mechanical Council and an Electrical Council meet periodically to discuss station and engineering issues associated with these disciplines.
4 l
i i
I
, "rar$wr irr Slide 21 i
i i
- . - , , , . - ~ - - - . . - _ _ . _ - - - - _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ~ . - - - -
l l .
! 4 l i.
+
f ENGINEERING STRENGTHS l
4 I
l l
+ REACTOR ENGINEERING INTERFACE WITH OPERATIONS 3
l
+ McGuire's Reactor Engineering (Nuclear Engineering) continues to provide excellent technical support and operations interface. Examples include:
1 Participation with Operations in simulator training for reactor startups and zero power physics i
testing.
i
{ g .
Participation in classroom training provided to Operations (requal) for selected topics.
i Direct involvement / technical direction to Operations regarding management of primary flow i
phenomena effects upon the reactor.
f .
Achievement of zero fuel defects through a specific program of monitoring, outage testing and l replacement / reconstitution ofleaking fuel pins. i
) .
Issuance ofinstructions to Operations regarding changes to core design / operating characteristics for l each new core.
Development of Operations Management Procedures for detailed instructions or guidance from
- Engineering to Control Room i
! . Daily interaction with Control Room Personnel.
l 4 .
rassswr w rr slide 22
__,,..,_.--..m-------+=+-~~~=--~~~----~'=-"'*~--'***'~""*"'~*'"* ~
- ***^"~"'" ~ ~ ~ * ~ - - ~
- s o
- ,
~
I lll l'
- ENGINEERING STRENGTHS
+ SAFETY SYSTEM AVAILABILITY
+
McGuire has sustained achievement of <l.0% unavailability of key safety systems.
1 ROLLING 2 YEAR AVERAGE j SAFETY SYSTEM 2 .
(Thru 9/96) .
! i I
1
. High Pressure Injection 0.5%
l
\
. Auxiliary Feedwater 0.3%
t . Emergency AC Power 0.8%
a i
j i
EEPeurr Slide 23 I,
1 I [
-.-_-.,.. _ ..,,,-- _ _... _ ~ _ _ ... - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ " ~ - ' ~ ~ ~ " ' ' ~ ' ~ " ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
- y. . . .
' dM. [
_ P ENGINEERING STRENGTHS
+ INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS l + A maturing set of measures reflects management expectations in key areas such as: !
I
. System Reliability
. SelfImprovement
- . Work Management
) . Modifications
. Configuration Management j +
Measures are updated and communicated monthly throught he McGuire Site Operational l Plan and the Engineering Division Operational Plan.
l + Engineering Team Notes i j .
The Engineering Manager generates a frequent communi' cation to all Engineering employees.
l This communication focuses on nuclear safety, plant operations, current items ofinterest and a i
brieflook ahead.
i "passaur unt slide 24 i-I
i
{ . "
1 bcas 4
"y ENGINEERING STRENGTHS t
l
! + INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS l (Continued)
+ Engineering Managers and Supervisors Meetings j .
All Engineering Managers and Supervisors meet for one hour every other week to focus on the i
Engineering Operational Plan and management expectations.
i +
Site Town Hall Meetings held by Site Vice President, Station Manager and Engineering l Manager involve all managers and supervisors l 1+ The Site Vice President has annual one on one sessions with all Superintendents and j Engineering Managers to clarify his expectations. Specific emphasis has been placed on '
conservative decision making.
+ Engineering management leaderslup was recogmzed as an INPO Strength.
, i t
"dW.m slide 25
4 1
i i
McGuire Engineering l
1996 Divisional Success Measures Status Y
', W.v - - m .a.a._ q a. % . % m . ..g .r ,g . , 4 , .,. .s3 4 -s2 -1 . se - .4- us 4 er - .4 :_
) TE A M EFFECTIVENESS
, e of sasesy mapm.
4 Bepanyes)sJones av weesme ;ua .., f.;, M.ae is am&-i.d Br.ce D > so 50 -60 40 - 50 so - 40
! < 10 s 2 v. m Ae Pennesed n=a--se -
e~ Person R ese John NA NA NA NA NA NA k Dessnest " - 6 1 Doc. Mgme SetMecasures Jota S > 9.7 NA N4 8.0 97 10-79 30-49 j Lesasasa informassee Test a tecatma IT Sobuneasures
< 3.0 6 9 pts .It C ad 8 >97 50 9.7 j 50-79 30-49 <30 8 4 vns .24 Tfames "" r~eness ~ p' ' .7"i :.
(Sies Fecus) T 4 ^ 3-
Ensi. T r===:
1 se' PeteIB itt to > 7.7 7.0-76 40-69 30-39 Sett amn. _ _ Cahnse <30 5 8 pas .2 e 2, . o o e of Sdf Amenmeans (Site Pacesr*NM e. M** *> #is: zohn 7 > 54 48-54 16-47 24-19 < 24 14
., Sestaans Essdlamee ? _ _ est - eT- N/A - See instnatsves Soh a NA NA
.t4 NA NA N& NA 1 NA NA a
OPER ATING EXCELLENCE - NiiCLE AR SYSTEM
$yeaan RehovaNsy. , y , , 3 ,_ 2 . . . Sysseum Rehabduy
, gag pggggg4St w e we C : N Sabanesseres Bnece 19 >77 70-76 40-69 3.0-39 e 3.0 4 3 pts _De En$neerm8 5 sB4 W '. t.,e ,e Work Manageances i
(Sits Dates)DI'WP" OM &&W EP3 Sebenessures lack 84 > 5.7 40-16 i " " " ~" _ (Slge Pecua) 3p 10-49 20-29 <20 4 4 pas .3e Medif catane Sutweemsures John IS >57 50-i6 3.0-49 20-29 < 2.0 3 9 pas C-as - "- _ . 74 confisersoon Jom. 5 INPO Sacagth Escoed especuse Meets especstmo Not meetag
.38 Me%!N M h.D a ' 19 p W -; a f.N.u t . .
.'N Management Submeasures event ewem capact or av sat Not meetag las 6 mos.
m so- espect & enema evaluated as I,ow i bag.$ ALP.Er. . ss~ S2 .Ie See See Success Messure lack NA Score nos r. ,.- .; sa 1996 1991 Eng S A[.P Score - 10
.NPO Reesme + 1 i - - ss See See Succese Mesamte Jack NA NA
' NA NA NA NA NA l'eviermance tedicaser lades 29 See See Success Measure NA Pese NA NA NA NA C. ' NA NA NA NA
_ ___ Poems ($see Perus) Se See See Soccess Measure Bruce NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA OPER ATING EXCELLENCE -COST CONTROL I
O&M Bedest 5A Dev OA M Act so Bedget Pete 80 < 20.7 2 5 2Ol's Comphread 121.606-120.721 $ 22.048 -121.607 122.044-522.489 > $ 2 2.489 su See sne Success Measure (I l'E l .34 lohe/ Bruce NA NA NA NA I
NA NA NA NA STEW A RDSHIP CycR- m l NeA I B r.ce NA NA l NA I NA l NA NA YTD Rasmas l l NA NA i 100 OveraB Score (Poenia/ Sum of Weaghts) L SITE FOCUS See " ream I'ffecieveness' and "Opessanag Eacedaeace - Nuclear System
- Ematovee Embarten (Total- N/A) Svstem Rehabi#tt (Total- 4)
- Sait Impsowe. Inspeemented - 33 YTD Loca des IT (Total- 9) Tra4mina Effectiveness ( Total 7)
'
- Equar=== Evessa - R (On
- Fde/ Prat Serves Avad -G (2)
- Asaendance Ethcasacy - G (2)
- Top Equipment Problem Resoluaaen - Y (1)
- Dect, Cust. Prob. Calls - Y (1)
Connaaration Ma==--=ema (Total- N/A)
- Systema /Eeteipment Coadnaca - Y (t)
- Managesment Obsesvasaea of Classroom Tsag -G (2)
- IT - Piojects - G Q)
- Cosepnesed PSG 1ectaan B by12/31196 - N/R Y (I)
- tam =nve Rasema A Saganficaan
'
- Maanumasse Rent - G Q)
- Cusi. Sausfacssoa - G (2)
- Complesed PSG Socinan C an Accosdance arab Ceafigurataos Eveois - Y (1) i
- RM AC Access Sea. Avad. -G (2) enh ESP he-i Development - G (2) l Decessent M aanzessent (Tosal . 3 0) Ensineertam Werk Mamaneament (Total- 5)
! M odificatsoes (Total- 3) 5eff-Imarevencer Cutiets (Total- N/A)
- Transassial Tannelmess - G Q)
- Engr. PL.A N. Sue Projects - G C)
- Transantual Enoss - G (2)
- Mod success - G (2)
- Self Aasessmanas - 34 YTD
- West Order $sppart-G (2) (NSM's & MM's)
Repon Tuashness -G (2)
- FIPs - Y ;I)
Rapso Errors -G (2)
- H5M's - Y (1)
Fdag/Updaimg Tasadasema - G Q)
- Elect mms- R (0) j GREEN - 2 pesass YELLOW = I poses RED - 4 poensa NAL - Unreported (nasame Yellow)
, (RESULTS THROUGH SEPTEMBER,1996) i 1
-,-.,,_.-,_..-.r.e--,..-,.-c-,.,-,-.w. .c.m.w,,,., ,.-..,--,,.,,.-..-.%,..---w...-.w.,.-e .,m-,v...-,,_.s.--,..-e,ww--,..,-m_.w....,-m,,,.,,.-.-,_.%.---w---wa-cv"-=-.- v ..--- - . , - --,,,-v
i i '
)
I n
! .-=
i ENGINEERING STRENGTHS
)
! +
i LINE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN TRAINING j +
McGuire Training Review Board (MTRB) provides oversite and direction for all training at j
McGuire. This board is chaired by the Site Vice President and includes key site managers as j members.
1 l +
Within Engineering, the Engineering Manager chairs the Engineering Training Program i
Review Committee (TPRC). Other members include supervisors and staff from both the Engineering and Training organizations.
- 1+
TPRC reviews training program content and feedback, selects continuing training topics, and
{ reviews training performance measures with a focus on continuous improvement.
+
Engineering Continuing Training is held on a quarterly basis. Managers and supervisors are involved in presenting selected topics, attending, observing, and critiquing the training.
i s Line management involvement in training was recognized as an' INPO Strength.
i Evsu.n b Slide 27
,- . . . _ - . . . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ " ' ' ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I l
t i
i
. %J ENGBEERING STRENGTHS
+
INFORMATION TFCHNOLOGY INTEGRATED BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
+ OPERATIONS:
Implemented a Solid Operations Monitor Application i + MAINTENANCE:
Implemented On Line Work Management Report
! Application l
Implemented a Valve Outage Database Application Implemented Material Condition Reporting Program
! + ENGINEERING:
j Implemented a System / Equipment Work Management
, Schedule Application i
i Performed Engineering III' Desktop Assessment
- + TRAINING Implemented Simulator Training and Tracking
{ Application i
i i + SITE:
Implemented the Systems Plant Interface Database Implemented Safeguards Inventory Database i
Implemented the Operating Experience Database Desktop and PIP Application Enhancements l
4 Implemented Daily Status / Plant Actions Register Report s
} +
Recognized " Site Desktop" as an INPO strength.
arrr Slide 28
i 9W #
ENGINEERING STRENGTHS t
+ BENCHMARKING EFFORTS ~
! +
Engineering participated with otlwr Duke locations in benchmarking at four (4) other utilities in l late 1995, focusing on how major Engineering type functions and processes are staffed and managed. Further benchmarking efforts to look at the following functions at a lower level have
{ been completed:
l . System Engineering l .
Equipment / Component Engineering ,
! . Maintenance Engineering i
Engineering Support of Operations
- . Procurement Engineering 1
Both Operations and Maintenance personnel were involved with these benchmarking efforts.
j Changes initiated as a result of benchmarking:
j .
Clarified and formalized " Roles and Responsibilities Matrix".
j .
Clarified Maintenance Technical Support roles to address ro}itine equipment problems.
i .
Increased the responsibility of the System engineers to cover some of th5 assignments of the former Operations Unit Managers Group.
Streamlined Plant Engineering organization.
Established a Configuration Management /Special Projects Team under the Modification EnginEdring Manager to handle some long term issues or special assignments from Plant Engineering.
i +
Engineering personnel have participated on INPO plant evaluations and other plant visits.
j i Lessons and ideas learned have been shared with station management.
"asssm r surr slide 29
. =*---,--wns,-e-..,,=-w e ,w, www - ..-.w- , -.w-.ww.- ,---,--- - -.
-.%-4--aa--,--w-=r---,s u-o.w-,-.w. w%- - -e---~% . . - - . .i.-, - ..+,-...w.-,.e.-w.--m- a,.ew.*,-=es -*=P's---*"-~.-w mawsow--rw-v T v-w--
(NGNEERING CCMULTANTS SITE ENGINEER!NG Sose30od Totof .
M w u m E ;D7.3 , oo . Roy w.iiser uggggg, ENGINEERING r .M7,,,, P R. HERRAN 0392)
ORGANIZATION o'g Effec #veness -Cindy Hardin (Future State 12/1/96) %fafv Am mren - frwen * -
(40 5)
- 83 PLANT ENG PLANT ENG
' #U" ADMN SPEClusts Stort MGR A e '" INPO Looned MGR B s HAer D. Bumgordner B. TRAVIS -
V McG " EPM J u worin A. Hinson J. BOYLE 0653) G.Pna. 0661) ***""'
f SysEngr' f SeC Sys ' # Bolor t 3r V Eng 'f Mech Equip ' f ' F ' F ' * '
t&C Electronic M. Rains (98) Engr Engr Engr D686) M. HoWey(98) t.Dovison(97) s' Bonard D D D.Gardner(97) p656) T. Welch (99) B. Pierce (98) E. ERrd B. Matthews(97) P. $ttles(98) t J< 0687) ; < 0688) Jt j( D654) J U664) (7663) 9662) U657) y
- ( D689) ;t j( ; t J t j C. Cuntzertson f Biough J Bryant M. Ch3reger A CPeedo 1 Danord D.Homce K. Caldwet A Botts I.See H Dirin D. Gotstel E Ewms 8 Duon C. Dove J DoY C. Georken u Broorne f. Burgen
- t. Hyland P. Goodwm R Faner T Foster G. Cutn L D0+ P/1 1 Glenn o Hopier 8 Monow B Grogg 8 Its a Howidru $ Goeodo M ner 3 Konter B Fubnght P. Guia D. Houser L Paran F. KortT8 L Kureo 8 Jononsen J Kncsr M Longel M Larta A McClenny I. Homllrorv$eW J. Keirnon N Soyees 8 Meyer N Kweet J Mead R Pacetal F W Morten J Meer D Roenick I Moore M Kennedy J Noen I Pederson R Norcuit M $cnes B. Propst i Meer M PoCem $ Rosenau I RoY J Posche R lurpin R Oues tre R Roberts J Pring 1 Weber J Oldnorn D. Pointer R Spodo B Roesser P Schuerger R. Woorners R Stoskes u vannoy 0 Ritcnie
- f. setzer D.WNpp H. Vorpea y. TOTAL g a Smm 8. TOfAL 8 101AL W $noban 9 TOTAL 8 107At 9-10TAL 9 5-101AL 9-TOTAL 10 TOTAL 9. TOTAL pd 5) l MODIFIC ATIONS ADMN SPEQALSTS l (20)
I UT ADMN SPEOAusi MANAGER ,,,,, , pg P. Noel MANAGER J. S. Thrasher (97) P. Tuche, C. ROBINSON G665) 0672) C. Twner FElect Instr' oi/ N ' f Mech / '
FElect Instr' f Config Mgrnt 101 Projects 3 Engr Engr r Support es ' f ToChniCol '
Desigtvimpi DesignAripi R. Horris (N96)
H. Wouoce(N96) Monoger Support y R. Modden J. Bolin G673) 9 676) 0674) ' 5. Robolois G. Frix J 0675) 0 677) N t Jt J t ; i 0666) 0668) '
' . Cromer T
, J Byrd g Ange, son G.8roome U' i. Deese
. 2 u Dcks E Esteo a Buys F. Pope gg,annom R. Scriner J Colo G. Some g gynig, M Molone i Feoster g ,g,,,, u o,n,an a on,or3po,,
J. ,,oom. P Coderesco q (7679) ; C. Morgm D. Nestvogel 8 Howes T. Coorg G Corter R Demond G gor 3reom D.Dum K Noms J. Moser u gio,,, R. GE3tu I. Duke 8
( D Uu D. Dougios I. Dansea C.Buchonon N Osburn I Propsf W. Revels f a Nesbet C. Aladie R.Lyony 8 Masnos K. Foorie, it Holgier B Caldwes J CFwistenbuy D.Smim w Ho,nngron j, g,g,,,
D Greene R. Keser J Herncis C. Roberson 1 Thomas D. Wamre K Pitmon R 3rrem C. Rowe0nd J Robbirs o. uoscan D McKerule C. Crump C whitlock A.Shan v Gammon Rome R Turner A Sipe u pnseman G. Mcm y . gogg H. $mtrh o, gusses 8. RIChordson A Knos 9-10fAL' M fortegno VN 8 - TOf4 8-10fAL 8-10TAL H pserre f. Roberts R. Tuctee PJ. Rows O Miser O. WNro a .fttAL G. Woodward E PO'80" g,, % M Pomca 12-30TAL M Stutz e 8 IITConmJiant a 3.. torg .
(98)Nopected TNC Csoms IMS (99)haiected1NC ooms 1999 As of 10/24/90
- !Lw n Lmd .
ENGEEERBG STRENGTHS
+ USE OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE
+
Nuclear General Office Support Group is the core team that supports the OE program for all 3 nuclear sites. They are a central clearing-house for all Duke Nuclear OE information.
+
An extensive, user friendly OE database (OEDB) enables employees to access real-time OE information from within DPC as well as external.
+
OEDB is directly linked to our Problem Investigation Process (PIP), allowing effective use of industry experience in problem resolution.
+
Usage of OEDB is monitored. In October, McGuire had 400 users access the databasq 2100 times. '
+
New problem reports generated from within McGuire as well as selected problem reports from CNS, ONS, and the industry are discussed in the daily Management Focus Meeting.
Prompt actions to address these problems are initiated when appropriate.
+
Recent examples of where use of Operating Experiepce has provided success stories are:
Identification of replacement surge capacitors for reactor coolant pumps.
. Replacement of the main generator fuse / diode assembly based on industry experience.
+
A standing item in Engineering Quarterly Training focuses on Operating Experience.
+ Use of Operating Experience was recognized as an INPO Strength.
rar.sorrussYi surr Slide 30 1
_ . _ _ _ _ . - - . . - - - - - - -- - - ~ ~ -
i ..
ij m ENGINEERING STRElVGTHS SIGNIFICANT SELF ASSESSMENTS ASSESSMENT STATUS ASSESSMENT STATUS m
+ Engineering Benchmarking Complete 10/95 + Modiilcation As-Built Process Complete 8/96
+ Resource Loading Tool Complete 10/95 + OEDB Effectiveness Complete 9/96
, (Work Planning-Mod Eng) +
+ Configuration Management Initiatives Complete 986 l Cost Estimating for Modifications Complete 10/95 +
j Special Nuclear Materials Program Complete 9/96
+ System Engineer Vision / Complete 11/95 + Diesel Reliability
{ MissionImplementation Complete 10/96
+ Motor Reliability j (MechanicalNuclearSystems) Complete 10/96 i
+ Spent Fuel Pool and Fuel + 89-10 Program Complete 2/96 ' On Going 11/96 i
Handling Equipment j + Current Effectiveness in Use Complete 4/96 of Desktop Tools
]
- Safe Shutdown Facility Complete 5/96
} + Maintenance Rule and Failure Complete 6/96 '
Analysis Trending 1
NOTE: 34 self-assessments have been completed YTD. Above you will find a sample of j significant self assessments, i
i ms s wn sude3t I
4 se,rwes,-e e ,%.e.w..-e--m-w,ies-www,-,--,e-w--wewe,- - ,* - w ,e - ,s=-w- w w -e we , -s e ww ww .. %,w,,.www, _ _ ww w = -ww -vw - . v u-w evi g *
- gr ' e 's'**4**D'- 1*"***'Ni 's we
- rww=w*'v---'
i i
i l
i e@L l i
~
p" ENGINEERING i
i AREAS OF PROGRESS l
l +
i SUPPORT OF REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT l +
Nuclear Engineers provide programmatic support to aid Operations and other station groups.
! +
Engineering is providing technical focus for the many improvement actions initiated through
- i. assessments in this area including NSD upgrades, procedure cross-disciplinary review l improvements, and training.
! +
Implementation of recommendations from a Zero Power Physics Testing Quality j
Improvement Project is in progress for all three sites, with a focus on consistency of nuclear i
t engineer / operator interface in reactor control during testing.
- +
Implementation of a rewritten Nuclear System Directive on Reactivity Management is in i progress with completion by the end of 1996. Completed actions include:
{ .
Formation of a Reactivity Management Team Periodic categorization and trending of reactivity management related events Reduced occurrence of reactivity management events 4
Other improvements (IEOC10 and 2EOC10 outages) include:
Moved Zero Power Physics Testing test coordinator into the Control Room Conducted pre-test Operations / Reactor Engineering simulator runs of Zero Power Physics Testing j .
Implemented licensed operator control of fuel movement procedure.
I prr Slide 32
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ . . , - - - , - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - --- ~~'~'""' ~ ~ ~ ~
1
~
! 31 .2
" _y ENGINEERING
- AREAS OF PROGRESS .
I l ? SYSTEM AND COMPONENT PERFORMANCE MONITORING j
i (IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENGINEERING SUPPORT PROGRAM)
) +
Duke Power has developed a comprehensive program defining plant engineer's support l responsibilities for specific systems, structures and components (SSCs). This program is
] defined under EDM-201, Engineering Support Program (ESP). For selected high priority SSCs j (approximately I per plant engineer), the program provides:
j . A description of the SSC and its functions j .
Detailed references to plant and engineering documents
! 1 Support / team agreements with associated personnel j . Monitoring and trending program definition j . Reporting program definition l +
Fifty seven (57) ESP documents were completed in 1995 and thirty (30) have completed in 1996 YTD. These documents will satisfy the intended scope of this program.
! + Program enhancements currently in progress include-Development / loading of a LAN based filing and reporting system for ESP documents.
j .
Linkage to the EPRI System Monitoring and Trending Working Group.
+
Integrating ESP with long range planning process for major maintenance, modifications, and l other significant projects.
l + Multi-site self assessment on ESP program will be conducte 9 '
rasssur surr Slide 33 l
i
}
4 ...N.. ENGINEERING AREAS OF PROGRESS -
i
? PLANT ENGINFsERING KNOWLEDGE (SRO/TNC)
+ The plant knowledge level of system and equipment engineers is being programmatically improved.
, + Periodic rotation has been established, moving engineers into the station organization for Operations l experience and SRO licensing. Engineers with SROs began rotating to Engineering in 1994 with the most recent changes in mid 1996 (two SRO/ Engineers with extensive Operations experience).
+
l Development of plant knowledge levels of plant engineers continues through two linked programs:
i .
Engineering Support Program (ESP) implementation continues for each applicable system, I
structure and component (SSC), by the assigned engineer. Along with documenting the support
! i programs themselves, development of the ESP documents is a major step in individual I
knowledge development for plant engineers.
l .
Position Specific Training Guides (PSGs) for each plant engineer continue to be implemented.
! + A full time position has been staffed in Engineering to mentor plant engineers' development. The
" mentor"is a highly experienced McGuire past SRO. i
+ Moving forward with Technical Nuclear Certification (TNC) training with 3 more Engineering j employees (1 manager and 2 supervisors) attending current TNC class and the remaining managers / supervisors scheduled through 1998.
l 9
NA/5ALF1 W BEN N 1
. . - . . - . ~ . - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "
? ENGINEERING AREAS OF PROGRESS
+ CLOSURE OF GENERIC LETTER 89-10 (MOV'S)
- + The schedule for completion of required actions for Generic Letter 89-10 (Motor i
Operate Valves, MOVs) was accelerated from 1998 to December,1995. This was a f significant challenge due to the large number of valves (425) included in the McGuire
! GL 89-10 Program scope. The original schedule called for a portion of the population I
to be completed in 1995, with the remainder stretched to 1998. The accelerated I schedule of December,1995 was met.
l 3
+ With closure activities complete, periodic verification testing of approximately 80 l MOVs was conducted during 1996 outages (1,2 EOC10). This testing was conducted j as a part of the ongoing MOV Program established in response to GL 89-10, and l results in continuing verification of MOV capability as well as improving margins of j safety for these MOVs. ,
l + An independent assessment of the GL 89-10 MOV Program is currently in progress
! and scheduled to be complete by November,1996. This assessment is being
- performed by knowledgeable experts on MOVs and is applying the NRC guidance for j GL 89-10 closure inspections.
i i
) .
I
" Muse nort Slide 35 ,
i i
j i
' ,- - - --.. -.- - -- _ . - - - - .- - . - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~
t
, Be i
L
.1 ENGINEERING l AREAS OF PROGRESS l
i i
i l + TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS (TEPR)
. This process is governed by McGuire Site Directive MSD-340. The focus is long standing equipment
- problems and higit priority, short term equipment problems not resolved within one day of discovery. TEPR l is an extension of the PIP process, not a new problem identification process. TEPR places added attention on 1 problems with a priraary goal of prompt and effective closure.
. The TEPR review team consists of the Station Superintendents (Operations, Maintenance, and Work
- Control), the Chemistry Manager and Plant Engineering Managers. The team meets monthly to' review i progress and evaluate equipment problem lists. Measures are established for TEPR and reported as part of l the system reliabilityindicator.
1
. The TEPR process consists of three separate lists for long standing equipment problems:
. Major Equipment Problem Resolution (MEPR) List l . Operator Workarounds
{ . Customer Priority List
{ + The TEPR process also provides guidance on high priority, short tbrm equipment problems (Action Register l Problem Resolution) involving any of the following which are not resolved promptly:
l . Operability of TS/SLC item where outcome is in doubt j . Threats to plant reliability or generation capacity l . Unacceptable effects on personnel safety, dose or the environment i . The TEPR process has been enhanced as a result ofinformation obtained from benchmarking visits with
! otherutilities.
} eussam merr Slide 36
, - , . . ..>i-~.--,..-..--. %-..-- ,v,.. -,...-..m..-,----wv.,---,--...ww,-.--,,w.mv...-, -- % .we w w ,.,,,,.,w-=weg--.e e =>ws-*~,-+v,,%.w.*w,$. -
i 4
.[? ,-
i ENGINEERING Q[fj}f{j g AREAS OF PROGRESS uBa .
r gg TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS (TEPR) (Continued)
- - s -
! + MEPR (Major Equipment Problem Resolution)- Several long term equipment problems that have
, high impact or potential for high impact on plant nuclear safety, availability, or reliability have i been corrected or are being corrected:
+ COMPLETE + IN PROGRESS j . Steam Generator Reliability + Cold Leg Accumulator Outleakage
! . Feedwater Reg Valve Reliability + Containment Penetration Bellows j . Preventing Safety Injection Following . Instrument Air System Reliability i
y LOOP (as committed after LOOP event) + Fuse Reliability l .
ECCS Check Valve Problems (short term) + Condenser Circulating Water System
. Control Board E-30 Switches Isolation ValveIntegrity l . Pressurizer PORV Stroke Time + Emergency DieselGenerator Adverse l . Radiation Monitor Availability PerformanceTrend l . RHR Suction Pressurization . Component Cooling System Adverse
! . 7300 System Reliability PerformanceTrend
. Unit 2 DP Battery Feliability + ThermalPerformance
+ Main Feedwater Isolation Reliability f . ECCS Check Valve Problems (long term)
! . Component Cooling System Stress
+ Large MotorReliability
! CorrosionCracking Problems + Vital Batteries l + Source Range Detector Reliability
- + Centrifugal Charging Pump Reliability ,
"msorrW.urr slide 37
_ - . _ - . - . . - . _ _ . - . . . _ , . . . - . - - _ _ . - - _ _ . . , -_ _ . . , _ , . , , _ . . . _ _ _..,._~,.----,_..__......~,,.~.-,..,.m,,-- - ,- --- --.. ,, ,c ~
I l
i l- i ENGINEERING l
AREAS OF PROGRESS -
+ TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS (TEPR) (Continued)
! + Operator Workarounds l Equipment problems or administrative requirements that can impair an operator's ability to understand or j control plant parameters are identified as Operator Workarounds. These equipment deficiencies or
- administrative requirements can affect normal, abnormal, or emergency plant operations and/or cause the operator to take compensatory actions beyond normal design which increase the likelihood ofinappropriate 4 1 operator actions.
i 1
i + Complete (20 Total- Sample Below) + In Progress (~ 20 Continuously In Progress)
)
{ . Nuisance Alarms From Fire Zones . Emergency Feedwatbr Suction Source Monitoring l . Charging Flow Control Valve . Main Turbine Turning Gear
! . RCS Heat Up/ Cool Down Limits . Auxiliary Building Ventilation Response During i Emergencies I.
t i
- v l
l enzsur meer slide 38 1
. _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -__------a
KGRC idm ENGINEERIlNG AREAS OF PROGRESS
+ WORK MANAGEMENT Engineering has focused on work inventory reduction during the past year in three major areas to improve site performance and safety. The areas are as-built drawing updates, Problem Identification Program (PIP) actions, and maintenance work orders on Engineering hold. Significant progress has been accomplished as noted by the following results:
As Built drawing updates are scheduled using the site work management tool PLAN (Project Leadership Action Network). Inventory of drawings requiring updates was maintained at low levels throughout 1995
) and 1996 YTD.
! . PIP actions assigned to Engineering are completed per schedule commitments in the PIP database.
Engineering has established new measures for 1996 to focus on significantly reducing number of PIPS
- greater than 6 months old.
1 .
2 Work orders on Engineering hold have been maintained at low levels throughout 1996. Engineering is j now focusing on maintaining work orders on Engineering hold greater than 30 days to less than 2.
Engineering also manages projects using the site work management tool PLAN. These projects are referred to as l Site Projects. Measures focus Engineering personnel on completing projects on schedule and minimizing l reschedules.
1 i
c .
Engineering has consolidated to a single PIP Coordinator and the site PIP screenirig process has been enhanced by including our PIP Coordinator, along with Maintenance, Operations, and SRG Coordinators. Engineering is using 4
a new work selection process to prioritize less significant PIPS. The criteria aid in differentiating between lesser significant PIPS that should be worked by Engineering and those that should only be trended for future
, information.
l .
Engineering remains a key player in the Work Control scheduling process. Engineering personnel are involved in all phases including work scope selection, prioritization, slotting, and support of execution. System engineers are directly involved as their system's work week is planned and performcd. Many of these engineers will serve in project manager roles for more significant or critical work projects.
E Wr ,orr slide 39
~
l
_ _ - _ . - - _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ - , . ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' - ~ " " ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ' ' " ' ~ ' ~~
l o i
i i
Operating Excellence - lVuelear System WORK MANAGEMENT
- N T ~
A sx4 N uts*ce(<4 hX
?-__ _-
I T4e9 * '
l l
1 l PIPS ll SITE PROJECTS ll WORK ORDERS SUPPORT l GREEN YELLOW RED GREEN YELLOW RED CRITER!A ACTUAL GREEN YELLOW RED ACTUAL (2 pts) (1 pt) (0 pts) ACTUAL CRITERIA (2 pts) (1 pt) (0 pts) CRITERIA (2 pts) (1 pt) (0 pts)
! Measures on Tgt 2 1 0 1 Measures on Tgt 2 MEASURE:
1 0 2 WO on Engr. Hold <2 2 >2 0 MEASURE CRITERIA ACTUAL ON/OFF MEASURE CRITERIA ACTUAL ONOFF > 30 Days Old i Overdue PIPS 0 0 ON Overdue Site Project 0 0 ON Comptetions 4
- Projects
! Open PIPS > 6 Mo to <10 15 OFF Rescheduled Engineering l on curve Site Projects within 7 2 ON 30-Days of Completion i
- 6
< 10 Of "Other Engineering" '
i I
1
- =.~"
-"S coREeN3 ATIONS g IMPROVEMENT NEeDeo<vEtLOW)
NOT MEETING exeECTATiO~S < RED)
UNREPORTED (Wa>Te>
t I
4
,..,,,-..-.m- -
,---~,-+-e- = w-ew*'-="-""*" - - ' " * " * ' ' ' * " ' * - ~ " ' ' " " " " ' ' " ' ' '
I l q (j . ENGINEERING
! AREAS OF PROGRESS i
+ TEMPORARY MODIFICATION PROCESS
+ There are currently 20 outstanding Temporary Modifications at McGuire. A focus on l Temporary Mod reduction over the last few years has resulted in the trend shown below:
i i
l Outstanding Temporary Modifications Versus TM Goals i
l 80 70 -
l 1 58 8 Goal j 60 - 51 E Actual i 50 - 40 40 i 40 ~
30 j 30 _ 25 22 20 20 i
o i ; i i i
! i Jun-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Apr-95 Jan-96 Oct-96 I
- I "rassar marr Slide 41
~
1 b _., _ __ _ _ .,_ _ -_ ~ __ _ .-.,,_ -..--,._ _,_ .__ _ ... _ ____. _ -.-___. _ __._._ _ -_.__ _._... , _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ , . . . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . . _ , - . . . . - . - . . . . _ . , _ _ _ _ . -
i i .
! s
.N4 I ENGINEERING j
, AREAS OF PROGRESS .
3 j +
i j
TEMPORARY MODIFICATION PROCESS (Continued) s The following contributed to achieving this improvement:
j .
Setting and enforcing stretch goals since 1994:
1 1
1994 < 40 TMs, 1995 < 25 TMs, i -
! 1996 < 15 TMs j .
4 NRC engineering inspection that recommended we track QA-1, temporary mods as a separate
!- subset to give proper emphasis to TMs on safety systems.
j 1
. Training was provided to all of McGuire Engineering (Equipment, Systems, Modification) on the i installation of Temporary Modifications.
,I i
l l
i l
t t
"sssYwr e b Slide 42 L_.,_.-._,_-._-.-------~~---~"~~~~~~~'~~~~
l
\ -
, l.
s M
l J f ElVGINEERING i
l AREAS OF PROGRESS -
j +
MODIFICATION PLANNING AND TRACKING l +
Modification planning has been significantly enhanced by implementation of the j
recommendations of the Modification Planning Quality Improvement Project. The key l
concepts to modification planning are: strategic / operational plan linkage, milestone planning, peer review for modification selection / activation, engineering and craft resource i
fit review, and no modification backlogs. Significant reductions in the number of
} outstanding NSMs reflect these improvements:
I 1
. Year Number of Outstanding NSMs l 1992 263 i 1993 142 l; 1994 73 1995 93 '
l 1996 65
{
4 Current 56 i +
Modification tracking has been enhanced by implementing a work management tool Project Leadership Action Network (PLAN). The scheduling of modification implementation has 4 been improved by use of system work windows concept implemented by Work Control for scheduling all maintenance and modification work, i
surr Slide 43 i
4 s_.._.--,-.---------~----'-~~- - ' ~ ~ ' ~ " ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
) .
, n.. ,.
' M i
l I ENGINEERING l
AREAS OF PROGRESS i
l i
+
t MODIFICATION PLANNING AND TRACKING (Continued)
' +
Several continuous improvement teams continue to focus on improving overall modification planning and tracking. These teams are focusing in the following areas:
- . Modification process Modification scoping and cost estimating l . Modification planning and scheduling j . Operations / Modification interface 1
1 i
l l
I i
l wxstns sechw .
NSMAms twPrr Slide 44 4
e-o~ w w wene-s enw=-*w-,-*%*+w-we e m e==w-*wn w - _ _ _
_ me m -w.e,. e ,m -ww w.w , = w w .we w - w o-e m i wwe -w w+ww. wnw. w,e=_ _ _ w w -w =,wern--+w-=-e,-=*e s,es -w-- 3.g = v w w, e we ye=*-y r*-F viv7 T "*"* T -v m w rw en wr e -+=-ye - wv s
i i
i . _ _ .
l l
a Operating Excellence - Nuclear System l
MODIFICATIONS 1 -
.n.,T
- , 'M*WM,MM, ..v r, - , M q N *
. sg nog
} " ,
i
! CRITERIA G REEN YELLOW RED A CTUA L i
(2 Points) (I Point) (0 Points) i
- Mods (N SM*s & EMM*s) > 90% 80 %-90% .
< 80% 94 %
Implemented in targeted innaget outage l window.
j 1
- Mod Activities (% on Schedule) > 85% 85 %-75 % < 75% 89 I
- Mod Packages (% on Schedule) > 90% 90 %-80 % < 80% 100
- Mod Closure (% Closed on Schedule) > 95% 95 %-90 % < 90% 100
, - As-Built Drawings (% Issued on Schedule > 95% 95 %-90 % < 90% 100
- Partner Satisfaction *
> 2.25 2.25-2.00 < 2.00 2.23
[ - Cost Efficiency (Est Costs -25%/ +10%)* > 90%
j 90 %-80 % i < 80% 56 **
- Dwg Rework (% Requiring No Rework)* NCR TREND
- Reported Quarterly FLAT TREN D DECR TREN D DECR TREN E l (43%)
1 i
- Mod Packages-EMM's only (% on Schedul ) > 90% 90 %-80 % < 80% 96 l - Mod Closure (% Closed on Schedule) > 95% 95 %-90 % < 90% 85 j - As-Built Drawings (% issued on Schedule) > 95% 95 %-90 % < 90% 84 i
- Based on IEOC10.18-96. 2EOClo. and 19-96 NSM's completed so date.
l @% MEETING '
% IMPROVEMENT NOT MEETING 1
MA EXPECTATIONS h NEEDE D (YELLOW) EXPECTATIONS (RED)
UNREPORTED l (G R E EN) (WHITE)
I i
i
,m. ,,,,,-em,evw.Tvv7=="M-V'N ' ' ' * ' '
_ .. ._ _ _ _ _ - - - - - ---- --- - - - ~~ "' '~ ~ ~ " ' ' ~ " '~ ~ ~ '~
4 i
a 1
ssu lf ENGINEERIlVG i
i i
AREAS OF PROGRESS
~
i
} +
i ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS - HUMAN PERFORMANCE j +
Duke nuclear stations have implemented a disciplined and comprehensive approach to root j cause analysis.
+
The three nuclear sites worked together through the Business Excellence Steering Team j (BEST) process to develop a more structured program that has been incorporated into the i
Problem Investigation Program (PIP) directive and root cause directive. Failure Prevention j and Investigation, Inc. (FPI) was retained to ensure the process is appropriate and aligned i
3 with site human error reduction effort.
j +
i The D/G turbocharger event of June,1995 added emphasis to this project.
l +
The more structured root cause analysis program, Failure Investigation Process (FIP), has j been applied on the following recent problems:
l .
ISM-7 failed close, reactor trip '
j . Reverse power trip of I A and IB generator breakers j .
ID NCP trip (surge capacitor), reactor trip l . 2B EDG fuelline failure i
m.sorr surr Slide 46 b
---..---4,-.. - ..,... . v_.-----.m.----.,, w..----_,..-.m..-_-- _ _
..m.,,.e..,,,..,.,,-m._-.,,m r,m,..,.,...-.,m..v.-----,,. 4 --- - , --,-. --, - -*-=-r-----.. ,,, - - - - - ,
I i,?
t ENGINEERING AREAS OF PROGRESS .
+
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS - HUMAN PERFORMANCE (Continued)
+
Implemented the Operating Experience Data Base -integrates operating experience with the Problem Investigation (PIP)/ Root Cause process.
! +
Planned improvements include adding human performance to Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
Elevate questioning attitude during RCA l 3 .
Use of Risk Assessment in determining when to perform RCA l + Training in Root Cause Analysis:
).
2nd quarter Engineering continuing training Discipline specific (mechanical and electrical) training in 1996 and 1997 l .
Planned 4th quarter Engineering continuing training i i ,
f "assYu Errrr r
slide 47 i
i
i en
- f ENGINEERING CHALLENGES
+ SPECIFIC MAJOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY
(
I
+ Recognized as a weakness by INPO.
! + PIP Overview - More Significant Events (MSE) vs. Less Significant Events (LSE) a 1
I .+ DIESEL GENERATORS
! )
Major maintenance on Diesel Generators is planned in 1997 refueling outages.
j . SelfInitiated Assessment of EDG Reliability Scope j ,
1
. Performed by industry experts (MPR Associates).
j .
Charter to review EDG performance and problems, compare EDG reliability program with l industry, and focus corrective actions to areas of greatest need.
- i
. EDG Reliability Assessment preliminary results:
. No significant reliability problem currently exists at McGuire.
. Reliability is equal to industry average.
Many reliability enhancement recommendations will be proposed.
fi . Final report expected by November,1996.
Nr um slide 48
i
. $$.._ll .e i
. JH '
PIP OVERVIEW l MSEs vs LSEs 1
! TOTAL LSEs i 4000 -
i i
1 2000 - =
- 3190 2300 l 1000'"1343 l 0 , , ,
1993 1994 1995 1996(YTD)
- 1
- TOTAL MSEs u
i 400 - ,
3004
- 200 - -
! 100 - 205 i
O , , , 101 '
l 1993 1994 1995 1996(YTD) i '
uSAM MNT bI5dC 49 i
L _._._...___.___ _ __ _ _.- - - - - - ----------l
i
_a
! i.
l i
ENGINEERING CHALLENGES l
l .
i
! 9 SPECIFIC MAJOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY (Continued)
I l + LARGE MOTOR RELIABILITY
. The Root Cause of our high motor failure rate is a motor program deficiency. Several secondary a causes were identified using the fault tree analysis. Four secondary causes that have a major
! impact on motor reliability are as follows:
l . Inadequate Maintenance Scope j . Lack of Vendor Quality Control l . ImproperMotorApplication
. Apparent Causes for Motor Failure Not Developed 1
. Three different improvement teams have been chartered to improve motor reliability and to l improve our motor maintenance program 4
j . The Corporate Motor QIT (Investigate problems common to all Duke generating facilities)
! . The Nuclear Motor Reliability Improvement Initiative (Investigate problems common to Duke's
! nuclearsites) i ,
! . The McGuire Motor QIT (Investigate methods to correct McGuire specific motor problems) j -
Develop a list ofproblem motors Assign a Champion for each motor 1
}
j c
EEwnr Slide 50 1
..._.___~.~_.___.~.._,__._,.,_.__..__.,.__.,__.___,_.._...,_._,..,..__,.,.._....m... , . _ . . _ , , . . . . , . . - , - _ . - . , . . , . . . ~ . _ . - , , _ -
l
- l I
! R&D -
n
- 3 ENGINEERING CHALLENGES '
i .
I
! + SPECIFIC MAJOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY (Continued) l + VITAL BATTERIES ,
! . In 1991 - 1992, McGuire installed new Vital Batteries. The battery type is AT&T high specific 3 gravity round cells. Since installation, numerous industry concerns have developed with this type of i battery.
. Industry concerns include a phenomena called " Premature Capacity Loss". Some batteries lose
- capacity pre-maturely following 5-7 discharges. Capacity loss ranges from 5% to 10% with each significant discharge.
! 1 . McGuire has collectively performed 21 successful discharge tests on the four Vital Batteries prior to j 10/28/96. EVCC failed its recent discharge test, resulting in a forced shutdown of both McGuire !
j units.
. Longer term solution is to replace all four McGuire Vital Batteries with conventional batteries by the end of 2EOC11 outage (12/97).
j . Short term actions taken include:
! . Total replacement of EVCC battery with new high specific gravity cells.
. Conducted sample cell performance testing of EVCA, B, and D and correlated results to battery bank capacity.
. Replaced weak cells in EVCA with new cells to increase capacity.
. Vital Batteries are now fully operable and will be monitored closely until permanent replacement in
- 1997 is complete.
i ,
,un slide 51
.,-..io... . _-i--- _ . - - . - ~ . ~ . . . ~ . - , _ _ ~ - - - _ _ _ - - . - - - + - - - , - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - + - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ c - ~~*-** ' ' ' * * " - * ' - ' " + = - - - - - - - * = - = "
1 i
I k5
, l, i ENGINEERING CHALLENGES i
t
+ COLD WEATHER PROTECTION t
l + February 1996 freeze event on McGuire Unit 2 revealed weaknesses in our freeze protection program. The following corrective actions have been completed:
A 3-site Duke team has developed a draft freeze protection Nuclear Station Directive to outline our j
program. This document is currently being finalized.
i j .
Completed a 3-site assessment of our cold weather programs. Recommendations are currently
- being implemented.
j .
Upgraded the annual maintenance procedure that's performed prior to the cold weather season.
I j This procedure was performed on both units and completed in September 1996.
l .
New procedures are being finalized to periodically check critical equipment throughout the cold weather season. This will be performed routinely on a monthly basis and more frequer.tly during
) extremely cold weather.
Low temperature computer alarms were added to the safety related RVST transmitter enclosu'res on j Ums l ad 2.
Heat tracing has been added to Units 1 and 2 RVST level instrumentation on a single channel where l a section was found missing.
l
. Weekly cold weather protection update is provided at the 08:30 Management Focus Meeting.
I i
i "M ourr slide 52 I
_ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i I
l %
i .
t r l
i i ENGINEERING CHALLENGES 1
1 -
+ CURRENT REGULATORY ISSUES l + UFSAR Accuracy l .
Currently performing a pilot review of selected systems per NEI 96-05 guidelines. Review being i performed on Two Safety Systems:
. KC- Component Cooling
. NS - Containment Spray i And, Two Non .3afety Systems:
l -
EHM - Hydrogen Mitigation j
1
. RC - Condenser Cooling - Turbine Flood ,
l Pilot results and recommendations for further UFSAR reviews expected first quarter of 1997.
j + Improved Standardized Technical Specifications:
} . Submittal development ~50% complete
! . Joint MNS/CNS submittal in March,1997 timeframe
! . Implement at MNS in the first quarter of 1998 (after SGRP completd) 1
+ 10CFR 50.59 Process
, + 10CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information i
I I ,
i
( .
==_ sua.53 1,,.~....,._...--~_---- - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * " - ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ '
i h
l i
j Nh ENGINEERING CHALLENGES 1
l l +
1
' CURRENT REGULATORY ISSUES (Continued) j + Configuration Management -In addition to the above regulatory issues, selfidentified j challenges exist in the following areas:
i . Handling of VendorInformation:
) .
A self-assessment is in progress to review the handling of vendorinformation. This self-assessment
' will identify findings and recommendations to improve configuration management of vendor information.
. . Drawing Accuracy:
j Engineering is performing quarterly trending of drawing errors. The areas of modification scoping and checking quality have shown more occurrence of errors. Training was recently provided to i 1 Engineering on methods to use to improve results in both of these areas.
To provide additional focus and drive out further improvements in the Configuration Management area, the following major changes are being implemented in 1997:
i .
A major Site Focus area in the McGuire Operational Plan will be Configuration Management. This l will result in a broad site wide focus for initiatives in this area and monthly updates to the site
} management team on improvement results. '
) .
A Configuration Management /Special Projects team is being formed in Engineering to provide i
ownership and focus to both McGuire Site and Engineering.
1 1
i i
I russa sorr '
Slide 54
}
..._ _ _ _. _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - ' ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~
I ,
)
i .
! .+
l
.L , ,
i
...b ENGINEERING CHALLENGES j + MAJOR REPLACEMENT PROJECTS i + Project teams have been established to handle the engineering (design and implementation planning) and actual implementation of the following major projects in 1997 and 1998:
Steam Generator and Operator Aid Computer Replacement, IEOCl1 outage, Unit 1, February 1997.
Steam Generator and Operator Aid Computer Replacement,2EOC11 outage, Unit 2, August 1997.
i .
Security Computer and Access Control System Replacement (replace in early 1998).
! 3+ With CNS-1 outage completion, McGuire is focusing on " lessons learned" from Catawba
,' for both the SGRP and OACR.
l ' .
t "d arrr Slide 55 i
l
i i 3 i
V L ENGINEERING CHALLENGES i
)
i + SUPPORT FOR MAINTENANCE RULE l +
In March 1994, the Maintenance Rule Implementation Project was made into a team j project. This project was tasked with setting up the Maintenance Rule for Duke Power m accordance with 10CFR50.65 requirements. The major steps in this project were to
} develop the process for scoping systems, structures and components (SSCs) into the rule, l establishing risk assessment and performance criteria, establishing a removal from
- service evaluation, and determining data to review for historical evaluation.
l +
In June 1995, the Maintenance Rule Working Group (M~RWG) was established and the 4
' implementation project was closed out. Since then the working group has made t
revisions to the implementation process, developed computer teols to aid in monitoring !
availability data, and is making changes to existing programs to capture and document 4
! MPFFs. The site SSCs have been evaluated for inclusion in the rule and have been evaluated for risk significance along with establishing their performance criteria for
- monitoring. Work Process Manual directive 607 was established to evaluate the risk of l removing equipment from service based on a risk matrix that was developed from I
maintenance rule data. This process has been used to schedule work and evaluate the risk impact on plant status since November,1995. Nuclear Station Directives and Engineering Directives were issued for approval at the end of the first quarter of 1996.
At the end of the first quarter of 1996, the availability tracking tool was in production and the Problem Investigation Process has been revised for the maintenance rule screen.
d" E b Slide 56
_ . , _ . , - - . , , . _ < - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ' ' ' * ~ ~ " * ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
i i
1 A :-
! q] ENGINEERING CHALLENGES I
i i
! +
i SUPPORT FOR MAINTENANCE RULE (Continued)
+ Modify and execute transition plan from the Maintenance Rule coordinator to the
- Engineering staff to actively involve the Engineering staff on their systems with respect j to the Maintenance Rule.
+
Re-train groups involved with the Maintenance Rule on their roles and responsibilities in i the rule.
1
. + Verify all Maintenance Rule documentation is adequate.
- i + Initial determination of A(1)/A(2) system status was completed on May 1,1996. Sixteen (16) McGuire systems were initially designated A(1). As of September 30,1996, five (5) l systems remam in A(1) status.
- +
A three-site assessment of Maintenance Rule implementation was conducted during May
} and June,1996. One preliminary assessment finding indicates a need to improve general knowledge levels in Engineering and Management regarding how the Maintenance Rule
{ is implemented. The assessment also noted that some Maintenance Rule related
! revisions to departmental program documents are still outstanding. All of the j Maintenance Rule related documents have been revised and have been approved.
I l
t M ,un Slide 57
^
I
.,_,.~,,_-_,v,_,._.,--,_,......,_-- _,........,_,._m,___,.,...,..,.,__.....,---,,..,, , ,,,,,._,..--,.._,,-..-,.-..,_,,,,3.,~,-----,-,., - _ -- . . - . .
)
Operating Excellence - Nuclear System .
l 1
SYSTEM RELIABILITY i et w m si LONG RANGE 5
tsiNis hWM QMM) ,, PLANNING l Nkk\k \\kk L . . . . .h (Event) (Correction) (Prediction / Detection) (Prediction) (Greater than 12 mos.)
GREEN YELLOW RED ACTUAL CRITERIA (2 points) (1 point) (0 points)
EQUIPMENT EVENTS
[ - Nuclear Events 0-3 by year end 4 - 5 by year end > 5 by year end 6 by yearend l -Imt Generation Events - EFPD 3 by year end 4 - 6 by year end > 6 by year end 52 by year end i
i TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION (TEPR)
- Major Equipment Problem Resolution
} (See Initiatives) N/A N/A
' N/A N/A
- - Workarounds (WAPR) 1 (No. Completed in Lut 3 Months) To be revised To be revised To be revised i
NR (Ju l-N RA u g-N R, Sep-N R)
- Action Register Problern Resolution i
(ARPR Avg. Rating for Last 3 mos.) > 2.5 1.5 to 2.5 < l.5 2.15 (Ju l-2,A u g-2,14, Sep-2.33)
SYSTEM / EQUIPMENT i CONDITION ;> I1 9-10 <; 8 9*
MAINTENANCE RULE decreasing increasing 5 systems
(% of A(1) Systems) trend flat trend (decr. trend) j
- One item not reported for September; criteria reduced accordingly
>' "* MEETING M IMPROVEMENT NOT MEETING UNREPORTED EXPECTATIONS (WHITE)
(GREEN) NEEDED (YELLOW) EXPECTATIONS (RED) t i
.....~.-.,.....sm., .m...,...,,..____._.,,_m.,,..m._,.-..,__..,_..._,,_,_._.,_,...-_.,_..,,,__,.,_m.__._.__..,,,,,~,--.-.-..,---,,._,,-_m.._
1 k
! Operating Excellence - Nuclear System i
SYSTEM RELIABILITY I
l lMCGLAREMJCLEARSTATIONl l -
j MAINTENANCE RUW MONTHLY STATUS REPORT i
! A(1)StatusSWunrui,asof OW3096 i i i
MAINTENANCE RtX.E PERFORMANCE CRTEFWA NOT IVET 0, b.. Lavel Plant Level
! l
( Risk 4--- = NorHWS RmdM
- Parameter
- thavailability l@FFs AT'Ts RxTrips ESF M. Lms Dm F.CLR IWFFs*
.l QMerion: WF%4601 <2ty:le < 5tyde < 2/cySe <2/cy:le 0/cg$e <8% Oty:le Systern j BE? LHI SYSTBA MlCraeita M1Cnteria PIP # Eruriti i yes 1 SYD Yes Cui iu 6 i yn 2 1NBS-1586 F L+ =h = =x1y eiu iorirvjasid2tywthnewSLC FW 89.8'23 trs 1 j ys 2AOG0332 Fuutz w d An da.A rnorstar tertpofinstr this ster 2 NC 1 1 974826 hrs 2fE6-1479 FudtzmNolin monitortCPn e-s 1 yes 2 ST 618570trs -
ys 2h06-143 Fa.k=m4ti;tsb nuiiuk y aelatality
{ 2 i SW) Yes 2h06-1590 F Leh s ax1y nu atuL y availatilitywth newSLC NLETherOf A(1)1 0 -. 5
- Co..,as-.i.with R-MPFFs Wr-Tui Cuiuiui RP# Erdrar Cuisio is
{ none da I
n/a da j Civan,= Since Last Month
] l l Systan RP # '
Rn for Addna/Cearina
- 1 Systans Attrito A(1) h a ncne da
! SA! ems Oearedfrom A(1) h a none da l
' Como. PIP # Ms for A daino/Oeanrn Cuivn ais Addedto FMFFFList rrrie da
- Cu,p,a 6 De=ued from R-PEFF none n/a I I I i
I 1
J
] -
._..-,___....~_..___._____-..-___-__.-..-.__._-m_--,.,. . . . - , . - _ . , _ _ ~ - _ _ _ , . _ . - _ _ . . - _ _ - . . - . _ . . . - - - - . . - , . _ - - . , _ . - _ , , - - . , _ ,
_ ____.__ _ _, _ _- - . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ - - ..-_ _ _.---..~__- _ _.
i i
a 1
l l
M et I
a i
i k
! ~
l
\
h a
- 1 1
i i
I, ,
i
! 1 i: -W JI OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS i 1
i i
+ STRENGTHS i
- +
i +
PLANT OPERATIONAL RECORD AND OPERATOR RESPONSE TO EVENTS DURING 1995 AND 1996 SENSITIVITY TO SHUTDOWN RISK AND EMPHASIS ON NUCLEAR SAFETY
- +
OPERATIONS GROUP PERSONNEL SAFETY RECORD
{ +
INCREASED COMM UNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS j .
IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING j o CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL
+
OPERATIONS FOCUS ON WORK PROCESS
) +
OPERATIONS CONTROL AND INTERFACE WITH STATION WORK ACTIVITIES
! +
OPERATIONS FOCUS ON LONGER TERM PLANT PRIORITIES l 1+
ROTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATIONS STAFFING I +
BENCHMARKINGEFFORTS
+
IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS PROCEDURES
! +
FOLLOW THROUGH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS - SELF ASSESSMENTS
! + AREAS OF PROGRESS .
+
REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT i +
?
MISPOSITIONINGS j +
CONTROL BOARD MONITORING i +
RIS K ASSESSMENT OF ON-LINE MAINTENANCE
! +
OPERATIONS HUMAN PERFORMANCE SECTION
+
OPERATORWORKAROUNDPROGRAM
+
OPERATIONS GROUPSTAFFING
- "zEm n Mum sude61
_ __ __ _ __.._- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ' ~ ~ ' - - - ' - ' ' ' - ~ ~ - ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
I l
I i .
t 1
RL
<
- J OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS i
i -
+ CHALLENGES '
+
MISSED /NEARLY MISSED S URVEILLANCES
+ EQUIPMENTOWNERSHIP
+ 50.72/50.73 REPORTING
+
HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS IN IMPLEMENTING ABNORMAL 1 EMERGENCY 5
PROCEDUPES 1
+ CHALLENGES FOR 1997 l
1 i
)
i i
}
l I passarr user Slide 62 1
1
1 i
i J OPERATIONS STRENGTHS
- +
PLANT OPERATIONAL RECORD AND OPERATOR RESPONSE TD
! EVENTS DURING 1995 AND 1996 j + Capacity factor j .
McGuire has operated well during 1995 and 1996 with the exception of the recent forced outage on
) Unit 2 due to the failure of the 2B reactor coolant pump motor and the forced outages that began on October 31st affecting both units due to problems with EVCC battery bank. A summary of capacity facte . actor trips, and refueling outage duration is shown below.
) Una Capacity Factor Automatic Reactor Trips Outage Duration j 1995 1996 (Sept) 1995 1996 (Sept) 1995 1996 (Sept)
- i -
) Unit 1 89.59 % 87.8 % 1 0 42 days
{ Unit 2 91.91 % 68.5 % 0 1 48 days 39 days
- Site Total 90.75 % 78.2 %
(12th in the U.S. in 1995) -
l + Unit 1 accomplished a record run of 262 days (ended October 30th).
4 j + Operator Performance in Response to Events (examples)
Unit 1 experienced I automatic reactor trip in 1995 and zero in 1996 through October. The trip was due to a failed surge capacitor on a reactor coolant pump motor which resulted in an automatic trip l due to the loss of one reactor coolant pump. Unit 2 experienced 0 automatic trips in 1995 and 1 year to date through October. The trip was due to the failure of the 2B reactor coolant pump motorin May ofl996. ,
i rardxt arrr Slide 63 l
l
. _ _ _ . _ . , _ _ _ . - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ ' - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
(
i
&p OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l .
i +
4' PLANT OPERATIONAL RECORD AND OPERATOR RESPONSE TO EVENTS DURING 1995 AND 1996 (Continued)
- + Operator Performance in Response to Events (examples)(Continued)
[ .
The Operations Group has demonstrated the ability to make prompt, conservative decisions in l response to transients, including manually tripping the reactor to minimize the effects of an
- , automatic trip and prevent challenging safety systems.
l .
An example of this occurred in September of 1995 on Unit I when the reactor was manually tripped
) from 100% power. A failure occurred which caused a main steam isolation valve to close. The operators quickly recognized the problem and took prompt, conservative action and manually tripped
- i the reactor prior to any automatic actions.
) .
A second example also occurred in February of 1996 on Unit I when the reactor was manually j
tripped from about 60% power. The unit had been operating at 100% power performing testing on j
the component cooling system. A cooling water valve that provided flow to the 1 A reactor coolant i
pump motor failed closed and caused the motor bearing to begin heating up. The operators quickly j
diagnosed the problem and began a rapid downpower per' procedure to attempt to get the unit below P-8 setpoint at 48% power level. This would allow tripping of the reactor coolant pump without a
! reactor trip. The motor bearing rate of heatup was such that at about 60% power the operators 4
recognized that they would not be able to get below P-8 prior to reaching a bearing temperature that' would require immediately manually tripping the reactor coolant pump. The operators took prompt j action to manually trip the reactor followed by tripping of the affected reactor coolant pump.
l T
FRESENY W bIIdC N 1
l
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ " - ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~
l #Ls a <
9 I OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
l + PLANT OPERATIONAL RECORD AND OPERATOR RESPONSE TO l EVENTS DURING 1995 AND 1996 (Continued) l + Operator Performance in Response to Events (examples)(Continued) 4 j . In addition to taking prompt, conservative actions to trip a umt when required, the Operations group has also demonstrated conservative decision making in other instances.
l . An example of taking prompt, conservative action occurred during the most recent Unit 1 i refueling outage. Core alterations were in progress and during the lifting of one fuel assembly the refueling crane made an abnormal noise. The Senior Reactor Operator on the refueling bridge made a conservative call to put the assembly down and suspend fuel l 3 movement until the noise could be investigated. During subsequent troubleshooting the i
crane was operated several times which resulted in the binding of the lift device. Had the l SRO not made the conservative call to suspend fuel movement and investigate the problem, j the crane could have malfunctioned with a fuel assembly in the mast which would have made j subsequent repair much more difficult.
1
. Another example of taking prompt conservative action occurred during December of 1595.
i Unit I had begun its refueling outage when a problem was encountered on Unit 2. The Unit
) 2 reactor vessel head vent valves began leaking at a rate that required an immediate plant I shutdown. The operating shift quickly recognized the problem and began a rapid downpower to bring the unit off-line. The shift took prompt conservative action and safety j brought Unit 2 offline so that the head vent valves could be repaired.
"EmW,urr m slide 65 i
i l
I i a a W
.w OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i + PLANT OPERATIONAL RECORD AND OPERATOR RESPONSE TO EVENTS l
l DURING 1995 AND 1996 (Continued)
Another example of good operator performance in response to events occurred in October of this year
] when both units were shutdown and cooled down simultaneously due to inoperability of the EVCC i battery bank. The units were staggered off-line by first bringing Unit I down from 100% power to
, mode 3 immediately followed by Unit 2. Both units were then simultaneously cooled down and depressurized to reach mode 5 well within tech spec requirements. No significant incidents or events i
, occurred during this evolution.
' + Although overall operator response to events continues to be a strength, we are aware that we have opportunities to continue to improve in this area. Two early 1996 events (inadvertent 1
4 manual feedwater isolation and inadvertent operation of a component cooling water valve during slave relay testing) demonstrate the need for continuing attention. We learned from both I of these events and incorporated corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Corrective ac: ions j '
included reinforcing the use of self checking (STAR) to all operators, communicating details of both events, making actual changes to the plant (protective collars around feedwater isolation
- switches), etc.
+ Refueling Outage Performance
. McGuire's last three refueling outages have been very successful. The Unit 2 outage completed in 1995 finished in 49 days, the Unit 1 outage which completed in January of this year finished in 41 days, and 3 the most recent Unit 2 outage which completed in May of this year finished in 39 days. These last two i outages stand as records for both units. More importantly both of these outages were completed with lower numbers of personnel injuries and no significant events which resulted in LERs. .
i ""SIM!
m m sude 66 i
)
,_ _,,.,_.,_,,...._,- ,,, m ,_.. .m, - - - . ~ , ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' - ' - - - ~ ~ - - " - - - - * - - - ' ' - - ' - ~ " - - * " " * " ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ " " ' " " ' " ~ ~ ' '
~ " ~ ' ~ ' " ' ' ~ " ~
OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
+
SENSITIVITY TO SHUTDOWN RISK AND EMPHASIS ON NUCLEAR SAFETY l + Conservative Decision Making An example of the station's continuing emphasis on conservative decision making was seen in the i
station's preparations for hurricane Fran this fall. The station management team met to discusssteps to be taken well in advance of the approaching storm. These steps included:
i Just in time training for the OPS shifts covering postulated scenarios that could be caused by the high winds and fain 4
Installation of a temporary instrument air compressor in the event a station blackout occurred due to loss of offsite power.
l .
Running the emergency diesel generators prior to the storm's arrival to add an extra level of assurance of their continued operability.
I Supplementing OPS shift to ensure adequate manpower to handle all postulated scenarios.
j .
Ensuring full maintenance shift staffing availability.
j .
- Walkdown of all areas of the plant exterior to secure loose objects.
Checkout of transformer yard sump pump system to ensure flooding would'not occur.
l +
No Shutdown Events During Last Four Outages l .
McGuire has not experienced any shutdown related events (LERs)in the last four refueling outages.
Management reinforced the expectation that work quality and personnel safety were to be the two
! things that drove each outagejob instead of concentrating solely on the schedule. McGuire teammates took the time to do thejobs safely and with quality and the lack of shutdown events shows that we
! were successfulin this effort.
wr '
slide 67
_ _ _ _ _ _ , . . - - - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ~ - ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ '
RL i
i 1
W OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i +'
l SENSITIVITY TO SHUTDOWN RISK AND EMPHASIS ON NUCLEAR j SAFETY (Continued) j + Solid Operations Monitor During the last two refueling outages a special monitor was installed in the control room to aid the j
reactor operators during reactor coolant system solid operations. During a refueling outage in 1995 a pressurizer power operated relief valve (PORV) lifted during solid operations. Letdown flow from the
} reactor coolant system had been adjusted by the reactor operator (RO) and caused reactor coolant j
pressure to increase to the point oflifting the PORV. Although the RO had been monitoring pressure via the control board gauges, the type ofindications being monitored did not give him feedback that 1
indicated the actual rate of rise of pressure. The operator was momentarily distracted by another task and within a short period of time pressure increased to the PORV lift setpoint.
' A team of personnel from Operations, Engineering and Information Technology developed a laptop PC based monitor that was installed in the control room during the most recent Unit I and 2 refueling l outages. This monitor took inputs from existing reactor coolant system pressure and temperature instrumentation and provided a graphical trend output for tl}e operator to monitor. The program also provided alarm setpoints for pressure and temperature rate and absolute' values. The alarm was j annunciated through a speaker driven by the PC. The monitor was mounted behind the control board j
section that had the reactor coolant system controls on it so that it was in the operator's direct line of j sight.
No inadvertent PORV actuations occurred during these outages and feedback from the reactor operators was that this was an effective tool that assisted in avoiding these actuations.
This innovative application of technology was recognized as an Operations strength in the 1996 INPO E&A in August of this year. ,
i "JfAW,on sude 68 t
- - , _ - . _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . . . - . _ . . _ _ _ . ~ . - _ . , _ - - ~ . . . . . . - . - . . . _ . , . . . , _ . . , - . _ . - - . . . - _
i t
fEl.d '"
' y3 l
i OPERATIONS STRENGTHS 1
! +
1 OPERATIONS GROUP PERSONNEL SAFETY RECORD
- +
- 548 Days Since Last Recordable Injury In Operations
} .
The Operations group has achieved a record run of 548 days since the last recordable injury in the i group (as of 10/24/96). This can be attributed to increased site and group emphasis on personnel safety, the Operations Group Safe Team, improvements in safety equipment (for example, fall !
i protection harnesses), shift / day team safety improvement ideas implementation, use of Level 1 l Safety Assessments prior to eachjob, etc.
1 I i
l 1
1 i
i L
3 I
i i
i a
i t
i "Nf m w.rrr slide 69 4
)
. - . - . - - - - . .- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' '
6 i
nCHi
! r:I L1 4
OP OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
j t INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS
+ Operations Group Team Notes i
The Superintendent of Operations continues to generate a weekly communication called Operations Team Notes. This communication is distributed to each Operations teammate via electronic mail and hard copy. The first section of each week's team notes is written by the Operations Superintendent and the second section consists of articles and notes extracted from other team notes, electronic mail notes, i etc. The first section is used by the Operations Superintendent to communicate expectations, lessons learned, recognition items, etc. to the group on a weekly basis. This helps ensure that the group is aware ofimportant information in a timely manner and also helps ensure consistent communication on j important issues. Feedback from OPS personnel indicate that this is a valuable communication tool.
! I This innovative communication tool was recognized as an Operations strength in the 1996 INPO E&A in August of this year.
+
Weekly Management Communications During OPS Requal Training j .
Operations Management (usually the Operations Superintendent) meets regularly with shift teams during requalification training. During the past months Operations Management has discussed i important information such as the Zack Pate "The Control Room" speech and the recent Oconee fuel
{ assembly event with all shifts. This regular meeting with each requal shift to communicate expectations and important information continues in a formal manner by having time set up to rueet i
with each shift during each week of each requal segment (eight times per year for each shift).
i 4
-\
"M ,uer slide 70 I
I_.___...____.._-------------- ~ ~ - " - - " ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' -
y I
D OPERATIONS STRENGTHS 1
! +
INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS l (Continued) l + Operations Quality Steering Team (QST)
)
The Operations Group formed an Operations Quality Steering Team (QP. in October of 1994.
This team meets on a regular basis and membership is composed of Operations staff and shift representatives. Operations Management has brought issues to the group for implementation and l
I the group had been able to develop and implement these expectations in a timely manner. Recent initiatives begun or implemented by the QST consist of a shift rotation and manning program in j
support of the recently completed Unit I refueling outage which was designed to support the g
I station business needs as defined by management, forming a Quality Improvement Team (QIT) to focus on reducing the innage radiation dose received by operators, forming a QIT to develop a RO/NLO Performance Management program, etc.
l + Monthly Operations Shift Manager (OSM) Meeting The Shift Operations Manager (SOM) is the manager over our five operating shifts. The five
' Operations Shift Mangers (OSMs) report to this manager. This management team meets monthly to discuss issues related to the operating shifts. This team develops consistent management l expectations and then communicates back to their respective shifts. This helps ensure alignment and quality between the five shifts. The Site Vice President, Station Manager, Operations, o ex tat on an an e r e Shi .
I l passsd NrYorr ^
slide 71 i
,,._._..__.m_.~.---*-4-,-= ~ * - ' - - = = " - " ' * " " * ' ' " " ' * " ~ ~ " ~
! 2 l
OPERATIONS STRENGTHS I -
l
- +
INCREASED COMMUNICATION OF MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS t
(Continued) l + Increased management observations in training and in the plant as discussed earlier also have helped effectively communicate management expectations. During 1995 and 1996 l the increase in management expectations and involvement have had a positive effect on j
the Operations Group. Improved morale is evident throughout the group and can be
! partly attributed to management's dedication to continuous improvement and high
- i expectations and standards.
i i
l '
il i
Essar um Slide 72
^
\,
- - . - - - . ~ _ . . ~ . . , . - - - . - . - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ __ ,.--. _ .-. - - __..-.-, - - -
t n/
i 3 F OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i i j
t IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING
+
New Simulator Critique Process (Post Scenario Review (PSR) Process) l .
A new simulator post scenario critiquing process was developed in the fall of 1995 using one
! simulator crew as a pilot. We call this our Post Scenario Review (PSR) Process. We began using i
this process with all simulator teams early in 1996. The new critiquing process was developed to aid i
in the learning process which occurs after the simulator scenario ends. The new process is instructor facilitated at this time, but should move to being more SRO facilitated as the crews become more comfortable with the process. An INPO Assist Visit was performed in the fall of 1995 to provide us l with a critical view prior to full scale implementation of this process. The results from that visit were i
I I favorable in that the team felt that the new process should be more effective than our old process. A i
process has been developed to formally capture areas for improvement for each individual so that these items can be reviewed prior to the start of the next simulator session. This process involves loading this information into a database immediately after each PSR. Prior to the next simulator session the instructor prints out these areas forimprovement for each individual. The shift supervisor l on each simulator team then ensures that these areas are discussed prior to starting the simulator j
session so that individuals can concentrate on improving iIt these identified areas. '
This process was recognized as an Operations strength in the 1996 INPO E&A in August of this year.
I f
Er surr slide 73
.-.,v,--..---._, .rv.- ., ,._ m-...._,..,.,.,..% .,,.,..-,,mi...v..- - . , , . ....,-ve,. ,.,--..e ..,. ,,,,-,,.m.%, . . , , . , , . - - , ..m....%,.,m_
1 I
I asu l rp -
OPERATIONS STRElVGTHS 1
9 IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued)
+ Operations Management involvement in Training l
Operations Management involvement in training continues to be strengthened by the McGuire j
Training Review Board (MTRB) and the Training Program Review Committees (TPRC). The MTRB consists of senior site management including the Superintenderit of Operations and the l
Operations Training Manager. The MTRB provides management oversight on all site training j
i programs. Emerging issues and training pregram maintenance are monitored by this group. The Operations TPRC consists of Operations Management and Operations Training Management. The TPRC provides management oversight and facus specifically on Operations Training. The TPRC j i meets every two weeks and provides a formal interface between OPS and OPS Training.
I .
Operations management involvement in training was recognized in the recent INPO E&A in August of this year as a part of the strength in the O&A area relating to management oversight and management observations of training.
j .
1 i
I 4
l I
4 ,
w asensaasoroam .
"N" Slide 74 wwg -.w-,,,,w-,,-%- .ww.,---,-..,,,-w.,,.......w%. w %.m w,,%,..,.,-..--....u._,,--.m.,-.,...__-,.,,,,-.,..w..-w..m_.- ,,,........m__. wm . m, . . __, _.w mg r s v- S y w -gr s, es , -4.m-.ww.
1 4
i i
J# OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
+
l IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued)
! + Increased standards for Requal Operations Shift Managers (OSMs) monitor their shift's performance in requal. The OSMs meet with the Supervising Instructors each wet 'each segment to discuss their shift's strengths, l weaknesses and areas that need increased en.J ssis or attention. In addition, early this year a j
facilitated critiquing session for training effectiveness has been added to each week of requal. On
! Thursday afternoons the entire requal shift meets with a non-OPS Training instructor (we use a non-OPS person to facilitate these sessions in order to encourage the most open and honest feedback) to I generate a list ofitems that went well during the requal week along with areas for improvement.
j These areas for improvement are then addressed by OPS and OPS Training. This has shown to be a
! more effective method of gaining this type of valuable feedback than methods used in the past.
l These meetings were recognized as an Operations strength in the INPO E&A in August of this
. year, j .
Operations and Operations Training also continue to suppqrt the Operations Training Committee j
(OTC). The OTC is sponsored by the Operations Support Manager and the Operations Training l
' Manger. The OTC is comprised of Operations licensed and non-licensed operators and Operations Training instructors. The OTC is a working group which focuses on potential Operations training program enhancements.
- . These groups and the OSM/ Instructor team in conjunction with management observations have
! strengthened Operations training.
,.myr T ,on slide 75
..,% _ ,_ w -- ~.... -w~~-* w - = * * * * * ~ - * * " * - " " ' ' ' ' ' * ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ * ' ' " " ~ ' ~ ~ * " ' ' ' ' ' " ' ~~~
l i
i Y
t OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
i -
t
+
! IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) j + Increased standards for Requal (Continued)
Operations Management has continued to increase the standards for requal. All operators are required l to attend all requal training as scheduled or makeup any missed training. Operations Training has j
established an attendance monitoring system to enhance monitoring capability to notify Operations
}
Management of any individuals that miss training. Operations Management has also instructed j
Operations Training to increase exam difficulty to test to a higher level of knowledge in both requal and
{ hot license class. In addition, topics which were dropped from the non-licensed operator program in past years (topics such as reactor theory) have been added back in to requal. The purpose of this is to
{ better prepare our non-licensed operators for license class.
I
! Starting with segment 3 requal in 1996 a closed reference portion was added to requal segment exams.
Prior to this all segment exams were open reference. Operations and Operations Training management i
felt that adding in a closed reference portion will challenge the operators' knowledge in a different way i
than the open reference portion of the exam. We expect to be able to learn from this new test method j
so that we can more accurately measure the effectiveness of,requal training.
Operations Training continues to upgrade the Operations Training lesson plans and objectives to improve these and incorporate the new Job Task Analysis (JTAs) which were performed for non-l licensed and licensed operators. As Operations Training completes development of a new lesson plan, the lesson plan is given to Operations shift to be reviewed by a subject matter expert through the Operations Training Committee (OTC). As Operations Training develops new objectives for tiip new
! lesson plan they are reviewed and approved by Operations Management.
I '
- d aprr slide 76 I
- , - . , . - _ . . . , , , . ~ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . ~ , _ . , . , . _ , , . _ . _ - . . . . - - - _ _ _ . _ - . _ - , . . , _ . . ~ ____.---~_,,.,_m..-._.,...__-,,,.....,_,,,...---.-,.-,,-
s i l ' . j a
7.. ..! OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l +
IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) i
+ Increased standards for Requal (Continued) l
{ .
Operations Training has developed more simulator scenarios focusing on abnormal operations (AOP usage) to go along with the emergency operating scenarios (EOP usage). The abnormal operating scenarios focus on events which are more likely to happen and are in some ways more challenging to l the operators than emergency operating scenarios because of the need to continuously prioritize which abnormal situation to address first. This effort coincides with the industry direction to j develop and train on more abnormal operating scenarios.
An annual NLO JPM exam was added this year as a part of the annual operator requal exam process.
j 1 Each NLO had to successfully perform three JPMs during the newly added NLO annual requal exam j
week. This innovative addition to the operator requal program provides additional assurance of the i continued ability of non-licensed operators to properly respond to plant events.
! +
" Cold" Crew Simulator Evaluations Observed By Operations Management l Another change made this year was to move all evaluated simulator scenarios to the first day of the week of requal as opposed to the last day. This gives an opportunity to view the crew's performance i
in a " cold" condition and also provides the crew with an opportunity to work on any areas for improvement over the remainder of the requal week. In addition, all evaluated scenarios are now l observed by a member of OPS management (OPS Superintendent, Shift Operations Manager, OPS
- Work Process Manager, or OPS Human Performance Manager) in addition to being observed by j OPS Training personnel.
9 i
r"essar b slide 77 i_.__..._..._...__ _ , _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ _ _
i j -
j % -}
"J f OPERATIONS STRENGTHS 1
t i +
1 IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) l + Self Checking (STAR) Simulator j .
A self checking simulator panel has been developed by site personnel to assist in further i
development of self checking practices by site personnel. The simulator consists of a panel with
! several switches and gauges with similar alphanumeric names assigned to each switch. A two j person team is assigned to operate the simulator per a procedure. The task is made more difficult by having one person read the procedure to the other via headsets and a time limit of 15 minutes is put j
on completing the task. Only through the use of good three way communication, use of phonetics, l
and good self checking will a team be able to succeed in the task. Many non-licensed operators j
' 3 have already been through this training simulator and all members of the Operations group will go though this by the end of Segment 4 requal in 1996. Experience so far has shown that this simulator helps reinforce good work practices that carry over to the "real world".
- +
Use of Simulator In " Lab" Sessions to Complement Classroom Requal Training Classroom training for operators in requal has also been modified for 1996 to make further use of
- the simulator. Many classroom sessions now are immediately followed by a practical
} demonstration using the simulator to reinforce the knowledge gained from the classroom session.
i .
i '
l *b f,orr slide 78
i i
a l
'3 1 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS ,
k
! + IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) ,
l + Flow Loop
! . A flow loop has been built in the Maintenance Training Facility and is ready for use by Operations and l other site groups. The flow loop consists of piping, valves, pumps, instrumentation and controls, etc.
! that simulate equipment found out in the plant. The loop can be used to reinforce Operations group type i activities such as self checking, independent verification, tagging, equipment operation, proper radiation l protection practices, etc. Operations Training is currently developing a detailed plan to make full use of l this facility. In addition, components on the flow loop have been labeled according to a new labeling j standard which is planned for implementation for the entire McGuire station in 1998.
3 + Training Effectiveness Measures j 1
. A Training Effectiveness Measures program has been implemented that determines effectiveness on a j monthly basis. The process is set up to assess numerous areas that are indicators of training l effectiveness during the month such as whether or not line and training met in a formal manner, whether i or not management observed training, whether or not MNS/ industry operating experience was utilized j in the conduct of training, where changes made to training based on student / management observation feedback, was there an example where training had a positive impact on group / plant performance, etc.
l The use of a monthly measure to measure effectiveness helps drive those activities that add value to our i training program.
j . This training effectiveness measure was recogmzed as a Training strength in the 1996 INPO E&A j in August of this year.
I i .
l "m*"m"uML slide 79 i
. ~ _ - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
i
, c. e. u L l
l
li ?
OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
+
l IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) j + Utilization of Operating Experience A comprehensive program is in place to ensure that operating experience is fully incorporated into Operations training. OE items are screened by the General Office organization and sent to a single point contact in OPS training. Many items are directly incorporated into training, while others are 1
brought to the Operations Training Program Review Committee (TPRC) for a decision on where i
and how to incoiporate into training. In addition, OE items are periodically communicated to the 1
Operations group thraugh OPS Team Notes, required reading, and face to face communicati.ons l from OPS Management. '
} .
Effective use of operating experience was recognized as an O&A strength in the 1996 INPO l E&A in August of this year.
1 k
I l
1 i
i 9
4 i E$7um mm slide 80 4
i I
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ' - - ~ ' ' - - ' - ~~ ~
i 1
n i
3 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS ..
i j
1 i
! +
! IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued) l t
+ Use of Simulator to Support Plant Evolutions l Operations has increased use of the simulator to support plant evolutions by providingjust in time training for the operators and by providing validation of plant response to planned evolutions. Some j examples include:
4 Provided just in time training to Operations and Reactor group personnel to support Unit 2 Zero Power Physics
] Testing during the most recent refueling outage.
Providedjust in time traint ;, to Operations personnel to support a planned maintenance evolution on valve j I KC-I A .
- 1 .
Used simulator to validate PRA assumptions relating to recent FWST frozen level instrument problem.
) Simulator crews were used to verify that operators would notice frozen instruments in the event of an actual loss of coolant accident and take appropriate manual actions to swap to the containment sump for the j recirculation phase, j .
Used simulator to verify plant response to loss of one out of two condensate booster pumps with the third pump out of service for maintenance. Guidance was then developed and given to the operators in the form of a special order to immediately trip the reactor in the event of pump loss as opposed to trying to run back the unit 4 manually or automatically since the simulator demonstrated that the chance of success with this approach was j minimal.
' Used simulator to verify plant response to loss of a reactor coolant pump when <48% power during recent Unit I downpower evolution to change transformer taps. Guidance was then developed and given to the operators in the form of a special order to immediately trip the reactor if between 15 and 48% power and to manually shutdown the reactor if <l5% power.
Used simulator to validate ESF Test Procedure after major rewrite prior to the Unit 2 outage.
1 umstre==a= *
] rassmwsarum.rrr slide 81
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ' ' ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' - ' ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ' - ' " ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ '
i a .
!. " _H OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
! + IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued)
+ Other "Just In Time Training"
. In addition to using the simulator to provide just in time training, other forms ofjust in time training j have been provided to the Operations shifts. For example, earlier in this assessment presentation you l will find a discussion on thejust in time training that was provided to the operators prior to the i predicted arrival of hurricane Fran.
Shift Technical Advisor Program Improvements
+
! . Improvements have been and continue to be made to the STA program. The STA is now required to
- independently classify emergencies per the EAL and compare his determination with that of the
! 1 Operations Shift Manager. In addition, a second set of emergency and abnormal procedures have been
! provided in a desktop binder for the STA's use during events. The STA uses these procedures to
. follow the direction the crew is taking. By having a separate set of procedures the STA does not have l to move close to the SRO procedure reader and is able to stay back from the control boards to maintain l effective oversight. Other improvements being made to the STA program include completion of a l STA specific Job Task Analysis, increasing formal training'for new STAS (above and beyond the l l training provided to all SROs), and strengthening the criteria for initial and continuing STA qualification.
4 1
I Passerr b slide 82 1
,,.-w-w.me-. --~ w ,ww,--== w..- - w-e-+===*e--- =**w= ~ ~ e ~*==w w ==*="" * * * * * " * - ' ~ * " * * * ' " * ' " " " * " -" ' * * ' * " ' ' * " * * * " * ' " " * ' " " " "'"*~#"*' ''
i
! 4s m i
J OPERATIONS STRENGTHS 1 !
t i
j +
IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued)
} +
License Class NRC Exam Performance -100% Pass Rate for HLP-17 j .
' Results from our 1994 Hot License Class NRC Exam did not meet our expectations. Our expectation is 100% pass rate on initial license exams. This class achieved a 82% pass rate (9 out of 11 candidates). Our previous success rate (for classes prior to the 1994 class) was satisfactory. The j
i previous four classes had 100% pass rate on the NRC written license examinations.
Corrective actions were put in place to correct these deficiencies. Our most recent license class took j
their NRC exam in January of this year and achieved a 100% pass rate. A formal self assessment has j
been performed on this class to ensure that we identify areas for improvement that will continue to j 1 ensure this same level of performance in the future.
- + NRC Pilot Exam Preparation
) .
In addition, this NRC exam was prepared under the NRC Pilot Examination Program. Comments i
from the NRC on our preparation for the exam were very positive which reinforced the value of the
! hard work that numerous OPS and OPS Training personneliput into this exam.
I I
i l
, "dusar um slide 83 i
~ , _ _ - . _ _ . . _ . . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ' ~ ~ ~
i d -
av 3 OPERATIOlNS STRENGTHS i'
l +
IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS TRAINING (Continued)
E
+ INPO OPS Training Reaccrediation SER Development Beginning in mid 1995 the Operations and Operations Training groups begin development of j the Self Evaluation Report to support INPO reaccrediation of the OPS Training program in j early 1997. A team of approximately 35 personnel equally divided between OPS and OPS l Training worked to evaluate the training program per the eight INPO objectives. This team developed the initial draft of the SER which has subsequently been reviewed by the Operations Training Program Review Committee (TPRC) and McGuire Training Review I
Board (MTRB). A self assessment team sponsored by the General Office reviewed the SER and performed onsite interviews and observations in the fall of 1995 and early summer of l 1996 to help validate the SER. The teamwork between OPS and OPS Training in performing this assessment allowed for a greater interface between these two groups that will j continue to drive improvements in operator training. The SER will be maintained as a
- ' "living" document and updated yearly after reaccrediation occurs.
1 i
i l
l i '
"msdrYE0'"""m s m 84 t
I
- _ . _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ - _ . - - _ _ _ , _ _ _ - _ , - _ _ . . . . _ . _ , . . . _ _ _ _ . - ~ . . - , _ - _ , , , . _ , . . _ , , , , . - _ . . . . .
i
= ,
3 ,
3 -
i et l
~i OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
i -
$ ~
) +
- CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL l + Command and Control Model i .
Operations has continued to use a distinct command and control model to enhance control room crew performance and Operations Shift Manager oversight. The command and control model more clearly delineates control room crew responsibilities. The model is reinforced through licensed operator requalification simulator training and evaluation. Management involvement
! through simulator training observation also reinforces the command and control model.
l '
i l
l i
i
! "rasEn um Slide 85
. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - . _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~
i 1
g i
3 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS '
+
CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL
+ Increased Management Observation McGuire has increased the amount of management observations for all areas of Operations training and j
plant operations. The Site Vice President, Station Manager, Site Training Manager, and Manager of Operator Training all observe and evaluate simulator training and crew performance routinely.
Operations Management also implemented in 1995 a comprehensive program for OPS management '
l observations that resulted in the following documented observations (Goals for 1996 are in parenthesis):
i 1995 (actual) Observations 1996 Actual thru Sept (EOY Goal) i i 1. Simulator Observations 183 j 129 (210)
- 2. Control Room Observations 109 103 (330)
- 3. NLO Rounds Observations 96 109 (215) l 4. HLPSimulatorObservations 16 i 5. Plant Activity Observations (n/a for 1996) 90 70 (137) j 6. Plant Activity Observations of groups 28 ( 65) l outside of OPS (new goal for 1996) i
i 12%(25%)
- 9. NLO and HLP OJT/OJE Observations 42
! 139 (175) 10 Classroom Observations 221
- 23 (115) 1 i .
The management observation program was recognized as an O&A strength in the 1996 INPO E&A in August of this year.
- dW,urr slide 86
. . - . _ _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ' ^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i x
l +
1 CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL (Continued)
! + Communication Standards (Repeatbacks)
Operations continues to require the use of three way communications. During 1995, this policy of using three way communications when communicating plant operational information was formalized i
as a site wide policy which is now applicable to all groups. Previously this was only an Operations i
4 Group standard. In addition, in mid 1996 a "one pager" was developed to further prescribe the use of phonetics by plant personnel. This change in policy was developed to add consistency in the use j of phonetics. Observations by OPS management and outside observers showed that ad increase in i
the consistency in the use of phonetics would be an improvement in the program. The change in 1
policy was developed by the OPS Superintendent after soliciting input from operators and the other
{
two Duke nuclear sites Operations Superintendents. Communication standards are reinforced daily through shift supervision, through training, and are also reinforced by management observation both on the simulator and in the plant.
l
+ Control Room Briefings l
l .
Operations continues to effectively use control room shift briefings at the start of each shift. The
{
shift briefings are conducted immediately after shift turnover. The entire operating shift meets in the control room for this briefing. These shift briefings ensure that all members of the shift are i
cognizant of plant conditions and major activities planned for the shift. The Operations Shift Manager also emphasizes management expectations such as safety (both personnel and nuclear), self checking, conservative decision making, etc. during these briefings.
i merr slide 87 i
- - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i -" da l :p OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
~
+
CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL (Continued)
- + Pre-Job Briefings j Operations Management Procedure (OMP) 3-2 was revised in early 1996 to distinguish between two
- different types of pre-job briefings
- Level 1 and Level 2. Level I briefings are used for major troubleshooting, testing, maintenance, etc. and a formal pre-job briefing form is used to document j
the pre-job and post-job briefings. Level 2 briefings are used for less complicated activities and a j
pre-job briefing memory aid card is used to guide the conduct of this briefing.
+ Control Room Access i
j .
Operations continues to maintain strict access controls over personnel entering the control room j 1 area. Entrance to the operating " horseshoe" area is controlled by the Control Room SRO. Access is l
permitted for those individuals demonstrating business need to be inside the horseshoe area.
- + Control Room Formality j .
Operations Management continues to reinforce expectations relating to control room formality. The i
expectation for a businesslike and professional atmosphere in the control room has been '
)
reemphasized. Distractions are minimized, control boards are closely monitored, and a professional environment is being maintained. These expectations are reinforced daily by shift supervision and also by Operations Management during control room observations.
l i
}
"E ouer slide 88 l
.,,,,g--wgee w- es' eme-h-"NN **
i T
i EL Yr OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
j +
CONTROL ROOM COMMAND AND CONTROL (Continued)
+ Control Room Staffing
{
l .
Normal shift control room staffing is maintained above minimum tech spec requirements. Minimum
{ shift staffing consists of 5 SROs (including OSM and STA),4 ROs, and 9 NLOs. Minimum fire l
brigade staffing is ten individuals (5 from Operations,5 from Maintenance shift team).
+ Control Room Cellular Phone System During 1996 a cellular phone system was installed in the control room. This cellular system is used by the SROs and ROs in the control room. The system eliminates the problem of phone cords
, stretched across the RO desk area and also allows the CRSRO to remain within the horseshoe are i
i and still answer the SRO phone. Our installation was carefully evaluated by Engineering and Operations personnel to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on control room controls and instrumentation. We believe that this is one of the first such installations in the country. Feedback from the control room operators has been very positive on this new system.
! + Control Room Public Address System i .
During the summer of 1996, a permanently installed PA system was added to the McGuire control room. This system consists of wireless microphones and installed ceiling speakers throughout the
! Control Room area. The system is used to facilitate beginning of shift briefings that are conducted with the entire operating crew in the control room. By having the PA system we have been able to j -
spread out the members of the operating crew such that personnel are able to move back from the j
1 front of the control room, thereby providing less of a distraction to the ROs monitoring the control boards. The PA system also ensures that every member of the crew is clearly able to hear all the
{ information on during the briefing.
I "u Ed Tr r am slide 89 i
. . , _ _ . _ . - . _ . - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - ' " - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 4
a
! 1 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
f
! +
OPERATIONS FOCUS ON WORK PROCESS
+
A major improvement area for the site in 1995 and 1996 has been Operational Focus. In addition to encompassing the focus that the Operations group provides, this also includes how the other groups on site are focused towards plant operation. Meetings with INPO and j
benchmarking to other plants recommended by INPO and NRC as having good Operational i Focus were conducted.
i +
1 Work Control Group Innage Manager Staffed By Former Operations Shift Manager (OSM) j .
One major change that was made in late 1995 was the staffing of the Innage Work Manager i
I 1 position within the Work Control Group by a former Operations Shift Manager (OSM). All three i Duke sites agreed to staff this important position in this manner to provide the proper operational focus on the daily operating schedule.
4 + Operations Work Process Manager Group Formed *
{ .
In addition, another major change occurred in 1996 within the Operations group at all three sites.
j An Operations Work Process Manager section was established within the Operations group to i
provide a single point focus for Operations into the daily operating and outage schedules. This small section within Operations is led by a current OSM (who will rotate back to shift every two j
years) and reporting to him are several licensed and non-licensed operators. This team is the link j
to the daily schedule for the Operations group. Within this team is a centralized tagent team that i
will take the planning and execution of many tagouts off of the operating shifts. We believe that j
this single point focus for scheduling and tagging has improved the Operations group involvement m and support of the daily schedule. This group was fully implemented at McGuire by June of j 1996.
! "m "so Wr ,orr suae 90 i
- - - - - . . - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
i i + .
OPERATIONS FOCUS ON WORK P.ROCESS (Continued) j + Redirecting Unit Managers Group Responsibilities in Mid 1996 Beginning this year we decided to redirect some resources within the Operations group. The Operations Work Process Manager section (pre.viously discussed) was put in place and the j
work process responsibilities previously performed by the Unit Mangers Group (UMG) 3 within OPS were transferred to that new group.
+
Will Provide Direct Interface Between OPS Shifts and Engineering
) .
In addition, once the Unit 2 outage completed in May of this year we began transitioning the j
' engineering / technical support responsibilities from the UMG to the Engineering organization.
i Some existing UMG resources were moved to shift SRO positions and some were moved to the Engineering organization as a part of our engineering rotation plan. We have found that a more direct interface between OPS shift and Engineering adds value and enhances prompt j plant problem resolution.
i i
i
?
ET mm slide 91
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ - . _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~"~"~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
6 04La ,
1f l %I , OPERATIOlVS STRENGTHS 4
i j + OPERATIONS FOCUS ON WORK PROCESS (Continued) l + Challenge Is To Ensure a Smooth Transition
! . As we have made these changes, the number one priority was to make sure that all tasks that
- were being performed by the UMG were transitioned or a decision made to eliminate the performance of certain tasks. We took steps to ensure that nothing " dropped through the crack" as we made this transition. Engineering and Operations from all 3 sites met.in May to i developed a detailed roles and responsibilities matrix to define responsibilities for each group.
This matrix was reviewed and approved by the Station Mangers. McGuire has implemented j i this matrix and fully transitioned away from the previous Unit Managers Group organization l as of June 1st. Management will continue to monitor the success of this transition and take
- prompt action to resolve any unanticipated problems. Results so far have been very positive
- and the effectiveness of the new OPS Work Process Manager group has been a strength in OPS support and commitment to the operating schedule and also in reducing work process related challenges experienced by the operating shifts. i 1
i i
I j "ms"aWr,un suae 92 1
i e ,
l i ,
I p
j 4 G
' ~
OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
+
OPERATIONS CONTROL AND INTERFACE WITH STATION WOliK j
4 ACTIVITIES l + Daily 0700/1900 Plant Status Meetings Lead By Operations Shift Manager (OSM) f . Operations leads a meeting at 0700 and 1900 daily. This meeting is led by the off-going Operations j Shift Manager and is attended by the oncoming OSM, Work Control, Maintenance, Chemistry, l Radiation Protection, etc. The purpose of this meeting is to ensure that all resources (shift and
! daystaff) are aligned to support the plant operational priorities through the shift. Clear ownership and accountability for resolving problems is assigned in this meeting. This meeting has been in place at l McGuire since early 1994, and in 1995 the format and conduct of this meeting was adopted by the i other two Duke plants. This has shown to be an effective tool in providing the proper operational i
focus on the daily plant activities and problems. An important part of this meeting is to identify
" action register" items (daily plant concerns that cannot be fixed immediately) that are assigned to the responsible individual for resolution. A formal update is given daily to the Operations shift by the
- individuals assigned until the item is completed. This has proved to be an effective method to ensure 2
that longer term issues are appropriately assigned and resolved.
l
+ Weekly Schedule Commitment Meetings .
l . Operations participates in weekly meetings to develop and approve the Work Control Operating Schedule. The participation by Operations in this process ensures that a comprehensive review of the
! daily operating schedule is performed prior to the work being scheduled. Operations pays particular I
attention to Technical Specification implications, risk assessment interactions, and overall aggregate effect on the plant caused by equipment removed from service. This aggressive involvement in schedule development helps ensure that the plant is operated with safety as a first consideration. This responsibility is being performed by the previously mentioned OPS Work Process Manager section.
rasse n Eb Slide 93
. . . _ . , , . _ _ _ _ - ~ . - . ~ . _ _ . _ . , . . _ ._ . _ . _ . _ - . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - , . . . . . , _ . - , _ _ _ ~ . -
i '
\ .
l s# L l 13? OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
! ~
i
+
OPERATIONS CONTROL AND INTERFACE WITH STATION WORK j ACTIVITIES (Continued) l + System Work Window Implementation In 1996 the work control process was changed to utilize what are called System Work Windows to schedule and execute on-line maintenance. This means that important plant systems are logically i
grouped and assigned to an execution week within a twelve week rotation. The OPS Work Process j Manager section is the primary OPS interface with this new process.
j + Unit 2 Refueling Outage 4 Shift Rotation The Operations shift was changed from a 5 shift to a 4 shift rotation to provide better support for the j i most recent Unit 2 refueling outage. By going to 4 shifts and cancelling all requal training during the outage we were able to maintain a normal shift staff of 7 SROs,7 ROs, and 12 NLOs for the outage duration. Maintenance work was levelized across the week to make full use of this increased shift j
support. In addition,2 SROs were provided to day staff to provide additional support to that group l during the outage. Also three dedicated operators were provided to the OPS test team to support penetration leak rate testing. The overall results of this approach were, excellent. Maintenance and Work Control recognized the increased support provided by the shifts in the Work Control Center
! and in support of field and control room evolutions. Operations group overtime also decreased during this outage (supplemental hours incurred by exempt personnel decreased by 33% and non-exempt overtime was also reduced compared to the prior outage). In addition, although requal training was cancelled for 6 weeks in support of the outage, we expect to still achieve the required j
hours of classroom and simulator instruction for each operator for the year.
i I
rasssst b slide 94 4
,,_m_,
...._e <-.w--~~. = ~--*-'-- -***-"*"""-" ~ *'"" ~ "' "' ~ ~~ '~ ~
1 1
i t
\ 1 I r l
4 i
l
_.a uN l
i OPERATIONS STRENGTHS l
+ OPERATIONS CONTROL AND INTERFACE WITH STATION WORK r
l ACTIVITIES (Continued)
+ Protection of Plant Equipment During Work Activities The OPS Work Process Manager (OWPM) section has the responsibility for determining plant l equipment protection requirements to be utilized during planned maintenance activities. These j protection requirements are applied when it is necessary to protect redundant, backup or critical
{ pieces of plant equipment from work that is in progress nearby or when work has a redundant or backup train out of service. Some examples of how this has been used include:
l .
During maintenance on a condensate booster pump with the plant at 100% power, the two operating pumps I were roped off to control access and common instrumentation between the three pumps was protected such
) that mairatenance on the tnird pump would not inadvertently impact operation of the two pumps .
j .
During a recent downpower on Unit I to change main stepup transformer tap settings, protection was put in
- place to restrict access to the other train switchyard PCBs, stepop transformer,6900 volt switchgear rooms j and both trains of diesel generator rooms in order to protect the single source of offsite power.
On Unit 2 the "A" busline was taken down for work on the 2A stepup transformer and equipment protection
! measures similar to the last example were put in place. i l .
During our recent EVCC battery bank inoperability that caused shutdown of both units, protection measures were put in place for the other trains of vital DC power along with protection for the offsite power supply
) systems.
t i '
] "m"s"m=" rr slide 95
i i
l OPERATIONS STRENGTHS I
l -
+ OPERATIONS FOCUS ON LONGER TERM PLANT PRIORITIES j + Top Operations Issue List (TOIL) j .
In late 1994, Operations management implemented the Top Operations Issues List (TOIL). This l periodic management assessment is performed every six months to pick out the most areas for continuous improvement facing the OPS group. The issues that are put on the list are typically those that require the entire OPS group involvement. The list has been an effective tool to ensure
' that these most important issues are communicated to the entire Operations group. Current TOIL items include Operational Focus, Management Involvement, Configuration Control /Mispositionings, Operations Training, OSM and STA Role on the Simulator and
' Simulator Critiquing, Self Assessment Program in OPS, Communication Standard, and OPS l
Organization Transition (forming of the new OPS Work Process Manager Group). Good progress l has been made in each of these areas. The next meeting of OPS management to discuss this list is scheduled for November of this year at which time several items will likely be dropped and new items added.
! + Site Focus On Reducing Control Room Annunciators, Jnstrument Problems, and Operator l Aid Computer Points Out of Service i . In addition there has been a strong site focus on reducing the number of control room annunciators, instruments and Operator Aid Computer points that are out of service. These are all -
closely tracked and goals established to minimize these distractions to the operators. Good success has been achieved in each of these areas over the past year. For example, our goal for i control room instruments out of service that can be worked on-line is to be '7 to 9 total for both units. So far in 1996 we have run below that goal at about 5 out of service.
M mm slide 96 i
- . , . _ . - _ - - - - - . - . - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~
i i i
, i I
i 9 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS
} ~
j +
ROTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATIONS STAFFING i +
Twenty-Six Staff Rotational Positions Within Operations Group l .
In 1994 the Operations Group implemented a program that provided rotational position opportunities j
within the Operations Group and established long term rotational positions outside the group.
Currently there are 26 rotational staff positions within Operations (up from 16 in 1995).
+
.;even Staff Rotational Positions Outside Operations Group There are also 7 rotational staff positions established with other work groups outside of Operations j
(Operations Training; Work Control; and MSRG). These rotational positions provide career developmental opportunities for individuals and also help to broaden overall Operations knowledge
) y and skills. Duration of each assignment is normally 2 years.
i + Instant SRO Development Plan Operations began an aggressive program with the site Engineering organization in 1995 to move engineers into Operations and train and license those engineers as SROs. Once licensed, the
] individuals will fill a licensed position within the Operations er Wei Control Groups. At the same i
time Operations will rotate other experienced SRO engineers back to the Engineering organization.
l The purpose of this rotational program is to bring Operations perspective aed expertise into the -
Engineering organization. This will help Engineering provide improved, plant operation oriented i
technical support. Two experienced engineers that moved into OPS last year entered license class in June of this year. In addition on July 1st two highly experienced degreed SROs will move from the Operations group to Engineering to help increase operational expertise within that organization. Also
! in October of this year three additional experienced engineers (one a current maintenance manager)
- moved into the Operations group to prepare for entering license class in the fall of 1997.
i mExwsms um slide 97 i
i
. . , _ . , . . , . . - - . . , . - - - - , - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
)
i i
i s l,
i r$< _
OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
- +
ROTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPERATIONS STAFFING (Continued) l + Rotation of Operations Management In addition to the staff rotational positions, the Operations group management team has been rotated during 1996. The previous Shift Operations Manager (SOM) is now on loan to the Emergency i
Planning Group, the previous Procedure Section manager is now the SOM, and the previous Unit Staff i
j manager is now the Procedure Section manager. By rotating these management positions we are 1 helping to develop each of these managers and each manager is able to bring new strengths and viewpoints to these positions.
, + Leadership Planning Process in Operations I
j .
Early in 1996 the Operations group developed and implemented a Leadership Planning process. This process was designed to complement the current performance management process and focus l
- specifically on developing the group's future leaders. A simple matrix tool was developed to identify performance in the areas ofleadership and performance. Meetings of the management staff were held j
to evaluate every SRO, RO, and NLO in the Operations group using this new matrix. Feedback was j
provided by the manager to each employee consisting of strengths and a'reas for improvement. This process will help ensure continued development of strong leaders for the Operations group.
i I
I t
passert slide 98
- gn e
.__,m.,,~,, ,.-os+----r*-'-- * ' - " " " ' ' * * " ' ' "~ ~~
-.. _a c H
j! OPERATIONS STRENGTHS h
\ -
i
- + BENCHMARKING EFFORTS
+
Participated In Nine Benchmarking Peer Trips in 1995 The Operations group aggressively supported benchmarking efforts during 1995. A total of nine INPO peer trips were conducted by nine different SROs and Mangers in the OPS group. In addition to
{ these trips, the OPS Superintendent and OPS Work Process Manager visited several plants to learn j about their operational focus efforts.
j .
After each plant visit was conducted OPS management met with and debriefed the participant. A l
- formal tracking process was used to capture lessons and ideas learned from these visits'so that the appropriate person could evaluate use of that idea at McGuire. Many of these were either fully or j 3 partially implemented at McGuire.
! +
Examples of Changes Made As A Result Of These Benchmarking Efforts >
OPS management providing continuous coverage through parts of the refueling outage (North Anna) l ,
Tagging improvements (North Anna)
{ .
Formalized prejob briefmg process (North Anna) ,
i .
Simulator kept in same status as the plant with respect to annunciators / instruments out of service i (Turkey Point) l .
OPS management observation program improvements (Seabrook)
Using STA to independently classify emergency event (Wolf Creek)
)
I s
uYtn vorr slide 99
\,
, , _ _ _ _ . . . . . , . . . _ - - - - - - - - - = = = = - - ~ ~ - - - ~ * * * * ' * ' " * ' * " * " " ~ ' " ' '
l' i
3
, A 4
h "i f OPERATIONS STRENGTHS
+
BENCHMARKING EFFORTS (Continued
, + Eight INPO Peer Trips Scheduled for 1996
. This peer visit program has been an extremely worthwhile investment for us. For 1996 we are j scheduled to participate in eight INPO peer trips and in addition the OPS Superintendent and OPS
- Training Manager have already made an independent trip to North Anna earlier this year. i j +
Aggressive benchmarking by the Operations group was recognized as a strength in the i 1996 INPO E&A during August of this year.
1 1
I -
1 i
] .
I i
I i l "IL"d**m*m suae too i .
. , - , . . . , . - - - . . . - . . - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~'~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ '~
I, h'dtM u
..a OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i
i
- i + IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS PROCEDURES j + A number ofimportant Operations procedures have received extensive rewrites and j improvements during 1995 and 1996.
+
New Controlling Procedures For Shutdown And Startup using Flowchart Methodology The first of these were the shutdown and startup procedures that are utilized to support outages. ,
l They are now designed around a flowchart methodology that provides clearer direction to the
- operator. These procedures had previously been very difficult to use due to the size and complexity of these evolutions. A Quality Improvement Team was formed to develop another i approach to these procedures that would provide the operator with a more effective tool to use to
) i shutdown and startup the plant. The new procedures were implemented in time for the most recent Unit I refueling outage. Feedback from the operators that used these during the outage was i
excellent.
l + New Block Tagout Procedures We had experienced some problems in the past with our block tagout process (used during outages to tag out large parts of systems to support numerous simultaneous maintenance activities). A i Quality Improvement Team was formed and they came up with a more proceduralized process than had previously been used at McGuire. The appropriate system procedures were completely rewritten and put in place to support the outage. Again, feedback from folks that used these procedures indicated that they were greatly improved over the previous program. In addition, no i signincant tagging errors occurred as a result of these procedures.
9 passer arrr slide 101 i
i i
,,,,,,,. wow,.-*e,--=-*-=---**r*"-***"'"***"** "*"" " "**" "
- i. Led.~itn 4.46 4.L.lt
.~
/ OPERATIONS STRENGTHS 1
i -
i +
3 IMPROVEMENTS IN OPERATIONS PROCEDURES (Continued) j + Improved Containment Closure Procedure j .
One additional procedure which received a revision prior to the last outage was the Containment i
Closure Procedure which is used to ensure containment integrity when shut down. This procedure j
was extensively streamlined and again, feedback from the users was positive. A Continuous i Improvement Team (CIT) has been chartered at this time to gather lessons learned from the recent
{ outages. This team will continue to improve this process in support of the next outage.
+ Rapid Downpower Abnormal Procedure l .
Another procedure worth mentioning was our new Rapid Downpower procedure which was put in j t place in 1995. This procedure is used to rapidly reduce power in certain transients. We had an opportunity to utilize this procedure during a recent failure of a cooling water flow control valve i
going to a reactor coolant pump motor on Unit 1 in December of 1995. Although the operators ended up having to manually trip the reactor prior to getting to the point where we could have taken i
one reactor coolant pump off-line without causing an automatic trip, the procedure was succeslfully j
used to rapidly bdng power down prior to the trip. This procedure had received extensive validation j
in the simulator during its development r.nd it worked well'in this actual plant event.
! + Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Involvement McGuire Operations continues to play an active role in WOG activities. One indicator of this active -
4 involvement is the number of direct work requests (DWs) which were submitted and approved. For 1995 a total of 54 DWs were approved from all WOG utilities. McGuire submitted 15 of these i
(28%). Of the 54 total 27 resulted in ERG changes. Of these 27,13 (48%) were from the total 15 submitted by McGuire. Our involvement with the WOG ERGS has centered on identifying and submitting high quality change requests as demonstrated by these numbers. ,
um slide 102 l
l
. . _ , _ _ . _ . . ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'^' ' ~ ~ '" -
w.
f3 OPERATIONS STRENGTHS
+ FOLLOW THROUGH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
+ Operations Self-Assessment Program
+ Operations has implemented an effective self assessment program within the group. Self assessments take the form of OPS teams assessing a particular area, assessments of simulator team performance, assessments requested by Operations but performed with the help of outside groups, etc. In 1995 and 1996 through October numerous formal assessments were performed as shown by the examples on the following table.
Operations contributed to the INPO E&A strength in August which recognized the site's strong self assessment efforts.
SIGNIFICANT SELF ASSESSMENTS
' ASSESSMENT STATUS ASSESSMENT STATUS
+ Tagging Assessment Complete 6/95 + Containment Closure Complete 1/96
+ Block Tagout Complete 6/95 + Operational Focus Complete 6/96
+ Outage Controlling Procedure Complete 6/95 + Reactivity Management Complete 7/96
+ Control Room Briefing Complete 6/95 + Daily Status Meeting Complete 8/96
+ Daily Status Meeting Complete 8/95 (Reassessment)
+ Solid Operations Complete 8/95 + Shift and Pre Job Briefs Complete 8/96
+ Mispositioning Complete 9/95 + H2 Ignitor Inoperability Complete 8/96
+ Plant Labeling Complete 11/95 + D/G TS Surv Near Miss Complete 9/96
+ Fuel Handling Complete 12/95 + TS Surveillances In Progress ,
- fjML m slide 10 =
4 i
i
. ,,._ cGul
- D ! OPERATIONS STRENGTHS i .
k l +
FOLLOW THROUGH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE.
j ACTIONS (Continued) l +
Operations Human Performance Enhancement System (HPES) Program j .
Operations implemented the Human Performance Enhancement System (HPES) within the group in mid 1994. Currently one RO assigned to day staff provides full-time HPES support to the group.
This program has been very successful so far and many accomplishments by this function have been noted by management and by the overall group. This function has been very proactive in the
{ detection and prevention of human errors.
! + Full Time PIP Coordinator in OPS f 3 In mid 1994 Operations established a full time PIP Coordinator position within the group. This j
position has been staffed by a RO whose full time job is coordination and resolution of PIPS within j the Operations Group.
+ Weekly OPS Management PIP Review Meeting l
In addition to the full time PIP Coordinator, Operations Management conducts a weeldy PIP review j meeting. The PIP Coordinator along with the Operations Shperintendent and the three section managers weekly discuss PIPS generated by OPS, PIPS cleared by OPS, Overdue PIPS, PIPS needing i
' special management attention to resolve, and PIP trends. This has resulted in more effective and timely conective action implementation.
+ FPI Apparent Cause Training l
i .
During the last half of 1996, all managers, SROs and ROs in Operations will attend FPI Apparent i
Cause Training. This should allow those personnel responsible for PIP investigation and resolution l to perform a betterjob by using skills acquired in this training. ,
" slide 104 t
-m -w _ _ .-_e= _____.____--m..w=,,m..,.-. -
....--m.,...,......_,.--w_* ww.a.c_.,. - - . , .
! g l
n 4g "
OPERATIONS I
i AREAS OF PROGRESS 1
l + REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT
+ 288 Day Run Between Reactivity Management Events
, McGuire had a run of 288 days up to March 23,1996 since the last reactivity management event j
occurred. This event was due to a cooling of the letdown from the reactor coolant system. Power and
{ Tavg changes were minor and noticed by the operator well before any automatic alarms or actuations j occurred. Since March 23rd we have gone 219 days without any additional events (as of October i n 28th). This good performance can be attributed to a number ofimprovements that have been put in
- place over the past year. ,
l + Formation of Department and Site Reactivity Management Teams
- 3 Early in 1995 a comprehensive analysis of past reactivity management events was performed. This l analysis included a detailed review of reactivity management events and INPO SOER 94-02. The i
assessment recommended a broad range of corrective actions which were prioritized for timely impact on results. Several immediate actions were taken to address unintended boron dilutions (which had j been a problem): (1) list, review, and improve critical procedures involving reactivity management, and (2) require Operations Shift Managers /CR SROs to be directly involved in boron demineralizer i operations.
j .
In mid-1995 a Corporate Reactivity Management Team was formed to look at the reactivity
{ management problems which had recently been experienced at all three Duke plants. This team consisted of a broad cross-section of teammates from the General Office and sites that play a part in j reactivity management. The team benchmarked against some of the best plants in this area and in the j fall of 1995 finished their work. A final report was written that assigned various action items that needed to be accomplished at the sites to conform with the rewritten Nuclear System Directive on
) Reactivity Management. ,
l 4
M Lr sude 105 1'
_ , - _ , . , _ . _ . _ . - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ' - - " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ " ~ ' " ' - ' ' " " - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ' ~ ' " ' ~
] .
l 4
7@j e4 OPERATIONS
! AREAS OF PROGRESS .
+
REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT (Continued)
- + Formation of Department and Site Reactivity Management Teams (Continued) 1 A Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) Reactivity Management Team has been formed to provide a continuing broad oversight of reactivity management issues for all three sites. The McGuire i
Operations Superintendent is a member of this team. Each site has also formed a Site Reactivity lj Management Team to provide site specific oversight in this area. The Operations Superintendent is j the sponsor of this team and the Nuclear Engineering Supervisor is the team leader.
l . Some of the things that have been done at McGuire as a result of this overall effort include
- categorization and trending of all reactivity related PIPS, implementing SOER 91-01 (Infreque,'nt I
Tests) requirements for Zero Power Physics Testing, reactor startups and fuel reload evolutions, review of all site procedures to determine which have potential reactivity management implications, j requiring that reactor operators notify the control room SRO of any planned reactivity manipulations l (adding boric acid, water, rod movements, etc.), complete review and rewrite of Operations and i
Chemistry group procedure used for primary demineralizer control, etc.
j .
Although reactivity management has been a challenge in tije past, the Operations group showed good j operator response to the boron dilutions / lack of boric acid flow events 'that the station experienced
- early in late 1994karly 1995. This attention to reactor parameters showed the operators to be conservative in their operation of the units. In each event, the reactor operators promptly noticed the
( boron dilution / lack of flow and took manual action to add boric acid / insert control rods before any automatic actions occurred.
T wm Slide 106
- . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ ~ . , . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- --'~~~~"~~~~'~"~'~ " ~~ ~~~~~ ~
cGW 77ip -
.a m i OPERATIONS a AREAS OF PROGRESS .
+ REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT (Continued)
+ Fuel Handling Focus Special attention has been placed on fuel handling evolutions at McGuire as a result ofindustry lessons learned. For example, prior to the recent Unit I refueling outage, a special assessment was requested by the OPS Superintendent to look at a recent event that occurred at at another nuclear plant to determine if McGuire was susceptible to the same type event. Review of another recent event also resulted in McGuire assessing our procedures and management expectations regarding fuel handling. This assessment showed that while our procedures were generally in good shape, some improvements were needed to provide additional controls.
During the most recent Unit 2 refueling the Operations group increased the level ofinvolvement i of control room personnel in the fuel movement evolutions. A communication link was set up i
between the reactor group and control room Operator at the Controls (OATC). The OATC's permission was required prior to the movement of any assembly. The OATC monitored reactor parameters during the movement of each assembly to confirm no unusual responses and also kept up with assemblies in the core through the use of a core map. In addition, another RO was provided to the reactor group to be used as the second person controlling the refueling board and refueling communications between the fuel pool and containment.
We continue to focus strong assessments in the fuel handling area. A recent decision by NGD l management directed formation of a team to review fuel handling practices at all three Duke l nuclear sites. This team is being led by the McGuire Shift Operations Manager. The team is j
scheduled to begin work late this year. The scope of the team's review includes fuel handling organization, adequacy of current fuel handling equipment, use ofindustry operating experience
', and benchmarking, and training for fuel handling personnel. Results and recommendations from this team are expected during the first quarter of 1997. '
"ms M***m slide 107 I
)
GL.
uj OPERATIONS i
AREAS OF PROGRESS i
! +
t MISPOSITIONINGS
+ Station management has been agpssively addressing this issue since the fall of 1994.
l Mispositionings have been analyzed in detail. Some of them have been dealt with by direct corrective actions, such as the use of the Configuration Control Card (CCC) in Operations i
and the inclusion of placekeeping aids in Chemistry procedures.
+ Eleven Mispositioning Events in 1994, Four in 1995, Zero So Far in 1996
. In 1994 the site experienced eleven mispositioning events. This number was reduced to four in 1995 j
and so far there have been zero in 1996. It has been 318 days since the last mispositioning event j (through October 29th). Although not yet where we want to be in this area, we do feel that 1
i considerable progress has been made.
- + 5M Team (McGuire Monthly Manager Meeting on Mispositionings) To Manage Improvements Station Management has taken a strong role in the oversight of this problem. Under the leadership of i the Station Manager a team was formed in early 1995 consisting of the. Operations Superintendent,
! Maintenance Superintendent, Chemistry Manager, HPES Coordinator, and McGuire Safety Review l Group Manager. This team regularly meets to provide additional oversight to complement the
! individual group initiatives that are ongoing in Operations, Chemistry, and Maintenance. At each l
meeting the team reviews recently implemented corrective actions and any new mispositionings.
This team provides oversight in the continuing analysis of mispositioned components and reviews
- the effectiveness of the actions taken.
i 7.saur surr SUde 108 i
I 1
l l
1a OPERATIONS
\
{'
AREAS OF PROGRESS
+
MISPOSITIONINGS (Continued)
+
Detailed Methodology for Classifying Mispositionings l All mispositionings are reported and captured at McGuire. This includes items typically not regarded as mispositionings at other plants in the industry. For example, McGuire classifies l
valves found out of position coming out of a refueling outage as mispositionings, even though
' the equipment was out of service at the time. Three categories are used to classify mispositionings: Mispositioning Event, Mispositioning, and Mispositioning Near Miss. By i using a conservative threshold to capture all mispositioning related events we have been able to j
implement effective corrective actions to prevent occurrence of the most significant category-i i Mispositioning Events. Work continues to reduce and eliminate mispositionings that fall into
! the two less significant categories.
i l + Configuration Control Card (CCC) Program I
In 1995 Operations developed the Configuration Control Card Program. The CCC is an innovative tool to assist in maintaining configuration control of valves, switches, etc. in the j
plant. Configuration control is maintained by one of three methods: procedure, removal and i
restoration (R&R) program and CCC program. The CCC is used to document simple evolutions l that position components that do not require use of a procedure or R&R.
I i
i "ssum*m ra um Slide 109
. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' ' - ~ - - ' ~ ' " " ' ' ' ' ^ - ' - ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' ~ '
i
- e. ,
i <xy l 1g OPERATIONS
! AREAS OF PROGRESS i
~
+ MISPOSITIONINGS (Continued)
+ STAR (Self Checking) Improvement Plan In addition the Operations group has begun a project at this time to increase our effectiveness in the
' area of self checking. The OPS Superintendent saw w a receat trip to North Anna evidence that
' STAR can be more effective. Operations has developei a mc.re " animated" self checking standard similar to what was seen at North Anna. This has been rolled out to each shift and the recently j
formed Control Room Improvement Team (CRIT) will own and continue to develop the standards l associated with this program.
) + Human Error Reduction Training For All Operations Teammates By Failure Prevention
- Incorporated In addition, in 1995 Human Error Reduction training developed by FPI (Failure Prevention j
International) was given to many McGuire employees. Within Operations all operators attended.
j The training emphasizes and teaches errorreduction techniques. One,that the site is focusing on in j
Qualification, Validation and Verification (QV&V), or " questioning attitude". This in conjun.ction i
with self checking (STAR) can help provide an effective barrier against many of the
! mispositionings that we have experienced.
1 "passauEr mm slide 110
- . - . - . _ . _ - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4 i
- i
- cm -
! 'l "
OPERATIONS AREAS OF PROGRESS .
l
- 7 CONTROL BOARD MONITORING
- + Improved Control Board Monitoring Control board monitoring by the reactor operators continues to improve. Recent observations by internal and external observers indicates a greater level of attention being given to control room indications during normal and outage periods. Each shift has taken on monitoring as a challenge and positive results are being achieved.
. Recent examples of good board monitoring include:
RO noticed valve 2NV-1 A (Letdown Isolation) closing prior to receiving any control room alarms.
1 RO noticed residual heat removal valve out of proper position following completion of an engineering leak rate 4
1 test procedure. Had the plant changed modes with these valves out of position a tech spec violation would have
! resulted.
During the recent shutdown of Units I and 2 due to the EVCC battery problem, the Unit 1 RO identified a j control rod bank overlap problem within 2 steps of it occurring.
l . A Control Room Improvement Team (CRIT) has been formed to continue the advances that have been made in monitoring and professionalism in the control room. This team has already l benchmarked at Catawba and North Anna plants and is currently finalizing their first set of
- recommendations.
I e
"assrm e w rr slide 1I1 y
i .
I
___ _ _ _ _ . _ . , . . _ _ , - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - "-~~"- - - " ' ' ~ " ' " ~ " ~ ~ ~ '
i l
-(L i
i i.A. OPERATIONS AREAS OF PROGRESS -
I i
l + RISK ASSESSMENT OF ON-LINE MAINTENANCE i
l + Implemented PRA Based Risk Assessment Matrix l .
In 1995 a working group of station and general office support personnel developed a process to assess the risk involved with removal from service of multiple systems within a safety-related train. This assessment process was proceduralized in the Work Process Manual and employs the i principle of defense in depth. This PRA based risk assessment matrix was fully implemented at i McGuire in October 1995. The matrix is used primarily by Work Control and Operations personnel in controlling daily scheduled work.
l 3+ Developing Computer Based Risk Assessment Tool i
A computer based tool for on-line risk assessment is also being pursued for all three Duke sites and implementation is expected by the end of 1996.
l + Computer Based Risk Assessment (ORAM) Used for Outages l .
A computer based outage risk assessment tool (ORAM) ha,s been used for recent outages with l great success. '
i
! + System Work Window Implementation i .
This is discussed in a previous section of this presentation. The System Work Window concept
{ will enhance our On Line Risk Assessment Program.
)
". ".u m'" 5 " " " m siwe u2 i
- .__ _ _ _ __ _ ..._.m. - -- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~ ~ - - - " ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' - " ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
1
i i
l hg9j OPERATIONS 1
l AREAS OF PROG-RESS i
l
+ OPERATIONS HUMAN PERFORMANCE SECTION
! + Beginning in June of 1996, a new human performance section was formed within the l Operations group. The OPS Human Performance Section manager is an Operations Shift Manager (OSM) who was most recently the "A" Shift OSM. This manager position is set I up as a two year rotational position for OSMs. Reporting to this manager is the OPS l Quality Director, OPS PIP Coordinator and OPS HPES Evaluator. This new group is the l single point focus area within OPS concentrating on continued improvement of human l performance.
+
l As part of the manager's development plan in support of this new position, this manager
! on the recent INPO Startup, Simulator and 2 week E&A assessments of McGuire. This l manager fully assumed this new position on September 1,1996.
j i i
I "rassar surr Slide 113 i
i
c4 i i> et OPERATIONS
- 1
- AREAS OF PROGRESS i
! +
OPERATOR WORKAROUND PROGRAM 1 +
In January of 1994 the site developed the Top Equipment Problem Resolution (TEPR)
} process. The TEPR process included two areas: the Major Equipment Problem Resolution (MEPR) process and the Workaround Problem Resolution (WAPR) process.
j These two processes were owned by the Operations Superintendent and Electrical l Systems and Components Engineering Manager. Management from all major station-and engineering groups were named as part of the TEPR team. Listings of plant
! problems were developed for both the MEPR and WAPR processes. Over the course of I
4 i
two years many of the original problems on both lists have been resolved.
+
Earlier in 1996 a decision was made between the Operations groups at all three Duke sites to adopt a common operator workaround program. The OPS Work Process j
Managers from all three sites developed this program by taking the existing TEPR j
program and adding in elements of successful operator workaround programs that had been seen at other utilities. South Texas Project operat'or workaround program was used
{ primarily in this revision to our program. The new operator workaround program will do a betterjob of 1) performing aggregate assessment of operator workarounds and 2) l communicating workaround information to all operators and other plant personnel. This
, program was implemented earlier this summer.
I
- m. err Slide 114 i.
I
- - . . . . , _ , , . , , - , - , - - - - - - ~ , - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " " " ~ " ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ " ~ ~ ~
ppkl~9 7 OPERATIONS
~b AREAS OF PROGRESS . -
? OPERATIONS GROUP STAFFING
+ Over the past few years most "new hires" into the Operations group have come from Duke internal transfers. While these recent hires bring a wealth of experience with them (familiar with general Duke policies and procedures in addition to their particular technical area expertise), we believe that the "best" Operations group consists of a balance between personnel having this type of experience, Navy nuclear experience, and technical school training.
,+ Five Learners In 1995 (All Navy Nuclear Experienced)
In 1995 we hired five new learners from outside Duke. All five had recent Navy Nuclear experience (one with extensive nuclear training experience also).
+ Nine Learners in 1996 (Navy Nuclear Experienced)
For 1996 we have hired nine learners into the Operations group. Eight of these nine have Navy Nuclear experience, the remaining one has Navy experience combined with cogen plant operational experience.
T rassswr surr Slide 115
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s k
\
=nu /
j 14 OPERATIONS L
l i
AREAS OF PROGRESS i
+ OPERATIONS GROUP STAFFING (Continued)\
+
' We will continue to monitor the makeup of the Operations group over the coming years to maintain the optimum mix of technical backgroimds and skills.
j + Planning Rotation of Engineers With Site Engineering Division i
} .
In addition to new hires, we have an aggressive program with Engineering to move experienced engineers into Operations : gain a SRO and then function in a licensed position for a period of time 1 1 before moving back to the eineering organization. This has been discussed under the " Rotation and
! Development of Operations Staffing" section listed under the Strengths portion of this presentation.
i i
4 l
l f EEb Slide i16 i
I
. . . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ , . _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ~ " - ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' " ' ~ ~
I l
i GGRl i
y OPERATIONS CHALLENGES j t MISSED /NEARLY MISSED SURVEILLANCES i
+ Daily plant status meetings are being held at the beginning of each shift as discussed under l the " Operational Control and Interface with Station Work Activities" area. One of the items l discussed at these meetings is significant tech spec items. These are discussed to ensure that
[ responsible groups are aware of any time limitations or conditional surveillances which need
! to be performed.
- We have also reviewed missed tech spec surveillance events with our operators to ensure
{ understanding and sensitivity to the issue. In June 1995, Operations implemented a
- conditional surveillance tracking board that is used by the operators as an additional barrier
! i to prevent missed surveillances.
l + Over the past year we have also increased our emphasis on better coordination and scheduling of work activities that has helped to minimize the chance of challenging tech
) specs. This has helped prevent us from putting ourselves in a situation where a conditional i
i surveillance could be missed.
- j + In addition, in 1995 FPI International (FPI) completed an investigation of surveillance test i
failures at McGuire. The results and recommendations from this report were incorporated into our surveillance test program.
"sar ens surr Slide 117 4
. , . . . .,.._..-we.--.w,,.4--=~e- ==*==~*'*=w""*=-~~*"***='*** " - * " " " - * - ~ * " " - ~ " * ' - ~ ~ - ~ ~ -- ' ' ~
g.
ll y ,
OPERATIONS CHALLENGES l
l + MISSED /NEARLY MISSED SURVEILLANCES (Continued) l + Recent Run of 446 Days Since Last Missed TS Surveillance I
Recent history in the area of missed tech spec surveillances has been good. A run of 446 plus days without a missed surveillance ended earlier this year. In February of this year, we experienced a missed surveillance due to problems with the Operator Aid Computer (OAC).
Semi-daily surveillance is required to ensure that certain valves are in their proper positions.
The OAC experienced a failure that made valve position verification through the OAC invalid.
! The valve to be verified (2NI-178B) is normally deenergized, so use of the control board l indicating lights to determine position is invalid. The operators decided to use the BOP panel I
- (monitor light panel) to determine valve position. The next operating shift discovered that for this particular valve position indication through the BOP panel is not valid. Once this was j known then the OAC (having been repaired) was then used to verify valve position. Lessons a
learned from this event will be incorporated into our program to prevent similar events from
{ recurring.
i i *
"ssarrusuYm pa ourr shde 118
i l . .
- m l
3 OPERATIONS CHALLENGES i
l -
l + MISSED /NEARLY MISSED SURVEILLANCES (Continued) j . We also missed a surveillance in March of this year associated with verification of the Waste Gas Decay Tank activity level. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> sampling frequency was exceeded by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes due to inadequate work practices by the Radiation Protection shift team. Corrective actions included providing a more detailed procedure detailing acceptable time ranges for j performing tech spec /SLC commitments and communicating the event along with the procedure j change to the shift teams.
j . Since this last missed surveillance we have run 232 days (as of October 29th) without another
, Developing Trend in Missed /Nearly Missed Conditional Surveillances I
! . Over the past year we have noticed a developing trend of nearly missed conditional surveillances.
l Three examples have been seen in this area:
! . Near miss on vital power verification on Unit 2 prior to entering mode 6 during the most recent refueling
- outage
. . Near miss on running the opposite emergency diesel gener,ator during a problem with the nuclear service l water system that we believed rendered one emergency diesel inoperable (later was determined to not be moperable)
. Missed SLC commitment relating to an inoperable composite sampler compre ensiv ass s ent of e e events has been rformed at the e tof pe ti ns management by the McGuire Safety Review Group. Recommendations from this assessment are being reviewed and finalized at this time.
t "Ed emr ruse w.prr Slide 119
,---,....w-..,.%---e-,.%%--,--. em.mm.3.--.w.-%%.,,-w---me,-%w,wn-.~,-%mw,w.-,.v.www,,n.,-,
t i
l JessiL T]3 OPERATIONS CHALLENGES
+ EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP
! + Tagging Program
! . The Operations group owns and controls the site's tagging program. Two major efforts were recently j accomplished in support of this program.
- . A Block Tagout Team developed a new program for use during outages. The team was led by Operations and included members from all involved groups (Maintenance, Work Control and l Operations) to ensure that the final product would work to support the entire site. This project was j completed and a new block tagout program put in place in the fall of 1995. The new process was used
, in the most recent Unit I refueling outage and overall was a great improvement over the previous l process. A Continuous Improvement Team (CIT) was formed after the Unit 1 outage and this team
! t looked at the process and made further improvements for the Unit 2 outage in April of 1996.
! . A Tagging Assessment Team also was formed in 1995 to review all tagging processes used by groups at i McGuire (except for the Block Tagout Process). This team was led by Operations and included l members from Operations, Maintenance, and Chemistry. With input from the 1995 INPO E&A l observations and other self assessments, the tagging program was modified to achieve standards j commensurate with the industry leaders. The assessment was completed June 1995 and at that time a decision was made by the three Duke sites Operations Superintendents to implement this program at all
] three sites. A small team facilitated by the General Office was charged in the summer of 1995 with l revising our Nuclear System Directive that covered tagging to meet the new standards which had been
- established at McGuire This team met through the fall and developed a more prescriptive directive that
- were implemented at all three sites on March 31,1996. The Operations groups will continue to own the 4
program at all three sites and will be responsible for periodically assessing how well other site pups are adhering to the new program. ,
"'#"EE"
,uss wr stide 120
.. ..s..--..w--m-~,,--....-.w.------w.-=--- -- --.w.--,,--,--v..-w. we--- - . - - --,,~v.-+-ww---**
~
i i
i 1
N. ,w h - .
' Ef,1
!. 3 .
OPERATIONS CHALLENGES
+ EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP (Continued) l .
Some areas for improvement are still evident in this area though. Two events this year indicate that j
continued attention is needed in this area. One event occurred when a switchyard CT was not properly I isolated resulting in loss of one offsite power source during a severe storm that occurred while j maintenance was in progress on this CT. The second event occurred when assured source valves to the auxiliary feedwater system opened during a block tagout during the refueling outage due to a deficient i block tagout procedure. Corrective actions for these two events have been put in place and the OPS l group continues to closely trend the performance of the tagging program.
+ Equipment Ownership Directive Earlier this year the Operations group developed a comprehensive equipment owr.ership directive for
! I the site. The Operations group owns all site equipment and delegates operational ownership to certain j site groups (for example, Chemistry operates radwaste equipment). The development of the directive
! has clarified many long standing operational agreements made over the years and has provided a single i source document that can be used to determine operational ownership responsibilities. A Continuous Improvement Team (CIT) led by Operations has been formed to continue to review the adequacy of this new directive and resolve any discrepancies that are discovered. "
i 1
4 i
?
"rasse n m. err slide 121
i l
! a f I
- 3 OPERATIONS CHALLENGES
+ 50.72/50.73 REPORTING
+
Over the past year several examples have been noted relating to improper 50.72/50.73 j reporting. Three events have occurred:
l .
In February of this year an inadvertent manual feedwater isolation signal was generated. The control room SRO incorrectly determined that this event was not reportable. Later in the shift a l review by the Operations Shift Manager (OSM) determined this was reportable.
i .
In February of this year a failure of a component cooling pump bearing caused tech spec 3.0.3 to be j
emered due to the other train of component cooling already being out of service due to planned j maintenance. The control room failed to properly report this entry into TS 3.0.3.
1 i .
In June of this year a problem occurred in that a reactor trip breaker would not trip electrically j
during testing. Confusion existed over reportability of this event. Initially the event was reported and then later retracted based on the specific conditions outlined in the operating license.
+
Each of these events was reviewed and corrective actions put in place to prevent recurrence.
Corrective actions included: ,
Requiring the Operations Shift Manager (OSM) to be involved anytime there is a reportability' j determination to be made.
t j .
Modifying reportability procedure to clarify when reporting is required.
. Communicating these events to involved personnel as lessons learned. '
l i
t "rasserr b slide 122
- - - . - - _ - - . . - , . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -- ~'~~~~ ~ " ~ ~~~^~'~ ~~ ~ ~~
i i
, ~ -
l a#Bgi
! 'l J/ OPERATIONS CHALLENGES 1
+
50.72/50.73 REPORTING (Continued) .
+
We are closely monitoring this area to ensure that corrective actions put in place are effective.
+ Some recent examples of proper reporting include:
In June of this year the site entered and properly reported an unusual event due to inoperability of
- both diesel generators on Unit 1.
i .
In October this year both units were shut down in accordance with tech specs due to EVCC battery j ,
inoperability. This tech spec required shutdown was properly reported for both units.
! I I
j '
I i
i EWmm Slide 123 i,
1 i
~
i tNuW 1
1 aY ...
OPERATIONS CHALLENGES 1
i l +
HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS IN IMPLEMENTING APs/EPs i +
In our most recent INPO E&A in August of this year, a finding in the OPS area j was identified associated with errors in implementing APs and EPs in the simulator. The fm' ding centered around the human performance aspect of l implementation errors. INPO noted that our overall procedure quality was good l and our expectations for procedure usage and adherence were clear and understood by all operators. Even with good quality procedures and clear usage / adherence expectations, our operators were noted as occasionally making
, , mistakes in using APs and EPs in the simulator. These mistakes were ultimately
- caught and corrected by each crew, but in many instances the mistakes could l have been prevented or caught earlier once they were made.
t enssswr surr Slide 124
.- _ _ . . - . - . . - . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ' ~ ' - * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1 ,
1
, . . sg i
- ##@#/
INON Ll3i OPERATIONS CHALLENGES 1
1 i j +
HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS IN IMPLEMENTING APs/EPs (Continued) l +
We have developed an action plan to address this concern. This plan centers around the j following:
I .
Develop and reinforce peer-checking techniques for operators that will focus on detecting errors in implementing APs and EPs.
j .
Develop and implement an effective aggregate performance review process. This aggregate review will j consider the following documents and data:
l .
simulator observations forms from operations management
{ .
instructor notes from simulator observations
] 1 . individual performance assessment forms
'l . unresolved issue forms
{
. procedure change requests The results of these reviews will be used to identify common crew performance problems that need to j be addressed through additional training or other follow-on actions.
j .
Effectively resolve unclear and confusing procedure issues by the following actions:
! . Lower the threshold for problem identification f .
Track and monitor change requests for timely resolution j .
Evaluate procedure change effectiveness through observations and feedback i l These actions will be completed by July 1997.
i l
1 M sorr Slide 125
_ - - - - - - - - ' " ~ " " " ' _
,,,y,eomK1.4 4M" M M #'
I
"; )
I -
i t
i 3
- A 5
, =
1 l
1 5
4 m . . . . - . - - _ _ , . - _ . _ - . . _ _ , , . - . , . _ , , . . , . . . _ _ _ . -
l l 4%
I i
i i 2- p i a MAISTENANCE TABLE OF CO:NTENTS i
~
+ STRENGTHS
+ OUTAGE PERFORMANCE l + MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
} + MAINTENANCE EXECUTION j +
PROCEDURE QUALITY j . CORRECTIVE ACTIONS j + BENCHMARKING l +
USE OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
+ SELF ASSESSMENTS 1
l + AREAS OF PROGRESS l .
HOUSEKEEPING / MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM j .
CONTROL ROOM " BLACK BOARD" QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT i +
! . HUMAN PERFORMANCE WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT j + CHALLENGES j +
WORK CONTROL CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
+ MAINTENANCE RULE 3
+ WELDING PROGRAM i M mm Slide 127 i
_ _ , , , , , _ _ , _ . . ~ . , . _ , - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ' - ' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ' - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i l
l -#GWr,,
"7 9 3
MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
+ OUTAGE PERFORMANCE l + Significant improvements in outage performance were achieved in the following areas:
i i .
Zero LER events during Unit I and Unit 2 EOC09 and Unit I and Unit 2 EOC10 outages 2EOC09 set a record for McGuire with a duration of 48 days IEOC10 set a record for McGuire with a duration of 42.7 days 2EOC10 set a record for McGuire with a duration of 39.5 days I . Significant reduction in the number of Maintenance personnel injuries
. Unit 1 EOC09 outage -4 injures
- . Unit 2 EOC09 outage - 3 injuries I
. Unit 1 EOC10 outage- 0 injuries i . Unit 2 EOC10 outage - 0 injuries
} . Unit 1 EOC10 set a dose record of 128 REM i . Unit 2 EOC10 set a dose record of 127 REM
. Completed 18 of 18 pre-outage milestones on time ' -
l + We have made major improvements in outage performance during this SALP period. We j reduced events to zero, had zero personnel injuries and at the same time shonened outage
{ durations. We will challenge ourselves to continue to make major improvements in these
- areas for upcoming outages. Our sights are clearly focused on World Class outage
- performance.
! "M ,per slide 128 i
i 4
l d-W *"
- W T 7 WettN'M"SI'* WM****'Y"Y***M' 'W * '
I Afb
', LP MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS i
l + OUTAGE PERFORMANCE (Continued) j + Pre-Outage Planning i .
The Maintenance Activity Planning Packages (MAPP's) are a communication tool between the outage
! job sponsor and the non-site Maintenance Execution teams (as well as some site teams). It is the
) expectation of the job sponsor's management that non-site teams execute the outage activities to the
! same standards as site teams. Therefore the MAPP's are an integral and significant part of communicating detailed expectations to the non-site teams.
MAPP's are developed for outage activities such as Turbine, Ice Condenser, Heat Exchanger, l Erosion / Corrosion, Steam Generator and Lead Shielding.
I 1 .
There is no " standard" MAPP. In general MAPP's provide detailed: job overview, safety concerns,
! success measures, site maintenance procedures, ALARA, work force organization, spare parts /
}
' consumables expected, and schedule. As each outagejob has different areas of significance, so does f
each MAPP.
i .
The copy of the MAPP is provided to each non-site team. The team members are expected to use the i MAPP as a resource in performing their work activities. This allows th'e team to quickly resolve j detailed questions about their work throughout the outage. By resolving questions with the MAPP, i
the job sponsor is allowed to devote more time to outage work management oversight, risk l assessment, safety, work quality, and emergent issues.
In addition, during development of the MAPP, the job sponsor thinks through the work scope and l associated processes. Therefore, the MAPP development lends itself to better detailed planning and i scheduling of the outage activities.
9 '
k cessen unr slide 129 I
- _ , _ . , . . _ - _ _ _ . , - - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ' - ~ ' " - ~ ~ - - - ' - ' " ' ~ ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ - ~ - - - " - ' ' " - - ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' "
./ ,
i cm - ,
j i }',M MAINTENAlVCE STRENGTHS j + OUTAGE PERFORMANCE (Continued)
+ Highly skilled / experienced / motivated work force The McGuire Maintenance team is fortunate to have a highly skilled work force with many years of j experience. Motivation and teamwork are a strength. Recent organizational changes have been made to better utilize the expertise of the maintenance team. Some examples are:
Valve support team - provide outage preparation and planning, coordinate activities, and supplement
)
innage tech support
- . Consolidation of teams that support major electrical work Staffing SPOC crews with the proper balance of Mechanical and I&C techs to support routine and
! minormaintenance activities l +t Training / Qualification Management is committed to providing the resources for quality training. We have recently made i
significant improvements to training facilities.
Permanently installed presentation projection systems in Classrooms 3 and 5 in Bldg. 7419 to provide means for presenting training developed in MS Powerpoint and other applications.
Built the MNS Training Flow Loop. This " plant-like" mock u'p utilizes instrumentation, piping and supports, electrical components, pumps, valves like that in the plant and provides a training environment that models the plant. Trainees are able to work in a simulated "on-line" situation which is extremely valuable for OJT.
l .
Developed and built the Star Simulator. This device is used to improve self-checking performance techniques
- in the plant.
Added multiple training aids to enhance laboratory areas. These included: Limitorque actuators, pneumatic actuators, butterfly valve with adjustable seats, specialty tools, (e.g.., EFCO In-Line Re-Seating Tool, GRITS Vacuum Tester for relief valves), relief valve test bench, wire-fed welding machine, and portable instrument l loop trainers.
I "rusar surr slide 130
'+=
. _ _ , , ~ . _ _ . _ . _ _ - - - - - - . - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - " - " " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' - " ' ~ ~ "
4 i
. .i1 I, !
! < l MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS 4
4 MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
+ Conservative Risk Assessment
. The Maintenance Risk Assessment program is designed to reduce human error and is in addition to our l PRA daily processes.
i i . Management reviews the upcoming schedule to identify items that fall in the medium to high risk j category either from a nuclear safety viewpoint or from a personnel safety viewpoint. A list of typical jobs that are considered high to medium risk has been developed. Management expectations for j medium to high riskjobs have been developed and communicated. These include the following:
l . Perform a pre-job briefing j i . Ensure nuclear safety
- . Develop contingency plans
. Increased field involvement by manager / supervisor
. Ensure adequate technical oversight
! . Ensure personnel safety j . Ensure good communication including interface with Operatibns ,
j . Ensure qualified personnel are assigned to execute the job
. Ensure adequate and thorough job turnover when turnover is necessary
- . Continuously evaluate Fitness For Duty i . Conduct post-job briefing / critique I
f rassext fuser slide 131 i
5 i - .-.._...- - ..- - -- -..-.. _ - . - .- _ -....~.. - -.-- ---..---- -- -- --- ----
i i .
O, %.
_ b .-
MAINTElVANCE STRENGTHS 1 -
i
! + MANAGEMENT OVFRSIGHT (Continued)
I
- + Conservative Risk Assessment (Continued) l . A formal Maintenance Daily Risk Assessment / Management Focus Report is distributed to all j Maintenance supervisors each morning. Risk codes identify each medium /high risk task as follows:
I l AV - Availability FM - Foreign Mat. Exclusion TS - Tech Spec i CE - Complex Evolutions MG - Multiple Group UT- Unit Trip Potential j CH- Chemical Hazard NR - Non-Routine Activity UW - Unqual Workers j i CI- Cont. Integrity PC - Procedure Concern VE - Annulus Entry CM - Comp. Mispositioning RH - Radiological Hazard WT- Wrong Train
. CW - Contract Work RM - Reactivity Management WU - Wrong Unit ES - Eng. Safeguards SA - Safety Standard Contingency Plans have been developed to assist the superviso,r in hazard communication, prevention, and emergency response / preparedness. Examples of standard contingency plans include fire / explosion, chemical spill, chemical exposure, FME events, steam release and reactivity management
, evens.
t "enzsswr norr slide 132
_. _ .__ _ -. _. _ ._ _ ._. _ _ _ _ _. _ .. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - ---- . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _
i 1
. m 42g., ,
1 me .et EF p MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS I
~
i j + MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT (Continued) l + Morning Management Meetings l . Line managers meet briefly at the beginning of each work day to ensure the following:
l . Each day begins with discussion of a relevant personnel safety topic l
. Status of priority work from the previous day's schedule is reviewed j . Emergent plant issues and concerns are discussed I . Priority work on the current day's schedule is reviewed
. Medium to high risk jobs are identified and discussed
. Items in Tech Specs with time restraints are discussed l 3
. During outages, outage status is discussed
! . Any procedures or procedure changes needing approval are discussed and approved
) . PIP items are assigned for follow-up
, . Discuss emergent OE items and assign follow-up l
l '
l l
noisrnsmoaONNE
- rassurusai.nasurr Slide 133
[
.%.,e.,.-.=--- r==w %e-e.3-wewwa-w+s-* **=1,ew--m=we-eeuw-=*-m'a*=w'-"===**"--- -- ""****"'""*""""*"'"#*"'******' *~ '
t ,
! -a
- g n"[1p '
i MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS i
i +
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT (Continued) !
+ Strong Emphasis On Personnel Safety Major improvements in employee personal safety have been achieved over the past year. Every day l begins with a focus on personal safety. Our Safety Improvement Plan includes:
l . A vision of zero injuries by 1998 l . Safety Guiding Principles that will allow us to achieve our vision.
l .
A detailed Safe Work Practices Manual '
l . Employee involvement through Safe Teams A safety assessment process that involves every employee
. Ongoing recognition for good safety performance Duty Safety Manager (weekly) who observes all daily maintenance activities.
j
. Maintenance has completed approximately 600 consecutive days without recordable injury.
l Approximately 1.25M work-hours.
l 30 _ 26 BINJURIES I 17 '
i 20 -
- 10 - 3 3
0 i 0 i i
" i i r
1993 1994 1995 1996 l
(YTD) -
i "M purr Slide 134 m
'. . . . - . - . - - . - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ '
I a.
d!C. 3 e
. 1u MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS I ;
1 i
l +
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT (Continued) j + Enhanced Work Process Measures l .
Improvements made to weekly work process measures has enabled better management awareness and j tracking of key measures. The following reductions have been realized over the past year-Control Room Indicators (CRIPS) have been reduced to an average of 2 innage CRIPS and 20 outage CRIPS.
! . Corrective Work Order Inventory has been reduced from 1250 to 420 Work Orders.
t i .
Work Orders on HOLD-Maintenance has been reduced from 60 to 0.
} .
Tech Spec surveillance completed without use of grace period increased from 70% to 91%.
j .
Peduced the number of overdue PM's from 30 to 0.
i 011y 3 Work Orders older than 1 year and only 19 older than 180 days.
1 l + Quality Irnprovement Process The Quality Improvement Process continues to be a strength that is encouraging ongoing l improvements. All employees are involved in identifying and in implementing quality improvement -
l' ideas. Quality Improvement Projects receive strong support from management. Management is highly involved through Steering Committees that function'to sponsor specific projects.
4 i
I i
l "rarNm myrr Slide 135 -
}
. . - , - . _ - . ~ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' - ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' " ' - - - - ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ^ ' ~' ~~
u :$
cGil
' bi (
f l
, MAIlNTENANCE STRENGTHS
) +
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT (Continued)
I j + Management Monitoring of On-The-Job Training / Evaluation Maintenance has made a strong commitment to monitor OJT and OJE training / evaluation. The ETQS group now works with management to schedule upcoming training and evaluation sessions.
This increased partnership between management and training is having a marked impact on the i Maintenance Training Program. There is no longer any question about the ownership and i
commitment to training from line management.
I .
Management Involvement in Training - Maintenance management has made a significant commitment to involvement with training. This includes providing leadership for the Training Program Review Committee. Also, Maintenance management is very involved with monitoring l training to ensure overall effectiveness. This area was recognized as a Maintenance Strength in I
l the 1996 INPO E&A Revised T&Q Guides to include FME precautions.
j .
Revised numerous procedures to correct deficiencies observed during performance of OJT/TPE.
Revised T&Q Guides to include Operational Experience.
Provided OJT/TPE refresher training based on managemen,t feedback.
j .
1996 YTD Monitoring for OJT is 86% and Task Performance Evaluation (TPE)is 92%.
+ Control Of Contractors Significant improvements have been made in the control of contractors by establishment of a Site Sponsor program. Detailed administrative guidance on controlling vendor activities is included in i Nuclear System Directive (NSD) 105, Control of Non-Assigned Individuals and Organizations. All Site Sponsors are required to attend specialized training on this directive.
+
This area was recognized as a Maintenance Strength in the 1996 INPO E&,A ransswr s w r- slide 136 i
1 i
.,,w,---,,n-- - , - - , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""*'*'*""*'~'" ~ ' ~ ~ ~'~ ~~
a i 8ANL97% of this schedule. This area was recognized as a i
Maintenance Strength in the 1996 INPO E&A..
! + Multi-Discipline Work Teams I .
Six functional areas have been modified to include both Mechanical anii Electrical /I&C skilled I
employees: HVAC, Motor Operated Valves, Rotating Equipment, Cranes, Predictive Maintenance, and SPOC. This approach has resulted in reducing hand-offs, improving communications, increasing single point accountability and increasing schedule efficiency. Cross training has been j
taking place during this SALP period to move the teams toward becoming multi-skilled.
4 3
i '
f reason b slide 137 I
i
_ . . - _ _ _ . . . _ _ ~ _ _ . . _ , _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ , . . . _ , _ _ - , , . . _ _ , _ , , _ - , _ , , , , , , - - ,
d
- ~ p i l MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS ~
l
+
MAINTENANCE EXECUTION (Continued)
- + Inter-Site Resource Sharing
. This practice is normally used during outages to provide extra support in critical areas such as
' plant protection and control (SSPS,7300), where outside vendor support is very limited. Some realized benefits are:
I Outage schedule achieved with a smaller permanently assigned workforce Increa2d knowledge and experience of technicians i
Work quality enhanced by improved consistency of procedures and work practices between sites 1
. Exposure to other stations resulting in sharing ofinformation and lessons learned i
j -
i i
i i ,
russsur surr slide 138 v
,,,,,,,-,e.=.-w--w=~=e"'***"""*"'
E ,
N3 MAllNTENANCE STRENGTHS 9 MAINTENANCE EXECUTION (Continued)
+ Rework Assessment Program:
3 Maintenance Rework is defined as repeat work created as a result ofinadequate or inappropriate l maintenance performed more than once in a 90 day period.
j .
This program provides guidance to the Maintenance organization in identifying, determining,
{ tracking and resolving maintenance, planning, and procedure related rework. It defines the roles j
' and responsibilities of maintenance management, supervision, planning supervisor, procedure supervisor, rework coordinator and PIP coordinator concerning the timely review and resolution of all rework items.
j I
This program was recognized as a Maintenance strength in the 1996 INPO E&A.
i i
Maintenance Rework 80 - 64 60 - 38 40 - 20 t
20 - 11 0 i i N i
- i 1993 1994 1995 1996 rasssur b slide 139
,6W%**"**'N'**"*N"" 'r W '
, _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ .,,,-,-- - ~ - - -
l l
\
. gf%, ..
! r"T MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
- + MAINTENANCE EXECUTION (Continued)
+ MinorMaintenance j .
This progam allows maintenance personnel to perform a variety of tasks utilizing the Work Request rather than i
a Work Order. These are tasks which:
Do not require Operations or Chemistry " clearance to begin work"
. Will be performed by the Maintenance organization
. Conform to the guidelines of Work Process Manual Section 400
. The criteria for determining which tasks are considered Minor Maintenance includes:
Minor Maintenance shall NQT_ affect the ability of safety related components to operate as designed.
Disassembly of a safety related component is HQ1 a minor maintenance activity.
} . He task does not affect any Control Room indications.
j .
The consequences of personnel error are minimal and pose no nuclear safety impacts and little potential for operational i
- tnnsients, high radiation exposure, personnel injury, equipment damage.
De task is not complex and does not involve a large number number of actions where step by step instmctions, post Maintenance testing, and detailed planning and scheduling would be required.
) .
He task can be performed utilizing skills normally possessed by technicians obtained from a formal training progrant
! <800 l <700 -- MINOR MNT Planning Centers E;:::) Actual / Month j7 Trendline WeeklyTrend,1996
_u_ gg,,<g4g l, <400 -. lgg g , gco g - -
= =-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
j
- !! Lllllllll,,IllllllIHmIn m
W c i.
o
.ii .i.. i ..i4 i i i iii M N - O m N c m M Q -
4 E B E B c E B E c R cn E i c E w c o 3 n m m a - o 5 rasserr mwr Slide 140 I
. _ . . _ . . _ . . _ - - , _ . - - . , - - - - , - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - + - - - ' ~ ' - " " - ' ' ' ' " ' ' " ~ - - ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
)
ii I nan j
!i Y MAINTElNANCE STRENGTHS I
i l t PROCEDURE QUALITY
+ Procedure Validation j .
One of the McGuire human performance projects initiated in 1994 was the development and j implementation of Procedure Validation Guide. Prior to this time, McGuire did not have consistent
! site guidance on procedure validation. The new Validation Guide defines validation policy, defines
] responsibilities and establishes a consistent validation process. Part of this policy was to provide appropriate training to those involved in the validation process. All training for initial implementation j
has been completed. The Procedure Validation Guide became effective for all site groups on 6/1/95.
j Unless exempted by management, all new or extensively revised procedures are to be validated.
I l .
Since implementation, validation is making a positive contribution to improving procedure quality and i
usability. Validation is being scheduled to ensure adequate resources are available. Procedure users are actively involved in validating procedures. Methods of validation include in-plant walk through, mock-up, actual use, and table top. A checklist is used as a memory aid to ensure consistency.
I Validation activity is tracked via the procedure database.
i I
i l
passe n arrr '
slide 141
i i
f [.
j MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
+ PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued) l + Procedure Single Point of Contact (SPOC)
Maintenance implemented the concept of Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for procedure changes.
j This has helped Maintenance maintain the number of outstanding procedure discrepancies below our goal. Very positive feedback has also been received from our technicians regarding the timeliness of i
procedure changes. In addition, the Maintenance Superintendent and line managers worked together
] to form a Procedure Review Committee (PRC). Each morning at the conclusion of the' morning i status meeting, the PRC reviews / approves new procedures and procedure changes. This prevents a j
backlog of procedures or changes awaiting approval. This also keeps the management team aware of t '
l changes that affect the Maintenance group.
l .
Significant improvement in procedure adherence has been achieved by implementation of NGD l Directive NSD 704, Technical Procedure Use and Adherence, and through strong management focus
} on this area. A significant improvement in procedure quality has been achieved by encouraging
, employees to identify procedure problems and by establishing a process to quickly resolve these problems. This process includes a procedure SPOC (Single-Point-Of-Contact) who quickly resolves
- the problem.
. Maintenance is also improving its process for procedure validation and making a stronger i
commitment to fix problems prior to procedures being approved for use. -
l i
l I
I ruserr err slide 142 '
i +
t
~-., --.4..--o ,. . - .---,,,.....w.,-..,-,,,--...,....,....._-....~--.,--_,,--....-----.-,~---.~_.-----.------~,--. -,-.-i----,-,-...---,-
l 4d8$719%
i
. ? 3 ,'
72a * ^
l l
MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
! ? PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued)
+ Procedure Single Point of Contact (SPOC) (Continued)
IAE Procedure Discrepancy Status i
180 -
l , 160 -
! $ 140 -
3 120
[ 100 f
! I o 80
! $ 60 b 40 i
I s ..
$$$$$$$55$$$$$$$$$$
1 # 'r- r.d,
, L 4
<i s oi as<,R i <t s oea s< ,t i <t s oea s<, t i <t E Compieted Discrepancies a Current Discrepancies a New Discrepancies .
End of Month Status i
i norr Slide 143
____.__ _ _...__ _ _ _ __ ____.,.__,,_ .__ _ _. __ _ ____..,__ _ __.__.__,.___._,.__ _ ___._._.._ _ _. _.,_._..._.m..~.-..-.__...,_.,__
- # sky ..
i
,, . .n.
- 11 MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS .
i i l l; + ,
PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued) j + Procedure Single Point of Contact (SPOC) (Continued) i l
- MECHANICAL Procedure Discrepancy Status j 180 -
l g 160 -
5 140 -
o
- 8 120 -
1M-I l o M-E~
i E e.
-I.lt fh4- hkIf d t k il 1i 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 : 6 d E E 6 +: 6 d E E 6 : d B E E 6 2 88 eR8 R d82 %8 2 6 8 2 %8 R '
End of Month Status OCompleted Discrepancies OCurrent Discrepancies i
b M mm s w 144 l
i i
E t b f N!
A i
MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS j ..
j t PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued) l +
Commitment Control i
. NRC and INPO commitments and Operating Experiences are incorporated into station maintenance l procedures as footnotes and references to ensure that this important information is available to j maintenance craft and work planners. NRC and INPO commitments, industry, utility, and station I
operating experiences are reviewed and appropriately incorporated into maintenance procedure steps.
i These procedure steps are annotated by footnotes directed to references in the front of the procedure
) : that specify the originating documents. Administrative controls prevent this reference information
! from being removed from the procedures without appropriate reviews. When work planners or i
procedure users require further information to help them make more-informed decisions, they are able I
j to identify and obtain the originating documents.
+ McGuire Procedure Scheduling Process -
l
- . The Maintenance Procedure group has recently adopted PLAN for scheduling the flow process of all l MNS Maintenance procedures, both I&E and Mechanical. This process allows each person in the j '
review and approval process to be informed of scheduled pr'ocedures needing their attention and the timetable for completing the work.
. The Site Specific Maintenance Procedures are currently undergoing a major conversion from j Wordperfect to Word 6.0. This is improving the procedure quality for use in the field.
4 i
g PRESMTASALPitMPFT Sljde j4$
i,wm,-ms. -,w-,..,,,-,-.-v. - _ . _ _ --_,,..-,_,.._,,,..,,.n.,,.. .,_,,,,--._.,.,,,,,.....w,_,...-,,w..... _
..%-,,-,---+~*e,s---v,v,,-,w-,,,, - . , -
i l
{ -
, .: a:n E~ 8 i
i 7
.~
MAI3TENANCE STRENGTHS I
i
! + PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued)
+ NGD Standard Procedure Project
{
j .
The purpose of the Standard Procedure Project is to develop technically accerate, consistent, user-
! friendly procedures related to operation and maintenance of power generation facilities and
} associated equipment. Currently Maintenance at McGuire has assisted in developing a total of 70 Standard Procedures. The project goal is to develop 130 Standard Procedures by the end of 1996.
i As of 10/22/96, 81 Standard Procedures have been approved,17 are in final review and approval i process, and 36 are being reviewed by the sites. Another advantage of Standard Procedures is that l it enables ESS and contract employees who work during outages at all Duke Power Co. Nuclear I
{ sites to be familiar with one procedure rather than three. This will improve their understanding of j our expectations and enhance the quality and consistency of their work at all three nuclear sites.
j McGuire has received positive feedback on Standard Procedures being used in the Steam Generator i
and Reactor Coolant Pump Maintenance areas. Workers performing tasks in these areas had 1
identified different methods of task completion which were confusing and required additional
{ training and technical oversight to ensure consistent quality. In addition, the physical size of the l RCP procedures were reduced by deletion of repetitive steps. These Standard Procedures have reduced human performance problems resulting from station-to-station inconsistencies. ~
j k
\
"d ,prr slide 146
t i
- $ke i
1
- 3 ? MABTENANCE STRENGTHS i
1
+
PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued) l + NGD Standard Procedure Project (Continued)
Standard Procedures will be developed as an aid for meeting expectations of quality job performance.
l Standard Procedures will promote our competitive advantage in a changing workplace by enabling us
! to:
. Focus attention on work process standardization.
- . Support a consistent approach to job quality.
f .
Reduce duplicate work that is performed at multiple sites related to procedure development, maintenance and y periodic reviews.
j .
Reduce number of procedure changes that are submitted due to personal preferences.
} . Review procedure changes for value added considerations.
Promote greater use of experienced resources both internally and externally.
Enhance ability to swap resources internally.
Implement a high level procedure standard which combir.c3 newly defined teyt and graphic standards.
) .
Eliminate human factor errors resulting from inconsistent guidance between sites for support personnel traveling 4
station-to-station.
l
+ This area will be assessed at the end of 1996 to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard l
procedures.
l
+ Procedure Quality was recognized as a Maintenance Strength in the 1995 INPO E&A '
arrr Slide 147
,,,.,,,._,..-m..-------- - ~ ~~-*=~~ ~ - ~ "'*""'"" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '-
i a
t i .
a 1
. osal m:t
'LF MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS i
i
) .
- +
PROCEDURE QUALITY (Continued)
) + NGD Standard Procedure Project (Continued) g 120 -. 1996 STANDARD PROCEDURE STATUS l 5100-- 10/23/96 8 79 81 2 80 -
0- 63 1 o 60 -- 58 51 0 1 1 i i i i i i i i : i E E $ $ $ $ $ $ 'E o
$ ,$ i a 2 i
2 k '
88 w
s O s$
z $
a i
' End of Month Status E Procedures Approved mserr m.m Slide 148
_ _..__ ________._ _ . _ _ __ __.____._______ _ ______ ____ ______.__ _ .~.. _ ,_ __... _ _. _ .
[
4 ,.
l .
c_G..u_i
3 aJw MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
{ ..
1 I
! + CORRECTIVE ACTIONS - Follow Tlirougli and Implementation
+
For the past three years (1994,1995,1996), Maintenance has succeeded in preventing any assigned PIP from going past the due date. The number of PIP's generated has significantly 1
increased as the PIP program has matured over the last four years. In 1992, the Maintenance group generated 53 PIP's, compared to 1995 where Maintenance generated a total of 600
! PIP's.
l +
As of 10/22/96, Maintenance has generated 600 PIP's in 1996. By increasing the number of j , problems that have been identified, we increase the number of problems being corrected and/or resolved.
- +
The significance of corrective actions has decreased over the past three years. In 1994 j Maintenance had 8 MSE (more significant) work practice related PIP's, in 1995 Maintenance had 7 MSE's and YTD 1996 Maintenance has had 1,MSE.
l l "asssu Er
, xtrr sude 149
[
_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ . . - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " ~ '~'
)
! YL i
- uxs g
!' i.xfx MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS i -
l I
+ BENCHMARKING
+ Benchmarking is an important tool we have been utilizing to compare our standards and l
l practices with other nuclear stations that have excellent performance records. We are l aggressively obtaining as much information as possible to enable us to improve our j performance in the most effective way. By utilizing other's successes as a starting point, we i can move our improvement process along more quickly. The following are some examples of l how we conduct benchmarking:
j . Visiting other plants / utilities
! . Attending outside seminars and identifying good practices. Ownership is assigned for implementing I
good practices at MNS 1
l . Involvement with INPO peer evaluation program
- . Established partnership with North Anna and Byron stations for exchange of knowledge and
! experience
. Roles matrix for Engineering and Maintenance Technical Support Evaluated Byron, Limerick, and San Onofre on their processes to providd technical support to craft. This beauunarking resulted in elimination of overlaps between Maintenance and Engineering.
j + Specific improvements that have been made as a result of benchmarking include:
} . Re-engineering of work control processes
. Formation of a minor maintenance program
. Improvements in outage management
] . Outage in-processing improvements
)
eassar 9urr slide 150 4
,,,,w.m,-,r-wwm,e v w,+-e.-e---+1# - * " " * * * * " " " " * * * * * ' ' ' ' ' " " ' " ' " ~""
i t
k 1
i ,= . ' -qjQ Qt i
L vF MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS l
1 .
l l + USE OF OPERATING FsXPERIENCE PROGRAM i
j + Maintenance makes extensive use of operating experience information both internal and i external:
I l . Appropriate OE information is incorporated and footnoted within procedures. This was recognized as an INPO strength in 1995.
! . OE information is routinely covered in Maintenance training.
. Each supervisors / manager in Maintenance has an OE three-ring binder with applicable OE l information.
I
- , . OE information is routinely covered during pre-job briefings. The pre-job briefing checklist has a sign-off for coverage of OE information.
j . Emerging OE information is discussed with line managers each morning at the morning status
] meetirig.
l + This area was recognized as a strength in the 1996 IljPO E&A.
I 1
4 i
l -
rasssm marr Slide 151
[ .
i 1 -
i .sw
- tl O
I MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS '
1 I
l l
+ SELF-ASSESSMENTS l +
i The Maintenance Self Assessment Program continues to identify specific areas within Maintenance that need attention and improvement. Maintenance Management is '
committed to making needed improvements and has given strong support to this program, f +
In 1994, there were 36 assessments performed within Maintenance. In 1995,51 j assessments were performed. As of 10/22/96,45 assessments have been performed YTD.
! +
' The Maintenance Self-Assessment process has enabled us to focus on continuously j
looking at ourselves objectively, identifying problems and correcting them ourselves.
j Since we began this program two years ago, we have lowered the threshold regarding the j
types of problems we deal with. The relative significance of problems we currently identify are now considered minor compared to two years ago.
i I
i k
j
. i EusAI.M 9urr Slide 152
~
l
. . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' - - - - - ' ' ' - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ^ ~ ~~
- 8 '*%
i -
- .M.$ Gin.- .
j dlif MAINTElNANCE STRENGTHS
+ SIGNIFICANT SELF-ASSESSMENTS l
l .
There are currently 10 Maintenance personnel who perform the assessments and have been trained on l Observation and Assessment skills. The following information is a summary of self assessments that j have been performed to date:
} .
Self Assessments Performed in 1994 = 36 f
Self Assessments Performedin 1995 = 51 t Self Assessments Performed in 1996 = 45 to date (10/22/96)
EXAMPLES OF SIGNIFICANT SELF ASSESSMENTS i ASSESSMENT STATUS f
- . Repair High Conductivity Reading on 2KGCE5020 Complete 865
+ Perform PM on Tech Spec Fire Doors Complete 8/95 l . Maintenance to isolate / tag and rod out RL Coil Complete 1065 j + Perform Channel Test on 2FWLP5000 Complete 12S5
+ '
l Maintenance Pre-Job Briefing Assessment Complete 1085 l + Support for Refuel IEOC10 Complete 166 i
} + Main Condenser Extraction Expansion Joint Replacement Unit 1 Complete 266
} + Monthly PTon 2EQBLP27B Blackout Relaying
' Complete 266
+ Replace 2B Hydrazine Pump 2YAPU002 Complete 766
+ Control of Non-Assigned Individuals and Organizations Complete 4S6 *
+ 17F on CRA-OAPFT-2 Humidity Control Complete 3S6 *
+ Repair Body to Bonnet Leak Complete 766 "assswr p surr slide 153
- ._...~ ,. _ _ _. _ .-.,.._ _ _ _ , _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ , . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . - . . , , . - . , - . , , . - . - - . - - --
I -
I l eX+-p 9
l i
n LmE MAIlNTENANCE STRENGTHS I
i + SELF 4'33ESSMENTS (Continued) l i
+ So. 4 the Self-Assessment accomplishments are as follows:
l .
Revised the Limitorque procedure (IP/0/A/3066/01 A) to optimize actuator changeout process.
j .
Deleting PM work orders (95057964-01 & 95057965-01) general doors and non-committed i fire doors.
Maintenance identified a concern with who has operational control and ownership for Ventilation systems - Operations is currently generating a document describing ownership of equipment and guidelines for station personnel when operating equipment belonging to other groups.
. Identified the WG Analyzer rack as being labeled incorrectly (0WGl91) and installed the i
) correct ID tag (0WGMT5730) on the Manual Loader. n l .
Maintenance identified a concern with placing Non-Serviceable / Hold for repair tags on items / components removed from service which resulted in Commodities and Facilities l Directive 4-40 being revised.
j .
Deviations from using required Personal Protective Equipment as d,efined on Chemical Control labels was identified as a concern within Maintenance. As a result, Environmental Management is in the process of communicating a revised Personal Protective Equipment
- process for chemicals.
j . During Fuel Handling activities in Unit 1 Upper Containment there were inconsistencies j identified in the use of hard hats, safety glasses, and personal flotation devices. As a result,
- Maintenance and the Reactor Group has developed a clear set of expectations and j communicated these to the Refueling Team.
J -
"armE Er e w er slide 154 i
4
. , _ . _ , _ . . _ , , - . - _ _ - - . , . - , . , - - - , - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' ~ ' ~ " ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ " ~ ~ ' " ~ " ' ' ~ ~
i b
- y'"
3 MAIlNTENANCE STRENGTHS i
~
j +
4 SELF-ASSESSMENTS (Continued) j +
Some of the Self-Assessment accomplishments are as follows: (Continued)
} .
NSD 105 is currently being revised to better identify the roles and responsibilities of the Job i
Sponsor, Training Group, and review of resumes for non-assigned individuals. In addition, some j
benchmarking of how non-assigned individuals are processed at other utilities has also been
- performed.
Identified a work order that did not list the required parts / materials necessary for replacing the i
sensor per the PM/PT that resulted in the work order having to be rescheduled pending parts. As j
a result, the planner reworded the statement in the model work order for both trains to read
! " Replace Sensor" at the beginning of the statement so this would quickly flag the planners i
reviewing PM/ pts for scheduling that parts are needed.
f . It was noted during an assessment that no formal / documented Post-Job Critique was performed i
for the high riskjob task of repairing the steam leak on valve 2SP-15 by USSI personnel. This resulted in all USSI personnel being advised to perform the Pos: Job Briefm~ gs as required per Maintenance Directive 3.2. .
f' + The Maintenance Self-Assessment Program continues to evolve and improve as we l continuously adjust our sights on world class performance.
4 i
{ .
razssur surr
- slide 155 i
1
, , , _ . - . . , _ . . - - . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ' ~ - ' ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' " ~ ' " ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ~
4 MIL l
- u. cG.m' .
ill p
i ll b]i t
i t
MAINTElNANCE STRENGTHS
{ ~
i
! +
1 SELF-ASSESSMENTS (Continued)
+ Planning Self-Assessments l
j .
Due to identified concerns through the Maintenance Self Process and the PIP Program, there j
were adverse trends noted in the Work Organization / Planning stages of various Maintenance i
- work orders. As a results of these discrepancies, the Maintenance Planning group started performing weekly assessments / reviews of work orders prior to being sent to the various l crews for work to begin. After performing these work order assessments, the number of work organization / planning concerns has been significantly reduced in the Maintenance area. The i
planning Self-Assessment team developed the following guidelines for performing work
) t order assessment / reviews:
The Planning Self Assessment Team is set up to review planned work orders that have been authorized and are ready for craft to begin worke The Planning Self Assessment Team is made up of four central planners who review the T-6 schedule
) (six weeks prior to execution).
! The Planning Self Assessment Team meets every week for the purposepf reviewing and refming work orders.
The lead planner of the work order being reviewed is responsible for making the correction to the i original work orderin WMS.
l I
i l
I enzuuruumb slide 156 m- 1mP wTMmmus- *We-@"W Nume wT trwwsh N" 9--mNN9W a vitM m-wee esmWre gr hw ww-N meg. g eo g , em ,owy yg ww m _ -wg-*getew.im, e m w _ _
gMMM-1-wNr-WW1& wn TNCw='m19=-kgM*W *y W W W W1NM P* i' "%
'W *4*" T*'TW-"T'N-WW'T'T**'
..w r
- . ~ . ~ . - i AS l A ..P MAINTENANCE STRENGTHS
+ SELF-ASSESSMENTS (Continued)
+ Maintenance Planning Benchmarking i
. Due to benchmarking activities by the Planning team, the following quality improvement initiatives have been put in place:
i .
Contingency plans are now being incorporated into the work plan for certain Tech Spec maintenance with I
time restraints and other hard to schedule items that might need them.
Peer reviews - review of the final plan by another qualified planner looking for planning errors before the I work order is authorized.
l 9 Red tagging - a more extensive review of red tagging requirements with collaboration from the OPS and '
Chemistry tagging group whenever the planner is uncertain about tags.
+ This area was recognized as a strength in the 1995 and 1996 INPO E&A.
l i
l '
1 l
i l "d arrr Slide 157 k
-e..i.-,, - sw. ...e .~ -.~.. . + m , - . .. ...m .,,.w,,w.v..._,w..,.,,-.--,,...,.,... _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.,.,,,s..,...-,-e,-,.,,-vwv.,-,,i,.-.wwn,,,,-,w
4 1
e i
1 "7J MAINTENANCE i
AREAS OF PROGRESS
+ HOUSEKEEPING / MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM
+ MNS initiated our housekeeping and material condition program and is focused on resolution of all identified deficiencies and maintaining our significant initial gains. We continue to allocate funds and resources to carry out the program, focus on long range planning for improvement of housekeeping / material condition, improve ownership of the program throughout the site, monitor and assess our standards and practices.
, Goal: Upgrade and maintain McGuire Nuclear Station facility and components to the standards set forth by NSD-104.
The upgrade project duration will be 4 years in length and is currently being pursued with three (3) active programs.
I l
yessswr su rr slide 158
, , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - - ~ - -- " ' " ~ ' - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '~ '
e .
MAINTElVANCE AREAS OF PROGRESS
+
HOUSEKEEPING MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM (Continued)
+ 1996 Housekeeping Materiel Condition 201 Project Phase 2 completion in 1996 is 80% complete and is as follows: l 716' Elevation Auxiliary Building, painted walls, ceilings, floors, hangers, and upgraded insulation; 750' Elevation Auxiliary Building, painted walls, ceiling, floors, hangers, and upgraded insulation; Unit 1 Iraerior Doghouse, painted hangers, piping, valves, embedded steel and upgraded insulation; Unit 2 Fue! 3ailding, painted walls, ceiling, floors, and cranes Work in progress expected to complete in 1996:
. i
. I 767' Elevation Auxiliary Building, painted walls, ceiling, floors, hangers, and upgraded insulmion; Unit 2 i Interior Doghouse, painted hangers, piping, valves, embedded steel, and upgraded insulation; Unit 1 Fuel i
a Building, painted walls, ceiling, floors, and cranes l
- . Work in progress that will carry into 1997
- '
{ .
Unit 1 Turbine Building (760' Elevation), painted walls, ceiling, piping, hangers, and upgrading insulation.
- . Projected 201 Project For 1997
- '
{ .
Unit 1 Turbine Building High Pressure Turbine, Units I and 2 NF System (Inside Containment and Annulus),
- i Units 1 and 2 Auxiliary Pipe chase (695',716',733', and 750' Elevations) i i
i l ;
l",,"Ji=rT,,, sija. is9
s.z seul l
Y(y.O MAINTENANCE 4
i AREAS OF PROGRESS '
+
! HOUSEKEEPING MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM (Continued)
! + 1996 Materiel Condition Project 1996 Dedicated Materiel Condition - Phase 2 Completion Year-To-Date is as follows:
j Doors throughout plant to include Control Room doors, stairwells and handrails, hallways and corridors, j various chiller units, Unit 2 Turbine Building Basement floors, Units I and 2 Fuel Building Truck Bay floors, 2A and 2B Main Feedwater Turbine and Pumps, NI, NV, NS, PD, and CA Pump Rooms, freight elevator, WZ
- Sump Room, KF Pumps and Heat Exchanger Room and Components,695* Elevation, Cold Machine Shop j Floor, Outside Hydrant and Hose Houses, RP and Chemistry Office Areas, Decon, Laundry, and Change
' Rooms, and completion of approximately 250 minor maintenance work requests.
Dedicated Materiel Condition Program Work in Progress I
) .
Upgrade Coating of Unit 1 Turbine Basement Floor, Units I and 2 Vent Stack (Auxiliary Building Roof).
! White Space upgrade of Auxiliary Building Staircases.
Dedicated Materiel Condition Work To Be Worked in 1996 i .
Complete White Space of Battery Room. Electrical Equipment Room, and Diesel Generator Room (Safe
{ Shutdown Facility) ,
4 l
Dedicated Materiel Condition Projects For 1997 i .
Continue with Unit 1 Turbine Building Upgrade 760' Elevation, Units I and 2 Reactor Building Upgrade, Fan Rooms, Accumulator Rooms, and Pipe Chase.
1 I
t i
E surr Slide 160 i .
. _ , _ , . . , - - , _ . - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ' ' ' ~~ '
i l
m l
l MAINTENAlVCE l
AREAS OF PROGRESS i -
l +
i HOUSEKEEPING MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM (Continued) j + Housekeeping Materiel Condition Ownership Program i
This is an ongoing program, designed to involve all station personnel in identifying, correcting, and if l required, initiating corrective action for deficiencies that cannot be corrected by the owners. This program also contains a continuous graded evaluation of ownership areas where owners are scored and notified of Materiel Condition of their respective areas. There are 20 Materiel Condition
, Evaluation categories and Expectations for each. The categories are summarized as follows: Fluid j
Leaks, scaffolding, labeling, housekeeping, lighting, gas cylinders, supports, temporary equipment, i ladders, deficiency tags, etc.
' Each category is rated on a (5) point system, (5) being excellent, with no discrepancies found, to (1) unsatisfactory and immediate action needing to be taken to correct the deficiencies. The categories are rated 1 - 5 by the area owners and station evaluators. Categories that are not applicable for a
{ specific area are noted as N/R (not rated) and the score is calculated on the rated categories as a percentage achieved of the total available points. The area must receive a rating of(80) to meet minimum acceptable standards. Owners write work orders qs necessary to correct the identified ;
problems. These inspections are performed periodically by owners. The Station Materiel Condition
- Coordinator conducts an evaluation each month to determine the average overall Station materiel condition in the same manner as the area owners. These evaluations are covered with the area owners i to ensure that the plant expectations are being met and or exceeded.
- . 1996 Dedicated Materiel Condition - Phase 2 completion is as follows
) .
Unit 1 & 2 Fuel building floors, Auxiliary building corridor, Auxiliary building 760 Elev., stairways and
! handrails, various rooms and Auxiliary building, coatings in Warehouses 1, l A, and IB, materiel condition
- work requests
} "nEIm %9 & slide 161
?
_ _ .- - , _ , . . . . , ~ . , . . _ _ , , ~ , . , _ . . _ , . _ _ . . . . . , _ , . - , . . _ . _ .____.._____-_____._,__,.,.,-,_-,-m.,,~ -
l Mikb i i
4.. e f MAINTENANCE i,
AREAS OF PROGRESS -
1 4
k
! +
HOUSEKEEPING MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAM (Continued) l + Fluid Leak Management Program 1
i .
McGuire has implemented a Fluid Leak Management Program as one effort to improve the level l of station housekeeping and materiel condition. The focus of this program is to provide an l organized and timely maintenance response to equipment steam and water leaks. The program's l
key element is the Fluid Leak Management (FLM) Coordinator role within the Maintenance organization. The FLM coordinator is responsible for day-to-day implementation of the process.
I l .
Various measures gauge the success of the Fluid Leak Management Program. One formal
! measure is the number of outstanding "innage-related" leaks, or leaks that the station repairs j with the unit on-line. This is a performance-based goal that factors into the overall Success j Measures for Maintenance, Operations, and Work Control. Our goal for 1996 is to maintain less j
than fifteen "innage-related" leaks for both units combined, For 1995, our number at year end l was nine. Our YTD for 1996 is 13.5 innage related leaks. Other measures include management observation of plant condition, and Materiel Condition Program area monitoring. " Outage-
! related" leaks, or leaks that cannot be repaired with the unit on-line, are included in the FLM program for tracking, though a specific number goal is not applicable.
M , ort slide 162 '
h
_,y -..-_,_,,,,,,,,-%e.~.w*.ww w w -e-m * -=v-"- - - * * - - ' " " ~ ' * * ' * * ' " " " " ~ " ~ ~ ' * " ~ ' ' '
- f
\ sg[,,
7 Ji
~b MAINTENANCE AREAS OF PROGRESS i
i j +
I CONTROL ROOM " BLACK BOARD" QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
+ Maintaining CRIPS (Control Room Indication Problems) as low as possible continues to be a major focus area. On-line CRIPS fe 1996 is averaging 5 at a given time, for the plant (not j per unit). CRIPS are treated as priority "E". CRIPS are planned and scheduled immediately.
! CRIPS are either on schedule or are being worked.
+ FOREIGN MATERIAL EXCLUSION i
! + Maintenance is seeing a significant improvement in Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) l t events. Procedural guidance has been upgraded to be more specific and conservative.
j Nuclear System Directive (NSD) 104 was revised to incorporate lessons learned and I
recommendations identified in SOER 95-1 " Reducing Events Resulting from Foreign l Material Intrusion". All Maintenance Technicians has e received continuing training on FME, l based on SOER 95-1. In addition, update training ws.s given to all yendors and Electric 1
System Support personnel coming on site for 1EOC1.0.
l + Maintenance has also developed Housekeeping /FME Zone mock-ups to ensure standards j
' were clear to all teams and vendors prior to IEOC10. During the last refueling outage, we designated an FME Manager, who routinely toured the plant and inspected job sites for l effective FME practices. All deficiencies were identified and corrected on the spot.
l rerum b Slide 163 1
- - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4 l
i 4
T MAINTENANCE i
t AREAS OF PROGRESS i '
4 3
l +
FOREIGN MATERIAL EXCLUSION (Continued)
{ + OtherInitiatives l . Communication (ESS, Vendor)
I Maintenance Self-Assessments (Innage & Outage)
. Risk Assessment Review j . Pre-Job Briefings l . FME Checklist i
j t+ Root Cause Analysis Based on increased number of PIP's, Maintenance performed root cause analysis of this issue.
- After analysis of the data, there is no adverse trend. Maintenance identified that the increased l number of PIP's related to FME is the result of a lower threshold and heightened awareness of the
] potential for FME. It was determined that we need to continue our efforts in all facets pertaining to FME.
- j . We are presently conducting year-end assessment on FME.
! + Units 1 and 2 cycles 10 and 11 have had no fuel pin failures due to foreign material.
i I
l
! ElenML slide 164
- ..._-. _ - . - ,... - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ~ - ~ ' - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ~
i i b $7M.S l W G h ll'yy MAINTENANCE I
AREAS OF PROGRESS l + HUMAN PERFORMANCE
+
Maintenance continues to improve in the area of human performance, while still striving for
' overall continuous improvement. Many improvement initiatives have been implemented, such as making effective use of the Maintenance Self Assessment Program, the PIP program, and HPES evaluations to identify and resolve human performance problems.
Analysis of HPES and PIP trends is performed on a quarterly basis. Recommendations to address i trends are presented to Maintenance management.
In the personnel safety area, Maintenance has challenged ourselves to achieve the vision of zero j
injuries. We have made significant improvements and we will continue aggressive efforts to achieve i
our vision.
t Failure Prevention Incorporated (FPI) - A commeu cause analysis has been completed and a cultural index (CI) calculated by FPI. The results are being ev;.luated and will be utilized to identify i
additional improvement initiatives. Presently, McGuire is incorporating both HPES and FPI
- methodology into our investigations.
l .
Work Habits Training - Supervisory Wrnk Habits trainingihas been eqnducted for all Maintenance j
supervisors, temporary supervisors, and line managers. This training has increased awareness and l understanding of supervisory responsibilities for providing oversight and control.
j .
Maintenance Managers / Supervisors Leadership training was recently presented at a Maintenance Advance Workshop. Part of this training included managers / supervisors role playing and critiquing 4
the Maintenance Risk Assessment process.
The Maintenance Risk Assessment Process including the pre-job briefing process continues to evolve as we learn ways to make it more successful. Maintenance has received industry recognition for these processes. '
79per
{ slide 165 I.,_..._. . . . . _ , _ , _ . . . . - . _ , . _ . . _ _ , . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . , , . . - _ . _ - , . -
.A cel Wm i
!, q"i MAINTENANCE AREAS OF PROGRESS
+
HUMAN PERFORMANCE (Continued)
+
Maintenance 1996 Human Error Prevention Plan l
Site Project MG-95-0815 was created to track implementation of the Maintenance 1996 Human Error Prevention Plan. This project identifies specific activities that are being implemented by j
Maintenance for human error prevention. Particular emphasis is being placed on implementing the j
recommendations from our human error prevention consultant, FPI. This consultant took an extensive look at our human error prevention processes and programs and made specific i recommendations for enhancement.
' This project requires self-assessments to be performed for processes and programs that are currently in place. For example, a Pre-Job Briefing checklist of medium /high riskjobs was implemented in 1995.
The use of this checklist is being evaluated to determine its effectiveness and to identify potential
, 1 enhancements. Also a Post-Job Critique section has been added to this checklist to help ensure we
{
capture lessons leamed for the future. Other project activities include improving the Maintenance self l
assessment program, improving the planning of work orders, improving manager / supervisor field observation, updating supervisory training and ensuring we have a process to evaluate human error
] prevention efforts on an on-going basis.
QVV (Qualification, Validation, Verification), STAR (Stop,'Think, Acte Review) Simulator training j
is currently being scheduled for all Maintenance personnel to attend for 1996. This training will help j to resolve inconsistencies by turning raw information into facts which can be reliably used in a j decision making process.
I Flow Loop - A fully operational flow loop is under construction at the Maintenance Training Facility.
} It can be utilized by Operations Chemistry, Radiation Protection, and Maintenance personnel to reinforce effective work habits. Additional emphasis will be put on STAR, QVV, correct component
- verification, verification of safe working conditions, etc.
i NT surr slide 166 i
_ - - . _ , . _ . , - ~ , - ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ '-~" ~ ~ ~ ~'~~ ~~~' - -'~ ~ ~
1 1
s v. _
i ,
. e.ili's. n .
i O l,.V- MAINTENANCE l
AREAS OF PROGRESS .
+
HUMAN PERFORMANCE (Continued)
- + McGuire Communications Standard MSD 589 l .
This procedure provides guidance to all site personnel conveying or receiving operational j
information, defined as any communications that direct personnel actions that could affect equipment j or decisions important to the operation of the plant.
l + Maintenance HPES Program l .
Maintenance recognizes the benefits of an effective HPES program in improving human j performance. The PIP program and self-reporting provide input on human performance problems l , that need to be evaluated. Once identified, dedicated support staff perform an investigation and j
provide results to management for follow up.
l i
+ Self-Checking Simulator The purpose of the Self-checking simulator is to improve communication techniques, improve the trainee's ability to self-check, and stress the importance of p,rocedural adherence (all integral parts of the STAR concept). '
4 Each simulator includes switches, an indicator, an alarm, a blower, lights, and procedures. Each trainee will go through a defective procedure and see the results on the control panel. A red light will energize if the sequence timer expires (expiration time is programmable through a computer program; suggested time is 15 minutes) to notify trainee of the expiration of time. A green light will energize upon successful completion of the task in the given time frame.
9 "EM M Slide 167
- - - . - - .. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
i I
i O
j
~I" .1 MAINTE:SANCE 4
AREAS OF PROGRESS
+
HUMAN PERFORMANCE (Continued)
+ Root Valve Labeling This project started in October 1994 and was completed in 1996 during 2EOCIO refueling
{
outage. A total of 6,663 root valves in both units were labeled. Our ability to correctly I
identify correct components has been greatly enhanced, and has also reduced the time that was j previously required in research and tracing of components.
}
i t I
i i
4 l
"m ss # 7 ,u n slide 168 i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'" ~ ~ ~
l i
l 4 u b xq.
e._CBil ,
q...p. MAINTENANCE AREAS OF PROGRESS
+ WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT b
l + System Work Window
{ .
Implementation of system work window has been a key element in effective management of non-l outage work.
McGuire uses the concept of System Work Windows to schedule and execute on-line maintenance.
In this process important plant systems are logically grouped and assigned to an execution week i within a twelve week rotation. The groupings are designed to:
j .
Eliminate PRA risk due to critical combinations of systems and components being out of service j t . Maximize system availability l .
Optimize tag-out and maintenance efforts by consolidating maintenance on components.
i I
i passsEr m '
Slide 169
i 1
l c$t$r*
i "g""i MAINTENANCE
. AREAS OF PROGRESS l +
WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued) l + System Work Window (Continued)
. There is a seven week work preparation sequence leading up to each execution week which insures that
{ work scoping, risk assessment, work planning, work scheduling, assignment of resources, identification j of support requirements, and organizational commitment to the work plan occur in an orderly manner.
j These weeks proceed as follows:
- . Week T A list of work, both planned and unplanned is developed by the Innage manager. It is forwarded to Engineering, i Operations Radiation Protection, Chemistry, and Commodities and Facilities for review.
Week T Work scope is reviewed and approved by Operations, Engineering, Work Control, and support organizations for j work prioritization and risk assessment. He need for job sponsors on critical maintenance is identified.
j .
Week T A detailed schedule is developed based on the approved work scope, insuring that all work is scheduled prior to j
its due date. He schedule is reviewed with Maintenance, Operations, Schedulers, and WWhi for task sequence issues.
} t . Week T De schedule is issued to Maintenance to conduct an integrated review of resource requirements. Resources are l allocated among the crews as needed to meet the work requirements. If necessary, due to resource shortfall. Iower priority work is identified for deferral. A proposed schedule is issued to all affected site groups for review prior to the Commitment Meeting in Week T-2.
. Week T-3 - De schedule is adjusted to reflect the resource review and to insure day-to-day work levelization for each crew to the degree possible. He schedule is now frozen with respect to work additions or deletions except as coordinated with
- Maintenance. An updated proposed schedule is issued, i i . Week T-2 - He Commitment Meeting is held based on the site review of the proposhi schedule. All support requirements l are confirmed in this meeting. Work orders on hold status for any reason (parts, engineering issues, etc.) are pulled from the l schedule unless the responsible organization can give assurance that the issue will be resolved prior to the start of execution.
] Following the meeting, the final schedule for the execution week is issued to the site reflecting any changes made in the l Commitment Meeting.
, . Week T-1 - De schedule is stable and this week provides the opportunity for final crew familiarization and preparation for i
the work.
Week T He schedule is executed. Work that cannot be completed due to unforeseen problems or emerging plant conditions is rescheduled by this same process.
uessensaoaomap '
i PEEsmrASAm wrr 3}jde 170
M$iL Jd MAINTENANCE '
' AREAS OF PROGRESS i +
1 WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued) j + System Work Window (Continued)
. Goals:
i .
The major 1996 work performance goals related to the process are to have:
A total corrective work order inventory no higher than the range of 450-550,
) -
A corrective work order backlog (older than 180 days) no higher than 50.
There are additional work performance goals related to PM work orders and the total number of control
, roomindication problems.
I In addition to the work performance goals, there are nuclear safety goals related to the System Work
} Window process:
l -
No unacceptable PRA risk invoked by the work schedule, Safety System availability goals not adversely impacted by the work schedule.
l . Accomplishments:
l .
As of October 20,1996, the corrective work order inventpry was 434 which is better than the target j range. The non-outage corrective work order backlog (>l80 days) is 19 which is our lowest ever.
} .
In regard to nuclear safety goals, no unacceptable PRA risks have been incurred in 1996 and the safety f system availability measures are on target.
w rr Slide 171
,,Sen, y-g mv wm 4%+ T W VWN*MD M*71" - - - -
l n %
l
., #GNF
= . ~ . .
1
- 9;.1r m MAINTENANCE l
AREAS OF PROGRESS -
i
! +
- WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued) i i + Equipment Database Project i .
The goal of this project is to establish an accurate, certified database that provides needed i technical data to support the work control process. This information being available on the
{ computer will be easily accessible from many locations. A team is presently in training to
' prepare to perform the major portion of this work. The duration of the project is expected to be 18 to 24 months. The database will then be constantly maintained as changes / mods occur.
3
. Key results/ recommendations /related projects:
i Electronic Signature QIT t .
Retest QIT
} . WCQIP l . EQIP '
l . Taal Mad'de i . Parts Catalog ,
! . Procedure Index
{ . PersonnelQualification System WMS Administrative Guidelines for Personnel Movement j . Actior. Tracking i . Out of Service i
4 i!
f ymssert arrt slide 172 1
?._,._..---.--.---------------------
- -----~ - - - - ' ' ' - - - - - ~ ~ ~ " " " ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ^ " ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~
t j' ({ AREAS OF PROGRESS MAINTENANCE I
+ WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued)
+ Equipment Database Project (Continued) l . This core team resolved approximately 60 action items, involved in testing the proposed New l Baseline Product by INDUS, interfaced with other CITs and groups (i.e. MAPPS CIT, ARTEMIS CIT, and ESS for Supplemental Work Orders and Labor Entries), created document to reflect Material & Equipment process, identified hcw Material / Equipment is reserved, and developed a document to set guidelines for " HOLD" status.
. 1996 Objectives:
I . Assist in Implementation & Testing of MAPPS l . Interface with the Equipment Data Base Group and with the cleanup j . Action Trackinginterface l . ZEUS interface
. PassportInterface Group interface
{' . EQSS for Craft codes ' .
. Steam Generator Project interface i . Portal /Ginterface i
I I
i Eusun wwr slide 173 r-y v ws , ww w--w www mvv-w vvv w < -w-m '* ~w+me v -- " ' " * ' * * * * ' ' * ' ' ' ' " " " ~ " * * " " " " ' " ~ ~ " " " ' ' " ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I gg))F 1
"Wil 4u .d,
, MAINTENANCE l AREAS OF PROGRESS
) ..
! +
WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued)
! + Field Planner Training l .
Field planning is a two sided process. Prerequisites must be met in order to be considered for field j ,
planner training. There is formal classroom training (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />) that must be completed or a bypass j
test successfully completed that takes the place of the classroom training. There is an OJT package i
that must be completed or an assessment made of the candidate's qualifications to ensure they are qualified. After all this has been accomplished, planner security is then given to the candidate and i
their qualifications transferred to training to be included in his/her training file. Some field planners I were conditionally qualified before this training program was in place and these individuals are being i backfitted at this time to qualify as outlined in the program.
} + Asbestos Coordinator Maintenance implemented the concept of a single point of contact (SPOC) for asbestos related work activities. Primary responsibilities include: oversight of the Duke Power Asbestos Management Program, supervision of sampling program, implementatioh and improvement of the Asbestos
] Tracking Data Base.
l .
ETQS provides Asbestos Class III and IV worker training for Maintenance personnel.
I i
._-,n,.-,wr,nn----n.-~~~~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' ' ' * * * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1
, , , etm I
discG.u_W n .
n op MAINTENANCE
! AREAS OF PROGRESS I
+
WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued) l + Management of Work Order Backlog l .
Processes are now in place to ensure the ongoing management of the work order backlog.
Ownership is a key part of these processes. Work orders in the backlog are appropriately classified, assigned to specific supervisors and schedulers. Status reports keep management j informed of current performance.
l . Maintenance in conjunction with Work Control and Operations, continues to focus significant j
effort toward maintaining a low inventory of corrective innage work orders. System outage
- 1 window guidelines are used to schedule long range work orders, and to identify resource availability well in advance. This process has aided in improving this focus area.
1 i
r i
- "ru Em E Enr slide 175 i
4 k
.mm_m, .-.....---,---------+--e=~'-*='----*~~-^-'-""*~- ' " ' " ~ ~ ~ ' ~" ~~ ~ ~
i Mi ch r w.a .w~yA A. 3
.. M MAINTENANCE AREAS OF PROGRESS -
4 i +
1 WORK CONTROL PROCESSES / WORK MANAGEMENT (Continued) l
+ Critical On-Line Maintenance Process j .
McGuire has recently developed a more formal approach of performing significant scheduN l activities. A " Critical On-line Maintenance" process has been implemented which will j improve McGuire's control of critical maintenance activities.
The Critical Maintenance Process is a structured approach that is used to ensure on-site groups j
are appropriately involved in the planning and execution of work that is critical to plant l operations. Examples of Critical Maintenance activities include:
l i
9 planned work activities that may add a significant risk of unit shutdown or plant transient
. planned work activities that may result in exceeding 50% of the LCO action time
' . planned work activities, that in the judgment of station management, deserve an increased level of
- planning and management oversight l .
Critical Maintenance Team identification, project scope, written execution plan development, i detailed logic planning, contingency planning, clear ownership of tasks, management presentations and approvals, pre-job briefings, and communication of the plan are all key j elements of a successful Critical On-Line Maintenance Plan. The results of good plans will be reduced risk to the safe operation of the station during work execution.
"enr. ext marr Slide 176
i l sg %
i
- m-.
cGilt
!l
. J@.b MABTENANCE CHALLENGES 1 -
i i
4 l + WORK CONTROL CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT I
+ Work Control Process improvement efforts have yielded positive results. In 1996, the i
Work Control Process has supported successful outages and has demonstrated effective j management of non-outage work.
i + The Work Control continuous improvement identified as a Maintenance challenge i
because:
We realize that further gains in efficiency and productivity can be realized by improved work 4
j t coordination (INPO E&A Finding).
) .
We wish to maintain emphasis on continuous improvement in order to meet the challenge of two steam generator replacement outages in 1997.
l + A continuous improvement team will be formed to analyzejob delays and recommend l actions that will overcome planning, scheduling, and poordination problems. The team i
will be multi-discipline (Work Control, Operations, Maintenance, and Chemistry) and l will use data from weekly work window manager critiques and maintenance supervisor l logs of work delays. The team will make specific process change recommendations and may appoint special teams to pursue complex issues before making recommendations.
rassarr su rr slide 177
_ . . . . - _ _ _ . . . _ , - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '
i
- 1. V u ehidi*.
l ti f MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES
+
WORK CONTROL CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT (Continued)
+ Increased focus will be placed on identification of work that warrants development of l coordination plans.
' + Process will be developed for hourly scheduling of work involving high control room activity. This process will be used as a basis for determining the use of hourly scheduling l elsewhere in the work control process.
.i i
i l
l l
i rassa m Slide 178
~m,.,wmm,----e-w*n-.w- **"m*** - " " * - - - ' ' ' ' * ' -
I i -
.,aa cGil~ .
1 a m E.M MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES i
+ MAINTENANCE RULE
! + In March 1994, the Maintenance Rule Implementation Project was made into a team i project. This project was tasked with setting up the Maintenance Rule for Duke Power
} in accordance with 10CFR50.65 requirements. The major steps m this project were to
} develop the process for scoping systems, structures and components (SSCs) into the rule, i
establishing risk assessment and performance criteria, establishing a removal from service evaluation, and determining data to review for historical evaluation.
+ In June 1995, the Maintenance Rule Working Group (MRWG) was established and the l
implementation project was closed out. Since then the working group has made 1
l revisions to the implementation process, developed computer tools to aid in monitoring availability data, and is making changes to existing programs to capture and document MPFFs. The site SSCs have been evaluated for inclusion in the rule and have been evaluated for risk significance along with establishing their performance criteria for j monitoring. Work Process Manual directive 607 was established to evaluate the risk of removing equipment from service based on a risk matrix that was developed from l maintenance rule data. This process has been used to schedule work and evaluate the l risk impact on plant status since November,1995. Nuclear Station Directives and Engineering Directives were issued for approval at the end of the first quarter of 166.
l At the end of the first quarter of 1996, the availability tracking tool was in production j and the Problem Investigation Process has been revised for the maintenance rule screen.
i
- E
- mum b Slide 179
- - - - - - . - - - - - - . . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -
- -m M
, MAINTENAlVCE CHALLENGES
- ~
l +
1 MAINTENANCE RULE (Continued)
+ Support For Maintenance Rule Modify and execute transition plan from the Maintenance Rule coordinator to the Engineering staff to actively involve the Engineering staff on their systems with respect to the Maintenance l Rule.
{ .
Re-train groups involved with the Maintenance Rule on their roles and responsibilities in the i rule.
Verify all Maintenance Rule documentation is adequate.
1 .
Initial determination of A(1)/A(2) system status was completed on May 1,1996. Sixteen (16)
} McGuire systems were initially designated A(1). As of September 30,1996, five (5) systems
! remain in A(1) status.
l .
A three-site assessment of Maintenance Rule implementation was conducted during May and j
June,1996. One preliminary assessment finding indicates a need to improve general knowledge j levels in Engineering and Management regarding how th'e Maintenance Rule is implemented.
j
- The assessment also noted that some Maintenance Rule related revisions to departmental program documents are still outstanding. All of the Maintenance Rule related documents have been revised and have been approved.
t i
I l
f "m"sJ Wr mm '
sude 180
,m,,...,-w, s - w m %- w w w w - -we - -* ' " " * " ' * * '
1 1
,i l
L Operating Excellence - Nuclear System i
\
SYSTEM RELIABILITY j i Qt 11%I1 N 1 : LONG RANGE t' min PLANNING t";"M&$$ n. .R.tR5%.$$..ia II. $y 9M M'MQM9i.'.
l
. e. . .
(Event) (Correction) (Prediction / Detection) (Prediction) (Greater than 12 mos.)
- GREEN YELLOW RED ACTUAL
{ CRITERIA (2 points) (1 point) (0 points) l EQUIPMENT EVENTS l
- Nuclear Events 0 - 3 by year end 4 - 5 by year end > 5 by year end 6 by year end
, - Lost Generation Events - EFPD 3 by year end 4 - 6 by year end > 6 by year end 52 by year end i
TOP EQUIPMENT PROBLEM RESOLUTION (TEPR) l -MajorEquipment ProblemResolution (See Initiatives) N/A N/A N/A N/A
- Workarounds (WAPR)
(No. Completed in last 3 Months) To be revised To be revised To be revised NR (Ju 1.N R A u g-N R, Sep-N R)
- - Action Register Problem Resolution j (ARPR Avg. Rating for Last 3 mos.) > 2.5 1.5 to 2.5 < l.5 2.15 (Ju l-2,A u g-2.14, Sep-2.33)
- SYN 1st / EQUIPMENT 6 j CONDITION ;> 11 9 -10 <8 9*
MAINTENANCE RULE decreasing increasing 5 systems i (% of A(1) Systems) trend flat trend (decr. trend)
- One item not reported for September; criteria reduced accordingly l' ~ '~ MEETING UNREPORTED IMPROVEMENT NOT MEETING C,. _ . ; . : EXPECTATIONS (WHLTE)
NEEDED (YELLOW) EXPECTATIONS (RED)
(GREEN)
a l Operating Excellence - Nuclear System l .
SYSTEM RELIABILITY l lMCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION l l MAINTENANCE RULE MOmHLY STATUS REPORT i
- A(1)StatusSystemsasof 09f30f96 i
MAINTENANCE RULE PEFFORMANCE CRTEIMA Nor MET System Level Rant Lavei 1
Raksierunant r*n-ns F%eteve
! Parameter:Unsvailabilitsl WFFs WFFs RxTrips ES:M. Loss Dm F.O R WFFs*
f Criterion: WPM 601 <2/cWe < 5fcWe <2fcWe <PJcWe Oty$e <8% OfcWe System l RS2 UMT SWTEM M>Cnteria MJCriteria RP# Endneer Comments i ws 1 SW Yes 18&l6 1588 PederservKennedy rnonitoring availat2tywith new S_C
! ws 2 FW 89.8/23 his 1 2f&6m PedersenMnkxi monitor tempofinstr this wrter
! ges 2 NC 1 1 974/826 hrs 2f@6-1479 PedeissvNolin monitor PCPrrotors ws 2 SSF 618570 hrs 2t & 1439 PedenisvTbberts monitonng avaitat2ty 4 ws 2 1SYD Yes 2P&61500 PedersavKemedy rnonstoring avalability with new S.C NLsitzerof A(1) Systems 5
- CorgoneritswithIH4PFFs Erprrnert I Carmonent RP# Emneer Cmmerts
! none da n/a Na Chafxys Silice I ast M j l l Svstem RP# Basis for Adcina/Oeanm .
Sjstatis Added to A(1) Statts none da SystemsOearedfrorn A(1)h nme n/a Corm. RP# Basis fcr Aifna/Cearim j Cmwo G Adchd to f%FFFUst none n/a nme Cmw-6 Oearedfrtm R-WFF Infa j i l l l
<,,-v..-,-v,.-..,mc..,,,,,,,.,.____,,__.,,..,._,,_.m.,.m__m.,._, _
__m___,. , , , . . _ _ _ _ . , . , _ _ ,, , . , . _
4 1 ..
l AMA M
- m.il QG~
lI'
~~
MABTENANCE CHALLENGES 1
i i
+ WELDING PROGRAM
+ Why this is a challenge?
j . Lack of overall station ownership.
l . Inconsistent processes between McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee Nuclear Stations.
j .
Unclear roles and responsibilities between craft, supervisors, QA staff, and technical support of
! various groups.
1
- . Poor lateral integration of involved organizations (Maintenance, Modifications, Steam Generator 7
Replacement, and Metallurgical Support).
Inadequate utilization of knowledgeable technical support, supervision, QC and welding personnel.
l .
Lack of realization that shop qualification (to ASME Code Section IX) does not accurately reflect l welder skillin field applications.
l . Quality of welding process questioned at Catawba Nuclear Station.
l i
l i
i I
passarrman mwr slide 183 i
3
! ,,e 4
f e t* s*
- i
~
- e MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES i
i l + WELDING PROGRAM (Continued) l + What we are doing at McGuire prior to 1EOC11 (2/97) 4 l . Site PLAN 96-1427 has been generated. It is based on management input and Nuclear j
Generation Department quality improvement teams addressing a) the Corporate Welding l
1 Program and b) Lessons Learned from Catawba Nuclear Station Steam Generator Replacement.
The areas of focus are:
{ .
Establishing site wide ownership and a welding technical support matrix organization to link j Maintenance, Modifications, and Steam Generator Replacement.
9 Establish / implement training and test requirements in addition to ASME Code qualifications for welders,
) fitters, and QC inspectors.
I Update the Station Welding Manual to properly reflect roles, training, and processes.
Detailed review of the planning and process control of welding activities by the welding technical suppon i
matnx. "
{ .
Assessment by management and industry peers prior to impigmentation of outage welding activities.
l .
Detailed involvement by the welding technical support matrix in daily welding activities during IEOCl1.
i
\. -
ruEnruser eurr Slide 184
-<.= me a- 4m.--+4 4.=ws.4w..e,.m-ar.__aa.g4s.e .W_,.%4.. Lam.4.w4.uwM_ da d nee eu,A Map J4 4 44 6-A A- ..p.ihA,h 4 A m M d 4 h4. M g.4, h m m m_ hh g g g._ m, j
a ..
t ~
l -
h
~ e i
Q g
$=
y .
4 I
j i
i
l
- ,p -
I l
l PLANT SUPPORT TABLE OF
! CONTENTS .
i i
l + PLANT SUPPORT l + EMERGENCY PLANNING
+ FIRE PROTECTION l + RADIATION PROTECTION i
+ SECURITY '
1 i
+ CHEMISTRY i i
1 i i i ,
i a
l i
ETam Slide 186 i
i i r
. - . _ - - - - . . - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ - ~ - ^ ~ ~ ~
i i
j 1
bt -
l Lj' EMERGENCY PLANNING STRENGTHS -
i + AGGRESSIVE DRILL SCHEDULE
! + Simulator drills are conducted with each training shift (five) including various elements of j emergency response, medical response, hazardous material and local fire department i response. Quarterly fire drills are conducted with each shift. In addition, an exercise and an i
unannounced after-hours caliback drill is conducted annually. McGuire recently
! successfully conducted a staff augmentation drill targeted at the peak traffic hour for the j new downtown stadium.
i
+ OFFSITE TRAINING 1
+ Developed videos using Duke employees and offsite emergency responders from state and l local government. Videos are used by offsite agencies for annual training and include l elements of school bus driver / teacher training, Emergency Operations Center overview, l radiological monitoring, lake warning, traffic control, e,tc. We continue to receive requests
- for copies of these videos by other utilities. '
- + FACILITY ENHANCEMENTS
+
New modular tables have been installed in the Manager's area of the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF). The new tables allow for computer storage and display below table top
, level providing additional table space and enhanced face to face communications.
M sorr Slide 187 i
,.w,,,-.,,,,m,-,,.,.%,.-.--,+,-,...,,_,_; __,,_,.,-,,,,,,,,___.-__,,,..,wn.,,,-.. _-.,,.__,.-_,,.-.,.mm,.._.,. , . _ _ _,,m.,,,..m.,,.,-.m._,_,m,,, - , , , , , ~ ,e- n m ... . .--.,---e-, ,
i i
} -Ad%
i
. EG m..h_lf
@ .ma W EMERGENCY PLANNING ;
i
~
STRENGTHS i
+ EQUIPMENT UPGRADES l
i + Computers in the EOF have been upgraded.
j + FAX machines were upgraded in the emergency facilities.
{ +
Video conferencing has been installed in the emergency facilities providing face to face l commumcations between the facilities. '
l +
Bridge lines have been installed in the emergency facilities to provide enhanced
' communications. Dedicated loops have been established for Operations, Public Information '
l and Controllers.
l l
I i
1 M *u Ysa um Slide 183
. _ , . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . , . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ' - ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' '
,.,,_$ "$I lit i
- DM"T-I Wp EMERGElVCY PLAXNING
! AREAS OF PROGRESS i1 -
1
+ EXERCISE CONTROL
! +
An SRO has been added to the Emergency Planning staff. This individual has 25 years of j expertise and is primarily responsible for scenario development and exercise control. The j
scenarios developed have been very realistic and challenging to the Operators and have j included Duke and Industry events.
i
) ,
i t
i t l i I
I i
! t t
I M war Slide 189 l
i I.
+y ..
1 31dle j
M4 y EMERGENCY PLAXNIS~G I
CHALLENGES i
i i
- +
a EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES i i +
10CFR50.54(q) provides no guidance on what constitutes a decrease in the effectiveness of i,
the emergency plan. We are working through NEI to develop industry guidance and in '
{
mterim have developed internal guidance for performing and documenting these reviews.
f + EMERGENCY PLAN TRAINING
! +
Emergency Planning and the Training Division are working in close partnership to l
1 t
accomplish a more efficient and effective training program.
- +
The Training Organization has accepted responsibility for lesson plan development and
- mstruction of Emergency Plan training.
l .
The Emergency Plan training program consists ofinitial and continuing training for Emergency l Response Organization, fire brigade and hazmat members, Jesson plan development, presentation, i ;
' documentation and record retention. Some of the required training is being factored into the INPO '
accredited program.
I 1
i b
razsswr surr slide 190
,, ,,_,,wywe---ws--easu 2wtN""-"n '3' * * * " ' - " ' * ' -
1
,xgfi5ig i
Mla g !)
"~~
! l FIRE PROTECTION STRENGTHS i
+ FIRE BRIGADE i + Fire brigade includes 5 members over the minimum requirements. We have i
continued to drill frequently with good performance.
+ MATERIAL CONDITION
- + Improvements in housekeeping have overlapped efforts to control combustibles within the station. This results in less fuel to support a fire.
i i
i
)
1 j '
I I
l i
"MEb Slide 191
_ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ . ~ . _ . - - _ _ , - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' ' " ' - " ' ' " ' ~ ~ -
g r 63 we
~
ggul Ml m FIRE PROTECTION AREAS OF PROGRESS i
i 1
! + THERMO LAG i
j + All thermo lag material was removed during EOC10 outages.
i .
i I
! I i
i e
. - - _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ . . . - - _ _ _ . . . . _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ .
i i u -%
l
_ 'Nk$lic i % " "sp 4 .-
FIRE PROTECTION CHALLENGES
\ -
i
+ PERFORMANCE BASED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
+
The Fire Protection BEST team has determined that current frequencies for procedures involving inspection of fire protection equipment can be reduced without reducing the reliability of systems and equipment operability. This concept is being pursued through
- the Nuclear Mutual Limited (NML) insurance officials, and eventually to the NRC. Both j groups have indicated that this concept is feasible.
1 l + 3 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT I +
McGuire, Oconee, and Catawba Fire Protection program leaders are working together to j utilize best station and industry practices to continuously improve.
+
l Some " System" directives have been written to drive out consistency in our programs.
l Additional system directives are in progress. '
! + Upcoming Steam Generator replacement - Minimizing risk of fires "mssswr y surr Slide 193
4 e
.#,_cG.uu._ ~
) 'sM y RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM .
I STRENGTHS i
+ ALARA
} + Since 1990, McGuire's 3-year average collective radiation exposure per unit has
) decreased from 409 Rem / Unit to 134 Rem / Unit. McGuire's 3-year average thru the end j of 1996 is projected to be 128 Rem / Unit. McGuirejust completed IEOC10 for 128 Rem and 2EOC10 for 126 Rem which were the lowest refueling outage dose totals for
} an ice condenser plant to date. With new Steam Generators and increased fuel cycle j
lengths, McGuire's year 2000 goal is 97 Rem / Unit. The following has contributed to i improved dose performance at McGuire:
Management commitment to ALARA Program Support for integration of hold points in NC cooldown procedure to maximize benefits of controlled
{ crud bursts Involvement in dose goal setting - encourages development of challenging goals and goals that j encourage improved performance relative to rest ofindustry
} .
Provides resources to support temporary shielding pro); ram .
1 j .
Aggressive temporary shielding program l .
Letdown filtration downsizing (down from 25 to 0.45 micron w/ plans to reduce down to 0.1 j micron - plan to evaluate downsizing other process filters)
}
4 4
I J
- , . _ _ . - - . . . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ^ ~'~~ ~~~~~~" ~'~ ~~~~ ~~~'~ ~'~~ '~ '
4, Guire RADIATIOlV PROTECTION PROGRAM i
I STRENGTHS .
i
~
j + ALARA (Continued) l .
Use of new technology to reduce exposure
} . Teledosimetry l . Audio / video I
. Underwater vacuum of refueling cavity
, . Rx vessel flange cleaning machine Containment floor & equipment sump clean-out vacuum system
. Acoustic testing of check valves 9
. Dose rate monitoring system j
i RP/ALARA involvement in work planning & scheduling i .
OPS & Chemistry support for system flushes (i.e., ND system flush, Letdown piping j backflushes, etc.)
! . RFO crud bursts (see Chemistry Strengths) s l
l i
{ 9uer slide 195 l
l l
_ _ - _ . _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - '~~--
i t
- ~n3 s
y g X%y l 1 M J RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM
- STRENGTHS '
I .
! + SOLID RADWASTE REDUCTION
! + !
In 1995, McGuire generated 8,925 cubic feet of solid radwaste. This was ourlowest
{ generation volume ever. The disposal /onsite storage volume for 1995 was 1,888 cubic j
feet. These results were accomplished by a culmination of many waste reduction j
programs implemented over the past several years. We continue to be an industry leader
! in radwaste reduction. These successful programs include:
Employee communications stressing the importance of waste minimization The use of a management sponsored continuous improvement team with representatives from all i t station groups Aggressively pursuing launderable tool bags, trash bags, mop heads, and rags When disposable items are needed, ensuring that they are incinerable i
Making many disposable items harder to access (tape, bags, and wipes) l . Sorting and segregating low dose rate contaminated trash - '
{ .
Reduction in bubble hood and respirator use l .
Establishing aggressive outage Dry Active Waste (DAW) generation goals and annual site l generation goals Including solid waste reduction in the performance appraisal of site employees 1996 INPO identified program strength I
i
} *!!AW,wr Slide 196
' l I
_ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ - - - .. .
1 i
k
~
g ttDT I-!
I v.w$$$$h.n
- a j i $I RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM
! STRENGTHS E
l + HOT SPOT REDUCTION PROGRAM l +
The Hot Spot Program has been in place since 1992. Hot Spots are identified as specific j
areas greater than 100 mrem /hr and greater than five times the background radiation
! level. Since 1992,82 Hot Spots have been identified. 62 Hot Spots have been removed.
I The success of the Hot Spot Program can be attributed to the tremendous support the program has received from station groups and management.
i l +
FLUID LEAK MANAGEMENT / CONTAMINATED FLOOR SPACE j
i REDUCTION PROGRAMS
- +
The Fluid Leak Management Program continues to reduce the number of components j
requiring catch containments and continuous to decrease the contaminated floor space for the plant. Maintenance has assumed responsibility for administering the program and has focused their attention on the repair ofleaking compon6nts. We have continued to l maintain an aggressive approach to minimizing contaminated floor space, with primary
- focus on ready access by Operations to plant equipment.
,. $fe
!l43 RADIATION PROTECTION j Refueling Outage Dose History i
700 m Unit 1 600 --
549 O Unit 2
! 511 523 ,
j 500 -- 462 396 392 401 4gp _
in 300 -- 272 68 257 206 208 I 200 -- 171 161
) 0- 1 i I i i i i i --
U U U U U U U U U O
! 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g l Refueling Outage rassarr b Slide 198
l
$$$if q;j
' 'l J "
I RADIATION PROTECTION i
i
- McGuire 3-Year Average Dose Per Unit vs. Industry i
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 i
i INDUSTRY 1st QUARTILE 219 179 175 155 145 123 116
- t INDUSTRY MEDIAN 284 216 213 193 178 158 153*
l McGUIRE 3 YEAR AVERAGE 409 285 246 202 208 166 130 **
l 3
- 2nd Quarter Results from INPO
- 3rd Quarter Result (McGuire) i
! NOTE: McGuire 1996 year end projected dose = 128 Rem / Unit.
j . .
i ressort b Slide 199 1 .
j i
- w =
,! j '
"Nl i
RADIATION PROTECTION 1 -
I McGuire Collective Radiation Dose History 600
\'
_ 500 -- E McGuire 3-Year Average
$ 409 2 400 --
l 5 285 l t g 300~~ 246
! g 202 208
! B 200 -- 166 i
4 m
128 0 '
, , , , i b
- 0 $ $ $ $ $ gu I
l SiQ.
l l passsur ourr Slide 200
i
.b .m.
- RADIATION PROTECTION McGuire Solid Radwaste Generated 50,000
'. 45,000 --
40,201 4g,ggg __ m cubic Feet Generated
- 35,000 -- 32,196 3 30,000 --
- Lt.
, g 25,000 -- 20,373 '
d 20,000 - 16,702 15,000 --
! 10,000 -- 8925 5,000 --
l 0,000 i i : :
S E E $ $ $
9 9 9 9 S S "rusar unr Slide 201
l s4 %
Mi$$le gi* " ~
_gr RADIATION PROTECTION McGuire Solid Radwaste Buried 12,000 i 10,000 -- 9,283 8,000 --
5,676
.I 6,000 -_
! -O
! 4,000 -- 3,499 i
l 2,575 2,000 - 1,669 M87 202 i 0,000 . i ! . ! , I I o m
- o e m ?
I 8
8 8
8
- 8,- 8 5$o
,se m
i ee
- Final form volume onsite "as"s"shWum sude 202
. _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - , _ _ . ~ . _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . , _ _ _ , . . _ _ _ - _ - . ~ ~ _ _ _ , . . -
4 4
j Ma "'
- RADIATION PROTECTION
- AREAS OF PROGRESS - .
i i
+ SUPPORT FOR THE WORK CONTROL CENTER l +
' During the previous three refueling outages, Radiation Protection has provided a full time j
position to the Work Control Center. This has enabled Radiation Protection to stay well j
informed of any changes in work planning. It has also provided a resource the rest of the station can use for planning near term execution of work.
+ RP continued to support the WCC during 2EOC10 on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis and will continue this l practice in future refueling outages.
I
'+ The RP ALARA Staff reviews all new Work Orders for Radiological concerns and scheduling impact. RP also attends the daily and weekly schedule review meetings to help
! ensure the smooth execution of the work process.
i
+
- SYSTEM PROCEDURE AND TASK STANDARDIZATION -
i +
Oconee, McGuire and Catawba have standardized a number of Radiation Protection practices l and procedures. The three stations are currently defining the remaining scope available given i
station differences such as Technical Specifications.
t
, % ..m , ne v e r - m sa n , v- w$- Nm' 8** * * " " * * - " * * ' ' ' * ' " " " ~ ' ' " ' ' " -'
i
^j gj l RADIATION PROTECTION i
CHALLENGES l
i + CONTAMINATION CONTROL l +
Through aggressive self-assessment and root cause analysis, we have been successful in the j
reduction of skin and clothing contaminations. Initiatives employed during 2EOC10 as a i
result of a QIT formed in February of 1996 reduced our clothing contaminations by 25%
{ from 1EOC10.1996 year to date personnel contaminations are as follows: 64 skin and 77 i
clothing contaminations. As of the end of 2EOC10, contaminated floor space is .06%, or approximately 65 square feet. We will also continue to emphasize improvement in the
- contamination control.
l ,+ Contamination control in the Contaminated (Hot) Tool Crib has presented itself as a recent challenge due to the implementation of tighter contamination limits for the area. (The fixed contamination limit was recently reduced to 10,000 ccpm in support of meeting industry j
standards.) To resolve the issue, existing administrative processes are undergoing rigorous j
review, a 100% survey of the Hot Tool Crib is progress, and routine survey methods are l
being improved to ensure compliance with current contamination control requirements.
I passsNTemi eurr Slide 208 i
4
_ . _ . _ , _ . _ ~ _ . _ _ - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ' - " - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ " ' " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
.e/ ! 5%
l,
$6ldt.
) T y~ RADIATION PROTECTIOlV
! CHALLENGES i
i 2
+ DOSIMETRY LAB IMPROVEMENTS
- +
The corporate dosimetry lab (TLD lab) is currently evaluating the implementation of j
revised TLD processing algorithms to ensure that the most accurate exposure measurement l methods are utilized. The lab is in good standing and maintains full NVLAP accreditation j
and any changes to the program are focused on improving the overall accuracy and
{ precision of the analytical measurement process. Recently tightened INPO Guidelines have prompted this process review.
+ DN-SITE STORAGE LOW LEVEL WASTE i
+ With no access to the Barnwell Facility, McGuire is challenged to efficiently process and i
store radioactive waste on-site.
l + STEAM GENERATOR REPLACEMENTS ,
l +
180 days of outage are scheduled for McGuire in 1997. Radiation Dose and Radioactive '
l Material control will be major challenges for the RP Department.
I rusar farrr Slide 205
,,,--.,,,m,.-v,.3,,--e.,-+=e**e-"-*="-*'"*-'""""~" " ^ ' " ~ " ' " * '
y: - -
,y _
H'}
LAn'5(S SECURITY STRENGTHS
+ CONTINGENCY RESPONSE READINESS
+
Ongoing continuous improvement efforts to increase the tactical skill level of the security armed response force Joint Security / Charlotte Mecklenburg SWAT Training Exercise - 06/20/96 Implementation of Handgun Survival Skills Evaluations Course (04/08/96 - 05/29/96)
Familiarization Firing with "Def-Tec Model 68" Gas Mask (04/08/96 - 05/29/96) t Introduction and Familiarization firing with " Quick Mask" Emergency Respirator (04/08/96 - 05/29/96)
Supervisors and OJT officers completed training on hostage negotiations for first responders Program for pre drill physical fitness exercises implemented into all contingency response training Introduction, familiarization and certification of all armed Security Officers to OC (pepper) spray, First Defense MKII W sk k 2 m ew 7 e m + e aw-i m *Wme wm e-wr93e e v Swee wsMg eu- w-m t-1-WN e w%w m e*w = &wo-mus-m e -+ W - _. . w v avg 7%in w g Wrw-g.cqq-m ggg 11 hut T hMT t'
1
\ -
I jNNIL -
- P
= Air F 4
]
SECURITY STRENGTHS l + EQUIPMENT UPGRADES '
+ Alarm Station Upgrade - Independent computer monitor for immediate alarm indications.
+ Vehicle Barrier System installed to ensure plant protection from land based vehicle threats.
+ CCTV coverage at Administrative Building.
]
j + Company Police Vehicle: Highlights police presence on site / Deterrent for workplace violence.
l + Local Door Alarms - Audible / Visual indication of door status installed on 18 security l doors (Tech Spec security doors).
+ Double Door Closers - completed on 15 doors (high ventilation areas).
{
' +
l Purchase of computer controlled moving target system for security firing range.
(Installation date 12/96) i + Replacing Remington 870 shotguns with Benelli 12 gage semi automatic shotguns l +
' Implementation of Security Seal Program to enhance, material access / search process for j items entering the Protected Area '
! + Computer equipment installed in Security office area to allow computer based training for Security Officers on shift.
l + Lowered alarm monitor in CAS/SAS - ergonomics improvement for alarm station operator.
l
+ Exercise equipment purchased to enhance physical fitness and endurance of Security personnel. (Relieve boredom / stress of shift personnel) l 4
rass[m mirr Slide 207
' v$l kY., .'
& -DR.Gir'g 1
l n
- m. a t'
S SECURITY STRENGTHS 1
i + SYSTEM AVAILABILITY (Last 3 SALP Periods):
PREVIOUS PREVIOUS CURRENT PERIOD 1 PERIOD 2 PERIOD 3 j , Security Computer 99.6 % 99.8 % 98.8 %
! Security Doors 99.8 % 99.9 % 99.9 %
i Closed Circuit TV System 99.8 % 99.9 % 99.8 %
i PA Intrusion Detection System 93.8 % , 99.0% ,
99.8 %
l Personnel Search Equipment 87.0 % 94.9 % 98.7 %
l i
4 h
$ t rassamAw.r 9prr Slide 208 ,
l i
, , , - - _ - _ _ . . . . . _ - . _ . . . __ - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ' - ' " ~ " * " ' " - " ' " ' ' ' - ' ~ ' ~ ~ -
l
- t,
! ' $kNih((31 ,
l : DGHlf anm l M SECURITY
! AREAS OF PROGRESS
+
CONTROL OF SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (SGI) l + No Events this period. (5 events last period) l
- + Reduced volume '
! . 34,800 to 17,200 documents 340 diskettes to 5 removable cartridge drives
. 438 aperture cards to 0 '
i + Safeguard Information relocated to two dedicated SGI work areas located within Protected Area.
+
Reduced number of personnel with unrestricted access to storage containers from 82 to 11.
- + Only one controller per SGI container.
j +
Audible / Visual alarms for unlocked SGI containers and access doors to work areas.
! +
Beginning implementation stage of SGI Inventory System (PC Based)
I i
i '
"ud Er m w rr sude 209 i
I
. . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t S .s
! , ~Egn:;,i"
.m. _ u j
Mll.AnAe1 ? SAFEGUARD INFORMATION CONTROL EVENTS -
i 6-l f 5-t l 4-i i 3-2-
1- -
/ I i 4 8 4 T i T
T T
T l 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd
- Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr .
94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 96 96 96
'**"W
- m. om slide 2io 4
i m ew m. .w-.- _..--.,m,,-m.-.-- -_ . - . . . , . - - _ _w%-me.,__._ _ .-..%.- , n n m _ .v. w w-,...ms- w ww,
3 i
1 -
$ 4Wbn.
II$ll.
- '"i V SECURITY i
AREAS OF PROGRESS -
4 i
i
+ UNSECURED DOORS
- + 1994 - 128 Events
! + 1995 - 81 Events 1
. + 1996 - 20 Events (to date)
T l
1 i l l
I I .
I I
t I
i 1
i i
. 1
' R&dNSFIt1CIGBOPOGEk
' t ransswruSAu u mirr Slide 211 i
, _ , _ . _ . . , , , , _ . . , _ . - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " ' ' ' ' * " ~ - - ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ " ' ' ' ' ~ ~
c 63% .
au
! SECURITY CHALLENGES
+
RESOLUTION OF SELF-IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES j +
Completed transition of security events into site PIP Program (06-01-96).
i
+
Apparent Cause Training - Security Supervisors and Security Support (05-28-96).
+
MICROWAVE INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM
+
Problem zones were identified in NRC Inspection Reports 50-360/95-16 and 50-370/95-16
, (excessive Nuisance Alarms).
{ +
Alarms have been reduced by approximately 20%. We are currently working on an 1 engineenng solution to raise the level of performance in one specific area.
l, l
"passsx $r utt b Slide 212 t
- - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ' ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~~
I.
i i 4%
l
- u.n iG.g' il i UN CHEMISTRY STRENGTHS i
l + REFUELING CRUD BURST i
+
! Crud burst methodology has now been proven during two outages with excellent dose results.
i l + LIQUID RADWASTE CONTROLS
! +
Continuing strong performance in controlling quantities ofliquid radwaste and minimizing the l curies released while minimizing the volume of solid waste as a byproduct of proc'essing.
! Expect to fm' ish 1996 below goal of 0.15 curies for two units while producing less than 100 l cubic feet of solid waste. September 1996 set another new record with less than 1400 gallons l ofliquid waste per day average. INPO recognized McGuire's performance in this area in i the most recent E&A..
I
! + SECONDARY CHEMISTRY
- +
Control of steam generator and secondary systems chemistry remains excellent. Currently l using an alternate amine for erosion-corrosion control, molar ratio control and boric acid to
! control secondary side steam generator tube chemical environment. The adoption of molar j
ratio control had a positive impact on both outages as fewer tubes were plugged than expected.
! Note: Boric acid will be discontinued in January 1997 and neither unit will start up with molar l ratio control following replacement project. Molar ratio will be reinstituted if shutdown data indicates need following first cycle of operation.
"""e"5"""
ms mm sude 2n i
i-v.w-- .----.-..,...-----r.----------w,- ---,..,..---,,,2-.,--c.-. twww-. ..w,e.-e--=--. ---,,m.--m m-,- =e. ..+,ww.-- -we .
i.
d[lI[a*wp, j
u s --
' glj O"* ll CHEMISTRY STRENGTHS I
I t
+ WATER TREATMENT
+
Quality of makeup water remains high supporting excellent secondary chemistry control.
+ TRAINING
+
l ETQS and classroom training are producing good results and having a positive impact on plant performance. This was recognized as an INPO strength.
I l
1 l
I l rassen arrt slide 214 l
l
'._....- . - - - - .--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
l s!A' l Afhk G i 1?
- w. CHEMISTRY
\
AREAS OF PROGRESS -
1 i
l
+ PRIMARY SYSTEM DEMINERALIZER OPERATION l +
There have been no reactivity management concerns as a result of demineralizer manipulations j
since February of 1995. Currently, the Chemistry Best is working with the Operations Best to establish consistent demineralizer operating criteria for the three Duke locations. This effort will j result in some additional changes in the MNS procedure. .
i +
OPERATIONS / CHEMISTRY / ENGINEERING LATERAL INTEGRATION
+
Progress in this area has been significant since the start of the shift planning meetings. In addition.
l
! t Operations, Chemistry, and Engineering continue to meet weekly to discuss group interface issues.
i
+
1
- < CLOSED COOLING SYSTEM CHEMISTRY i +
Data obtained between May of 1995 and May of 1996 indicated that some additional adjustment of closed cooling system chemistry was needed. Those changes are in progress now (reduce pH of
! system to an upperlimit of 9.5 instead of a lowerlimit of 9.5). We will continue to monitor copper i
levels and will make additional changes if needed.
I l
essse n N ie u er s ide 215
- iq%t i nl i CHEMISTRY i AREAS OF PROGRESS -
I +
- CHEMISTRY STAFFING
+
l Training is progressing well with our 7 new hires. Development of these personnel to meet i tomorrow's needs is a challenge.
! + PROCEDURE BACKLOG i
j +
With the exception of the Radwaste Team, the procedure backlog has essentially been j eliminated. The Radwaste Team should be meeting expectations by the end of 1996. As of j
September 30,1996, the Radwaste Team had only I procedure change greater than 90 days old.
+
l LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL 1
Much progress has been made in this area. We are continuing to try to balance cost and risk, '
j knowing that we must maintain very high integrity data. We have been benchmarking with ,
) otherplants to optimize practices.
l '
+ HUMAN PERFORMANCE '
- +
' As measured by error rate, there has been significant improvement, with no significant events this year. Current efforts are focused on communication, continuing lateral integration efforts, management involvement in the field, and self assessment efforts.
l i
! "msa Wrm sude 216 i
i
- , , - , . , , - , . , - - - - - - , . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - - -- - ~ ^ ^ ' ~ ~ ' ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~
l , Hm.
i . 1;i
' l^"j' f CHEMISTRY CHALLENGES l '
i
+ WORK CONTROL j +
The interface between Chemistry, Work Control, and occasionally Operations has l resulted in several work start delays this year. We are actively investigating each j
occurrence and working to develop processes to prevent future occurrences.
i j +
UNIT 1 (MONITORING LEAKAGE) j .
We were operating with about 14 gpd primary to se condary leakagejust prior to the Unit I t shutdown.
i l '
1 l
4 i
i i
i
! EEf,urr Slide 217 4
i I
, . _ . - . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ' - ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - -- ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' "
! , ,=m l
i 3
i 1
CHEMISTRY CHALLENGES 3
1
! + PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
- +
A self assessment of PIP generation indicates that the Chemistry Group is not generating as many j
PIP's for the size of the group as is expected. Currently, our efforts are focused on lowering the i threshold for PIP generation through management involvement.
l + LONGER FUEL CYCLES i
j +
4 Longer fuel cycles will initially require increased boron concentrations in systems and tanks.
i While the greatest challenge will be for the Operations Group, the Chemistry Group is making' plans for preparation of the boric acid solution needed to support the change.
j -
i I
l l
t i
"s en awww.n men slide 218
- . _ , , _ . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~ '
l l ..
l aWb l
n f..' PLANT SUPPORT SIGNIFICANT SELF ASSESSMENTS ASSESSMENT STATUS ASSESSMENT STATUS i
i P
l + I A NC filter changeout Complete 965 + Hatch Watch Duties Complete 666 l + Outage contamination control Complete 9/95
- Station Security Audit Complete 866 l + Safeguards Event Trending Complete 10/95
- 1996 Site Environmental Complete 8/96 l + ^******"I Control of Containment Complete 11/95
- +
Airlock Door Consolidated Performance Audit Complete 9/96 I + Chemistry Program + UFSAR Change Assessment Complete 10/96 1
Complete i165
+ + Topical Report Assessment Complete 10/96 i M.assed Surveillance Complete 12S5
+ + Posting On Going
! Green tag consistency Complete 12/95
+ Action Trending / PIP Trends
+ Control of radioactive material Complete 12/95 On Going
- + Effluents Interfaces Target 12/96 '
+ Polting Complete 12/95 + VUCDT Releases Target 12S6 l + RCA entrance / exit monitoring Complete 1265 + Radwaste Team IV Pracdce Target 1266
+ Respiratory Pr> gram Eval Complete 12/95 + BB Resin Sluice l
Target 12S6
+ FuelHandling Assessment Complete 12S5 + Closed Cooling Chemical Additions Target 12S6
+ Use of vacuum 'n RCA Complete 12/95 +
l Boron Demineralizer Control Procedure Target 12S6
+ Radiation Worker Practices Complete 3/96 + Primary Team Non-Routine Work Target 12S6
- Control of Non-Assigned Complete 4/96 Tm% Yocess ;
Individuals
- NPD . 2 Sampling Process Target 12S6'
+ Fitness for Duty Complete 5/96 + YM Regeneration Process Target 12/96
+ Rad Protection / Chem Audit Complete 5/96 r
i i umsensnonosaan '
rassura,w rireurr Slide 219 i
,,,,,,~.,,.,a.--,,, . , ~ - , ~ ~ = < = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ' ~ " " ' ' ' " ' ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' " " ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~"~ ~
m--- --
-_ma _ _ _- rw-_. - m_m.m -ema mw, , - . +=- m - asi._raa_a a .m 4 m. ---.m.s. .w+%-sa.. eama, s_w-=.mamaawwmaa4,_aw-.e .w wm e as asa-.em-_musn..
i
$? (
e._
)
! ~
i M
i
! c%%
5 i
~
Hb qC l -
1
! N
\
~
g i
' %x N
4
Reib t ..
^j MEGi:c.l dTl.... SELF IMPROVEMEST CULTURE TABLE OF CONTESTS i
i + SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE i
- + PERFORMANCE PYRAMID
+ PREVENTION
+ DETECTION
! + CORRECTION t
l i
i i
A e
4 h
9kPFT bl5dC MI
_ , _ . . . , . _ . - _ . . _ _ _ . , _ . , _ _ . . . . . ~ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . , , , , . . . . _ . , , , _ . . _ _ _ , .
i .
h l
8$w$r-e
) nj g~P 4 SELFIMPROVEMENT CULTURE i .
- PERFORMANCE PYRAMID i
eg[
i %
\ **
"*""m m = *Jm snee m
! a,#.._ , w -
, mEG . _di l ~ 6" l y SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE t
l i
+ PREVENTION
+ Worker prevention techniques such as:
l j . STAR-Stop, Think, Act, and Review.
j .
QV&V-Qualify, Validate, and Verify.
l .
Questioning Attitude--When there is uncertainty, contact your supervisor.
t l .
Conservative Decision making--Protecting the core is our top priority.
i
. Level 1 Safety Assessments.
- + Supervisor involvement including
Pre-job Briefings and Post job Critiques-All maintenancejobs receive a risk assessment and all
' medium to high riskjobs receive a Pre-job Brief and a Post-job Critique. Included in the pre-job briefis Lessons learned from previous problems.
Field Activities-Supervisors are expected to be in the field daily to observe, council, and coach l workers during in progress work.
l
+ Other Prevention Initiatives j .
Management Observations-Formal reviews by 2nd level managers in areas outside their direct l area of responsibilities.
j .
SRG Quick Hitter-Daily reviews of plant activities such as Shift Turnover, Pre-job Briefings,
! 91-01 Briefings, Field Work, Surveillance Testing, Management Meetings, etc.
{ .
Operating Experience Database-This computerized database is LAN connected and available to
- all site personnel.
"LTw n sude 223
. - - , - . , , - - - . , , - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' " - ~ ' ~ ' ' " " ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' * ~ ~ ~ ' ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
1 i ,
J%gfg
- ,m t
8 l!
~
SELF IMPROVEMENT CELTURE
! + DETECTION I
Problem Identification Process (PIP) Database is available to all employees through a LAN connected computer 4
system. This system has received wide spread acceptance due to it's usefulness and expanded capabilities.
i .
PIPS are screened by a team composed of ENG, OPS, MNT and SRG within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for Significance, given an
! Event Code, and assigned to the appropriate group for Cause Analysis and P.esolution. Significant PIPS are also sent to RGC for Reportability, and ENG/ OPS for operability.
Additional coding for Organization, Work Process, Key Activity, Human Error Inappropriate Action Failure Mode, Organization and Programmatic Failure Mode, and Human Error Type is performed to allow comrnen cause j analysis.
j ., The problem reporting threshold has been significantly lowered, such that there were 2299 PIPS generated in 1995.
The 1996 generation rate is on track to be ~3500 (see graph on page 227).
. Issues are identified through numerous methods and loaded into PIP for tracking.
{ .
SelfIdentification-Any employee may generate a PIP on any unexpected occurrence or area for improvement.
Trends-All issues / trends identified by individual groups or thropgh site wide trending are documented in
! PIP.
! . Assessments-All Findings and Recommendations identified by internal assessments are documented in PIP.
Audits- All Findings and Recommendations identified by external assessments (Corporate Assessments, Audits, NSRB, etc.) are documented in PIP and tracked to completion.
Inspections- All Findings and Recommendations identified by regulatory agencies (INPO, NRC, etc.) are documented in PIP and tracked to completion.
"mumT,un slide 224
. _ __.. _ . . ,_._ ..._ . _ . . . - _ _ _ ~ . . _ . . . . _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
4 a
l ma MEIL j
d .F SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE
+ DETECTION (Continued) '
+
Operating Experience Database is linked to the PIP database for search capabilities ofin-
- house and external problem reports.
j + Issues identified through NRC generic letters, Bulletins, Information Notices, etc. are i documented and tracked in PIP database.
+
All significant problems are shared with other sites for generic applicability as well as i transportability to other systems at the site.
+t Improved Trending Capabilities 4
Event Trending-Ability to tie Event Code to INPO Cause Code and sorted by group causing the event.
Quarterly Event Trending-SRG for the site. Trending of problems within their groups.
l .
Bi-annual Common Cause Analysis-Detailed review of Hufnan Error / Inappropriate Actions (HEIA) to determine significant problem areas. This review is being done on a six month basis.
. Annual INPO Symptom, Classification Method "z"s n Tr ,on sude 225
_ , _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . . - . _ _ _ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i a
4 4
~
! ,,,issi~ ,
4
- AL3f SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE l
i
+ DETECTION (Continued) l + Assessments are being performed at all levels of the Organization to assure compliance with l Management Expectations and identify areas for improvement.
l I
. Group self assessments-Significant improvements have been made with a minimum number of self
- assessments required for each group. YTD complete - 121 l , . In-Plant Reviews-Formal Assessments of work processes by SRG. YTD complete - 35
. Corporate Assessments-Formal Assessments / Audits by offsite personnel. YTD complete - 12
. Nuclear Safety Review Board-Significant changes have been made to strengthen NSRB l
effectiveness. Increased frequency of site review from semi annual to quarterly. YTD complete - 3
, M,.m sude226
. . . . - ~ . . - . - . - . . . - - - - - . . - . . - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i 4 ,
, 39h 7
~
1 d c.,;,RkL, i
ni knii SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE
- Corrective Action Program l
PIP Generation Rate
\
! 3500_ ~ 3500 i
3000 -
l 2500 - 2299 i
1965 2000 -
l 1500 - 1343 I
i 1000 -
- 540 l
1 500 -
0 , a s ,, ,
N 2 E E ?
O O O O EU
' 0i M PIPS Originated per year E t
(
E wn Slide 227
i E$ '$ h . . ..
I i #Rsile i n vIi l
l 1
SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE
{
i i
L l
+ CORRECTION j +
Implemented a new Equipment Root Cause process which involves a systematic approach to troubleshooting, thus preserving as found conditions and preventing loss of evidence.
4
+
Identified Root Cause Coordinator to concur with all Root Causes and measure quality.
, + Root Cause Experts attended a six day course taught by FPI International on Advanced 1
Prevention and Reduction of Organizational and Programmatic (O&P) Failures.
- + Established goals for the number of Root Causes Performed.
i + Implemented a measure for the quality of Root Cause Analysis.
+ Key Engineering Personnel have attended a 3 day class ip either Electrical or Mechanical Equipment Failure Modes taught by FPI International.
i k
i i
I user Slide 228
. - - - . . _ _ _ . . . . . . , . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . . _ _ - , _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . ~ . - _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , - - - - _ _ - - , -
I
.nfk% .
I N$lis j n p"- ~
! SELF IMPROVEMENT CULTURE i
i i
i
+ COMMENTS FROM 1996 INPO E & A
! ... We were favorably impressed with ... comprehensive use of Self-
!u Assessment, and strengthened use of Operating Experience to identify l and achieve improvements."
! I i
j '
l l
~
rauszxt surr Slide 229
..., . . . . _ . - . . . . . - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
, _ . _ , . , _ , . _ . . _m .._.--- -- - ----- - - ** * * * "*" '--" ~ ~'-- ~ '"~~^"~-^^' " ' ~
t
. .a
~..
I i -
i
! ~
l i
i i
. D I
I s
N i
l Vision "To Be World Class" McGuire Performance Measures - ' ~ ~
. Capacay Factor an Top Quanile January,1997 i"Po i ==
. NRC SAU I Raung
. zem Repmabie Envimnemal incidem Team Effecti.veness . zem n- ,nn
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SAFEI'Y PERSONNEL HUMAN BUSINESS TRAINING SElf WORK
', PERFORMANCE EXPOSURE PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE EFFECITVENTSS IMPROVEMENT MANAGEMENT
.! INDEX ASSESSMENT CULTURE G '_ ) (Geddici (Doammi tweser) (whhe) ahdemi (Galdie) l Operating Excellence - Nuclear System i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- GENERATION OUTAGE NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE INPO SAlf SYSTEM l
FULI, POWER TARGEI3 St' STEM INDICATOR RATING SCORE RELIABILITY MODIRCATIONS 4r i (casdie) (Deins > (McMeeads) (McMeeadai nu m ni <nerrant l OperatingExcellence - Cost Control I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6l.E m e.M BUDGET SmsM FUEL COST NO,.MuOR CAPITAL ml.s co-WTHIIN
- c-REPLACEMENT DRAFT j
e_, ._, stem emu =i 10/24/96 i
i Stewardship Not Meehng YTD ) -
_j i i i i i i i i i l i I I I I (8'd e.r : = .
4 8"dVENTABLE ENVIRONMENT. SOllD RADIATION COMMUSTTY Not W W ENVIRONMENT. ASSESSMENT RADWASTE RELEASE IhDEX Ye80w gw%
! <Deens (o. ann (c ddies a;.edn> (sipe> % . Meeeng MontNy and
- v1D e.g_e i Site Focus - The Biggest Barriers to Achieving Our Vision ~* -~~a-
! I I I I I I I i * *##
I I I I I I I v"r"D j WORE CONFIGURATION LONG-RANGE FORCED 1 2EOCII ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING OUTAGE OUTAGE Current Status fMc" w) nhrrant <tw) >
($ Represents She incantive Goal j l -
1 l
i
, i.@A
\ +e 7 "q%, ~
SUMMARY
1 l + THE McGUIRE TEAM INTENDS TO GET TO THE NEXT PERFORMANCE LEVEL BY:
l l
+ DOING WHAT WE SAY!
l
! + CONTINUING TO RAISE OUR STANDARDS
+ RALLY THE TEAM ON A FEW MAJOR FOCUS / IMPROVEMENT AREAS l
i + PRODUCING CONSISTENT GOOD PERFORMANCE IN ALL AREAS T
- + " ANALYZING , LISTENING, FIXING" WITH BIAS FOR ACTION, NOT EXCUSES i + TALKING TO EACH OTHER 1
i i
- MNS - ON THE ROAD TO BECOMING WORLD CLASS i
i,urr Slide 232 l
_ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _