ML20134Q177
| ML20134Q177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1996 |
| From: | Landis K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Beard P FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612020169 | |
| Download: ML20134Q177 (95) | |
Text
November 18, 1996 ,
'i
-Florida Power Corporation !
Crystal River Energy Complex Mr. P. M. Beard, Jr. (SA2A) :
Sr. VP, Nuclear Operations !
ATTN: Mgr. Nuclear Licensing -)
.15760 West Power Line Street Crystal. River, FL 34428-6708 1 1
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- MANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN .
CRYSTAL RIVER - DOCKET NO. 50-302 '
Dear Mr. Beard:
This refers to the meeting on November. 14, 1996, at the Region II office in Atlanta, Georgia. The Corrective Action Plan. purpose of the.
The NRC meeting expressed was to regarding concerns discuss the thestatus of your effectiveness of your corrective actions and stressed the importance of adequately monitoring and trending the effectiveness of your Corrective Action Plan. It is our- ~
opinion, that this meeting was beneficial. !
i Enclosed is a List of Attendees and Florida Power Corporation Handout. -The l discussions included the following topics: Embedding Safety Culture Improving Regulatory Attitude and Ownership. Implementing Operations Standards, and Update s of-Engineering and Configuration Management.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's " Rules of Practice, "Part 2. Title 10 l
. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be -;
placed in the NRC Public Document Room. !
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. I i
Sincerely.
Orig signed by Kerry D. Landis. .j 9612020169 96111e Kerry D. Landis, Chief PDR ADOCK 050003o2 0 Reactor Projects Branch 3 PDR -
Division of Reactor Projects ;
Docket No. 50-302 l License Nos. DPR-72 l
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Attendees ;
- 2. FPC Handout cc w/encls: Gary L. Boldt, Vice President Nuclear Production (SA2C)
Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex 0200 %- 15760 West Power Line Street i Crystal River FL 34428-6708 cc w/encls: Continued see_page 2 OFFICIAL COPY -
cc w/encis: Continued B. J. Hickle. Director Nuclear Plant Operations (NA2C)
Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex 15760 West Power Line Street Crystal River-. FL 34428-6708 L. C. Kelley. Director (SA2A)
Nuclear Operations Site Support Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex 15760 West Power Line Street Crystal River. FL 34428-6708 R. Alexander Glenn Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation MAC - ASA P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg FL 33733-4042 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee. FL 32304 Bill Passetti Office of Radiation Control De)artment of Health and lehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee FL 32399-0700 ,
Joe Myers. Director Division of Emergency Preparedness ,
Department of Community Affairs ,
2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee FL 32399-2100 Chairman Board of County Commissioners Citrus County 110 N. Apopka Avenue Inverness. FL 34450-4245 Robert B. Borsum Framatome Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike. Suite 525 Rockville. MD 20852-1631 l
Distribution w/encls:
-L. Raghavan, NRR B. R. Crowley. RII G. Hopper, RII G. Hallstrom, RII PUBLIC NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6745 N.-Tallahassee Road
' Crystal: River, FL 34428 l
l l
l I
0FFICf .1 SIGNATURE NAME ellen DATE 11 /1[ / % 11 / /% 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 11 / / 96 !
COPY? (415) NO YES - NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO UFFICIA KLLUKU LUFY UULUMLNI NAM . . 6;\LKYbl AL\P LLilNG\CR5dM14,396 l
l
'l,
-LIST OF ATTENDEES J Florida Power Corooration P. Beard. Senior Vice President. Nuclear Operations l G. Boldt. Vice President. Nuclear Production l B. Hickle. Director. Nuclear Plant Operations-L. Kelly. Director. Nuclear Operations Site Support.-
J. Baumstark. Director.. Quality Programs R. Windell. Director Nuclear Training .
R. Davis. Assistant Plant Director Operations and Chemistry ,
R. deMontford. Manager Nuclear Plant Operations l B. Gutherman Manager Nuclear Licensing l R. Yost. Manager. Quality Systems D. Wilder. Manager Safety Assessment Team i M. Hendrix. Corporate Communications l Nuclear Reaulatory Commission' l
-S. Ebneter. Regional Administrator l
l L. Reyes. Deputy Regional Administrator i F. Hebdon. Director II-3. Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR) )
K. Landis Chief. Branch 3. Division of Reactor Projects ;
L. Raghavan, Project Manager. Project Directorate II-1. NRR !
G. Tracy. Regional Coordinator. ED0 .
J. Jaudon.. Deputy Director. Division of Reactor Safety J. Johnson, Deputy Director. Division of Reactor Projects C.' Casto. Chief. Engineering Branch, Division.of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1 i
FPC / NRC MANAGEMENT l MEETING l AGENDA November 14,1996 l l
e Opening Remarks Stew Ebneter e Introduction Pat Beard e Embedding Safety Culture Bruce Hickle Jim Baumstark Dan Wilder e improving Regulatory Brian Gutherman Attitude and Ownership Ron Davis e implementing Operations Dave deMontfort Standards Ron Davis
- o. Update of Engineering and Gary Boldt l Configuration Management i e Closing Remarks Pat Beard 1
Enclosure 2 Florida Power Corporation 1
4 EMBEDDIXG .
i SAFETY CE~LTC~RE
! e THE MESSAGE
! l l
We Have a Problem !
It is Our Fault I
It Will Be Fixec By Us or a "New Team" You Are Part of the "New Team" If:
-You Have the Resolve (Fire in Your Belly) to Sustain Change
-You Understand and Can Implement the Triad, " Safety vs.
Production vs. Cost"
-You Can Be Continually Objective of Yourself and Those Who Work For You Florida Power Corporation 2
! EMBEDDING l
SAFETY CL~LTC~RE '
= '" .. - ,, _ .. .
j
- eleadership Shortfalls in Establishing Proper
- '
Core Values and Expectations Self-Critical Attitudes Site Processes Personnel Accountability Site Wide Priorities Florida Power Corporation 3
l l
i EMBEDDING SAFETY CULTURE l ., .
l l e Core Values and l Expectations l
Core Values, Principles for
- Conducting Business and l Mission Statement Reviewed
! and Re-focused Where l Needec Focused Current Restart i
Objectives and Management Expectations on Safety, Quality anc Oversight Conductec Safety Meetings to Communicate Safety Culture Expectations Florida Power Corporation 4
EMBEDDING 1 i SAFETY CULTURE l l w. ..
l l
l e Core Values i To a Person, We Are Decicated to l l Conducting Our Business to the l Highest Safety Standards i We Believe in the Pursuit of l Excellence Through Critical Self ;
! Assessment and the Creation of a l Learning Environment Which Leacs to Continuous improvement We Believe That Strong Teamwork, Personal Accountability, and Respect for Peoale Are Essential to Our Success Florida Power Corporation 5
i EMBEDDIXG l SAFETY CULTURE l e Nuclear Operations
! Mission Statement l Establish Florida Power's
! Leading Position By:
l -Operating Crystal River unit 3 for l Superior. Performance Defined i By:
e Maintaining the Highest Standards of Safety and Meeting All Regulatory Requirements, then e Achieving Top Quartile Status Among U. S. Nuclear Plants for Both Reliability and Busbar Costs Florida Power Corporation 6
EMBEDDING l SAFETY CULTURE -
! e Self Critical Attitudes Expectations Communicated l Self Assessments of Safety Culture !
l Ongoing
) Precursors Showing Improving Self l Critical Behavior i
! e Site Processes Enhancec Corrective Action System Established Effective Root Cause Evaluation System Strengthened Internal Oversight '
Implemented TEAM SAFETY ]
Site Wide Self Assessment Directive in Final Draft Florida Power Corporation 7
l EMBEDDING
! SAFETY CULTURE
_= __
/
l e Personnel Accountability l Established in Restart Plan l l Established in New Supervisor Orientations l e Site Wide Priorities I
Priorities Communicated and
- Implementec Florida Power Corporation 8
i i
EMBEDDING i
SAFETY CULTURE l
, m c-
.._.gs
.:,2._ , , , . .
i j
j e Quality Assurance l Condition We Have a Problem 3
! -IPAP 4
l -CMAP l -Interviews By the Incoming DQP i
j Immediate Actions
-Replaced Manager, Quality '
i Assessments
! -Performec Self Assessment of l Aucit Process j -Stood Down to Re-focus j Program i j l Florida Power Corporation 9 i -
l l
l i
EMBEDDING l SAFETY CULTURE l _= _
l l e Quality Assurance i Resolution l
! Personnei i
- Assessed Current Audit Staff
! Capabilities l -kentified Areas Lacking l Expertise
- Assigned Audit Personnel for Best Fit
-Currently Recruiting for Acditional Personnel to Round Out Expertise
-Developing Staff Rotation Plan Florida Power Corporation 10
l EMBEDDING l
SAFETY CULTURE ,
l MM i
l e Quality Assurance
, Resolution { cont'd}
l Program j -Emphasis on Safety Culture
-Re-focused Program to Get Back i to Basics
- Re-distributed Audit Work to
, Focus on SALP Areas i
6
- Assessing Programs, Not Just i Icentifying Individual Issues
-Forging a New Partnership With i Line Management I
1 j Florida Power Corporation 11
1 EMBEDDIXG l
SAFETY CULTURE l_.
i e Restart Audit Plan l
Verify Restart Plan is Properly Documented
- - NRC Inspection Module Used as Basis Assess Adequacy of Restart Effort l
- Does the Outage Scope Address Key l Safety issues?
l - Are Appropriate MCAP ll Issues Incorporated?
! - Conduct of the Outage e Work Control and Execution e Docurnentation l
- Other Related Elements e Procedure Changes e Required Training i
i
~
Florida Power Corporation 12
CR-3 Nuclear Safety Assessment Team Manager Root Cause Precursor Card Operating Analysis Tracking & Experience Monitoring Review i
I i
l I
i
[
L
CR-3 Corrective Action Program Improvements Old Program New Program i . Threshold too high for no a Apparent cause analysis for less I
analysis of cause significant PCs
- Threshold too low for full root
- Focus resource of trained RC cause analysis - overloading RC investigators to do quality root capability and quality suffered cause analysis on significant PCs
- Treating each PR in isolation
- Collect apparent cause for monitoring and Common Cause Analysis to detect and prevent O&P failures.
- Lack of qualified root cause
- Trained Root Cause and investigators. t Apparent Cause investigators !
i a
t
__--------__---_----------_-------_-J
CR-3 CP-111 Corrective Action Program Change Old PR/PC System New Single Graded PC System Grade A/B Problem root cause analysis
_ _ Rem =!an!nuus s,
m
. :: :.;.q,cg 3:g, 7 gs ex .. t Ips%e:
apparent cause w N
k:.
reste-;9.: ' '~
es:trus4 a
wn.,.. 'a jm:;:
andcommom ? =Ri .W*%,D ,
jhweg '
cause analysis- I w""@XA l.RW Precursor ______________________________________
Wg;g igggggggg$ ;
cards i ause analysis notperformed Grade D .
i I
l l
l
Crystal River 3 CI: All Groups 20 19 18 17 16 15 1"
qualitative L:1 = 13.27 13 CF = 1.51 12 -
11 Quantitative CI = 11.76 10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3 __. -
1 2-- Mission' WI'
,3 8 Simpl e Work Lateral goal = 2.72 3,ip, Process = Integration i " _
gp ,g ,
2.54 =2.64
=2.29 0
Components
Y Statistical Correlation Between Culture Index and Performance Trend i
l Culture Index Future Performance b 14-20 90% chance to improve or
. i maintain top performance 10-14 67% chance to reiaain stable ;
in performance
<10 86% chance to decline in performance
)
t I
i
-- - -. . - . - . - . - . - . - - - - _ ~ . ~ _ . . - - _ - _ _ - .
J J
4i t.
1, J
4 1
1 4
m
- C
^ W 4
i e mE C
{(Dtra-
.i .O Q -C
/k w >@
- . O (15 4
i m e
- o w
o-w (f)
CE c. a. g,,
M o . E
. .c . .... . . .:.....
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . , , ... . . . . .p
= C.
gg b f..... ...... .. ......;.......,....
j Q Q ::;. .':
. . : . . .: .. .?.' :::.-l. . . . . .:. .. :.. ..:,.-
4, * **. . . . . . .. ..........
j ...
, 4. ..:
,*,. .: , ....~. . . .. .
4 M S . . .. . ... *
. '. ,.O",..
^
"/, .5 ."
OJ i
. .. o m 4
M * '*
- .l:',':.. ..- . ::: h @
]
> - l**:: - l * '* * :; . .'
r
.~.g : . .; .,
n ..'...1..
. .~;. . . . . . ~:, ,
. . f... ..
.......:.. . . 29
.i .." . . .... . . l
. it ::....:
3 , c .:r.:y/ : . .;
. .: : g.g,:r.: :l:;
.:: .#g/
! O *?**:'. ! * *:.:*.*l
. . .5', ..::,::: i. *.. .."
CD
. .../..........
- a. . o. /. .. . . . @
".a,. ,....!.a. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .* . .... . . * . . . T"* ..
- 9. . .;. .,. ". .. . Ow g $ ..
l . it.:,'r.:: . //Jr' -
- .
- *:.,:; .. :*:l ;.r.: :'~' :
/.... . y =
.;:r.l.: ...
Q....O.'::. . . . .' .::.9.{:.:r.: :.l."d c : :..
@ .c
. . ..:..'. . . ~. :.1.. . . . . .
.. 'E
{ .u)
. .:: ' ::re.-g 9 :.. : .v..
. . - ;r
. . , ye..: . ....
.. : v...... - " ......"/... .*r*
g 5 "7./ ~;;:r ~ fi.f. . : .
- f r.
e.:. t.::.: :.. . .7./. ... .... . . .r.: .. .. . .. 2.. . . ..
<=
, C .. -
- C =
m . . . .. . ... .. ........ . .. . r . ::.. 9 4,
1 em a., ::::. :"." ": :". e p ".,':.::ff *::. . . . . ". .:::
- ..f.: .::
D.
- r .%::.
i p u
. e : p:r. te : r.:- .
- . . . .; : 'E
- o * ~~;:. .:::.::: .in y:: ..: : ..: . :.; q - <C ,5 CD :> . c.:: :.;..: ..
~.~;. e m .ao
. 9 '::.~ ;.. .:. ..c..::...
.. .. w 1
o . . . . . . ...... . .
C :....
1 .~::;.r...:: . .. . ...::
. g:::.- . .: . . . . -
,, u . v... .. g .. .. ... .. ..,. ... ,:. ..:. :. ... .. .
s a o
- .. .... . .. . . ....~
. ..~......:.~....:,.
- 3 .
o , . : 7 . :.
. .. .:: ~. . . .. . .
- ... . . :... .:. . .. ... .. .<.:.:...r.o: v. . : . . .......~
48
>m== 3 m a = = = 4 i Z C N
C w
C o
- o T M v G -
3G $
"Om. o 3 C- ,,
m -
a
{
4 w c i
f
.O4 a
4 E
. .o C
m
- M b
g.x.
d 3
1
-si -w www 4,ing sw o aj44.,gg,se_,g_.w r mu an#44 mga h4 &W S am 4 d h h.,4 '
- g 4,4 M" 6
^
l --
! I a l e --
! 8 l l l l
~~
l __
i a
~ l
= .
5 l e : : :
a i
=
M,
- x n o i
i i.____ _ _ _ . .. . .. . --- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l Precursor Cards issued By: (October) O Engineering = 35 E op.r.non. = n ;
1 E Meineenance = s2 8% 12% i O sie support = 34 !
E Scheduling = 17 ,
8% !
E Quality Programs = 25 E Others = 26 j
)
I 6%
i
- 25%
i 11 %
4 4
1:
l ! l ll i
! l l lHi
- c
- e D
v o
N
\
1
[: O S
t c
p e
A g
. A u
- L l u
l k
g o / ;
J J
n u
oIlL c
a y B M a
dr A
- r p
a i. A
- C pM r r a
- o -I M s
r u
z
- b
- c e P
e r _il F n
- O n
e p / :l i D J
a c
e v o!
_. v o
- ! N t
c
- O
^
p e
- _. .l S g
u
- .i vI
, A l
u
_ ! J n
u J
0 0
0 1 -
0 0
e
_ ~
,1.,i1>
, i ; :
c _
_ 1 e D
v
_ l o
. N 7
0 9 3 3 t
_ c O
d e
\
Nl
_ p u l S
e s -
i s
s
_ t r
o _
l g
u p A e
_ R m l u
l e J
/l b
o r
P n I u
& J s
. dr a y a
C _ I M
r
_ o s
r u r p
. c - _ l A
_ e r
P r
' a E l M
p b I e F
n
- a J
0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7
- 5 4 3 2 1 1
2EE 1a
! i l
I e
si l s.
b
,I l' l i
\
1 ,
l _
l i
l i i i i ! l 5 s
! I i I i i l e rA i l i
8 I .
l l
8 E
j' I L I
l i i I I
, I ,
c e
- \
/
- - _ D l
B "
" v t l o
i m N e
i G_ t
_ l c
_ O x-d _
e _ p _
- t i _
l e
. c- _ S -
n _ m o
_N n
) _ g -
e s _ u r i e _
l A
a i i
t v _ _
t a t A
c _
. h l i kr _ _~ l u _
s u _ J _
'n W _ I d '6 _
i ti l
a 9 1
9 _
_ N n u
o - l n J _
o i
v d _
1 f e o s a
_ y e
g B
(
_ l a
._ M t
a _
n _
e _
r c
r _
i r r p e _ p A P _ A
_ h
_ g
_ u a r
o r
?
_ h M t
_ t
_ n
_ e b c
r ? e
_ e p F o
r
_ e
_ Z n a
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
1 9 8 7 8 5 4 ,2 0 0 1
i05m.
l
i l
[
! EMBEDDIXG l SAFETY CULTURE l
l e Why We Are Better Right Now i j Extended Shutdown to Improve Safety Margins l -Harcware Fixes vs. Analytical Overhauled Corrective Action l Program Significantly i Improving Root Cause and Corrective Action Quality l Strengthened AllIndependent l Safety Oversight Functions
! Improved Self Critical Attitude Florida Power Corporation 14 l
EMBEDDING SAFETY CULTURE
,.~. .
l e Why We Are Better Right l Now (cont'd}
l Established Strong l Management Commitment to Self Assessment l
Communicatec Safety l Priorities Throughout the Entire Organization De-l Emphasizing Cost and Production l Reinforced Accountability for l Safety i Established Indicators to l Monitor Future Performance Florida Power Corporation 15 l
l l
IMPROVING i
REGULATORY ATTITEDE '
j AND OWXERSHIP l l
l e Problems Indicated By the j Following Symptoms:
l Licensing Speaking for j Operatioris Nonconservative Interpretations of the Regulations ineffective Communication with the NRC
- Poor Quality Submittals
- Increasec Violations l
1
)
.I Florida Power Corporation 16 l -_
IMPROVIXG l REGULATORY ATTITUDE i AND OWXERSHIP '
1 l e Root Causes j Inadequate Communication of l Management Expectations
! - Positions Not Consistent With l Regulations l - Compliance Not a High Priority l - Minimal Cost Solutions i
j - Inadequate / Inconsistent NRC t
Communication l - Unclear Commitments i
j Line Management Not Accountable for Submittal Content >
l Poor Awareness and Understanding l of the Regulations and Regulatory l Process Florida Power Corporation 17 l
i
IMPROVING i
i REGELATORY ATTITUDE i
AND OWXERSHIP i
l -
i j e Corrective Actions Taken Expectations Clarified and
- Communicated
! -Mission Statement j - All Hands Meetings l -Line Accountability i
l Licensing Self Assessment l Training Provided i
Organization and Process
! Changes Florida Power Corporation 18
j i
IMPROVIXG l
i REGULATORY ATTITUDE l AXD OWXERSHIP
_m
- ._w l e 3-Day Training Course for l Managers and Supervisors e 2 of 3 Classes Complete l
o Third Class Scheduled for l 12/3/96 l
l e Key Subject Areas l NRC Organization Licensing Process i
Licensing Basis i
l Compliance l Change Processes
) Enforcement I
i j Florida Power Corporation 19 I _-
i IMPROVING REGULATORY ATTITUDE l AND OWXERSHIP i
l e Refresher Training Classes l Held o NSMs, NSSs, OTAs, l Operators, Tech Staff 3 e Key Subject Areas 1
50.59, FSAR Commitments l Nonconforming Conditions i
l Operability, GL 91-18 Current Industry Issues ;
i j NRC Inspection Guidance l I
i j Florida Power Corporation 20
i IMPROVING 3 l l
i REGULATORY ATTITUDE l
AXD OWXERSHIP l
. . , . 2:; ..-
l e Organization and Process Changes Completed l
l Regulatory Assurance Group 4
l 50.59 Implementation Improvements j Inspection Reports Reviewed at Next Weekly Staff Meeting l
l Letters Responding to Weaknesses l Submittals Managed Like Projects l Line Management Accountability for i Submittals 4
l - NOV Assignment to Line immediately i After Exit j - LER Assignment to Line for Preparation
! of input t
j - Dept. Manager and Director Signoff of i
Final Submittal i
] Florida Power Corporation 21 t - .
IMPROVING l
REGELATORY ATTITEDE l
i AXD OWXERSHIP
- sa... .> cr l e Near Term Organization and
- Process Changes i
- Additional 50.59 Program ;
! Enhancements Licensing Organizational l Structure Change l Benchmarking i
j Improved Control of FSAR j Changes j New Reportability Procedure Licensing Basis l: -Better Define l -Establish Ownership
-Make More Easily Retrievable Florida Power Corporation 22 l
IMPROVIXG l
REGULATORY ATTITUDE AND OWXERSHIP i
! o Why We Are Better Right Now l Significant Increase in Regulatory Knowledge
! Questioning Attitude in Regulatory l
Arena Evident l Licensing Assessment Confirming
! Causes, Weaknesses l Line Reaction to Accountability is j Positive
! Commitment Data Base Being l Reviewed i
! 50.59 Implementation improvements
! FSAR Review Continuing 4
) New Hire With Recent NRC l Experience l Florida Power Corporation 23
l i
IMPLEMEXTIXG OPERATIOXS STANDARDS
. ., ,. . ..my,. .
i l
e Areas of Discussion ;
j Department Interfacing l Staffing i Performance Indicators i
Overview i
l l
t Florida Power Corporation 24
- IMPLEMENTIXG OPERATIOXS l
i STANDARDS i
l e Improved Interfacing j Engineering j - Present at Morriing Turnover
- -Joint System Ownership l -Joint System Training i
j -Cross Manpower
! -More Meeting Interfaces
- Approval of Key Modifications Continuing Training Interface Better Understanding of Regulatory Requirements Florida Power Corporation 25
l IMPLEMENTING l
OPERATIONS
! STANDARDS m.JO : ~ '
I l e Staffing Improvements l New Operations Manager j - INPO Reverse Loanee l 7 - Instant SRO Class (5/98) l 4 - RO to SRO Upgrade (6/97) l 5 - RO Class (5/98) j 6 - SPO Class (3/97) 6 - Net New SRO/STA l e Objectives i
! 3 SROs per. Shift Overtime Control Operations Interfaces Rotations to Other Departments Relieve SSOD of EC Role Florida Power Corporation 26
IMPLEMEXIING OPERATIONS i
STANDARDS t
_ ww _
~
i l J
l
! e Improved Performance l
Performance Indicators I j -Total Precursors Initiated By l Each Shift 1
l - Average Number of Precursors l Initiated By Each Shift
! - Overtime
-Watch Station Appraisals e
New Performance Indicators
-Self Critical Precursors
-Strength / Weakness Ratios i
}
j Florida Power Corporation 27 I
Precursor Cards Per Shift (Cumulative-1996) 200 -
180 >
160 / / +A-140 / -- - B 120 +C 100 / / // D 80 lYlYJ 60 l dV l 40 Sup 20 / /w= -
O ir ; , , , , , , ,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep i
- Monthly Average of Precursor Cards by Shift Precursors
- A B C D E F Sup i
- Shifts 8 Jan-Jun 96 i
E Jul-Sep 96 4
_ __ _____ __ _ _ _ __ _ _______ _ ______ _ ______ ______ i
Operations Overtime Hours (1996) 3000_-
2500- -
.bl 2000- -
f-
- s qkf t .
Hours 1500 - I- .=
1000 - S A -- ! -
0 ) 1 3
5 7
9 6H500003 8, 8,11, 11 13 15 17 19 21 Pay Periods l
t 4
Watchstations Appraisals / Shift (1996) !
4-Appraisals A B C D E F Shifts E Individual 5 Simulator
h Monthly Average of Self-Critical Precursors by SRO (1996) 3,5 ,
3 E Jan-Aug i 5 ep- t 2.5 ,
Average Precursors 2 .
Each i 1'5 '
Month 1 .
~!
0.5 Q i i i I I I I I I I I I i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SROs ;
I Self-Assessment Strength / Weakness Ratio (1996) -
,, .57 '
comm.
m., 1.06 Teamwork 2.5 Peer-check 2.5 -
Leadership Conserv.
um i 5.0 STAR 13.0 l
i 0 5 10 15 Ratios j
IMPLEMEXTIXG :
i OPERATIOXS l STAXDARDS ~
l e Why We Are Better Right Now L
! We Admit We Have Problems j The Need to be Self Critical is l
Understood l Belief in Assessments j Networking the industry for
! Solutions )
j Human Performance and Safety Culture is Being Measured Improved Interface and Teamwork Our Role in Leading the Plant 1 is Understood Florida Power Corporation 28 l
l i j
UPDATE OF EXGIXEERING l l
l AND COXFIGURATIOX l MAXAGEMENT l
o Independent Design Review
, Panel 'IDRP} Comments
- Have Been Dispositioned.
i e Assigned Design Basis
- Clwnership
Manager of Design l Engineering l
l [ System] Design Engineer i
l -System Engineer
-System Operator l e Completed 30 Day Run of LPI Pump at Minimum Flow l Florida Power Corporation 29
l i
UPDATE OF ENGINEERING l AXD COXFIGURATIOX i MA l _ _____=XAGEMEXT .__ .
- l l
l e Completed Departmental
! Mission Statement and j Manager Level Expectations.
o Developing a Monthly Engineering Effectiveness Indicator Report.
l e Developing an Administrative i
. Instruction " Conduct of
! Nuclear Engineering and j Projects" and Engineering i Standards (Expectations}
I Florida Power Corporation 30 i
i
i EPDATE OF EXGIXEERING l AXD COXFIGERATION i
l MAXAGEMEXT l l e Extent of Condition Review:
I j Develop System Timelines for l EF,MU.,DH,BS,EG j Re-perform the Diesel Loading
! Calculation l
l Review a Sample of Past
! Perform an Integrated Safety j Assessment of Outage i Modifications 1
j Florida Power Corporation 31
l EXPECTATIONS FOR ENGINEERING MANAGERS l
. l I. PURPOSE
. Nuclear Engineering and Projects (NEP) management will be a role model i
! for the safety conscience of the plant.
! II. NISSION 1
- To achieve and maintain the highest safety ratings (SALP ar
- d INPO) through improvement in system reliability, design margins, safety evaluations, licensing submittals, and plant-wide configuration
- management.
4
] III. EXPECTATIONS
! 1. NEP managers will assure performance expectations for the people j in their respective organizations are proceduralized, updated to
- reflect operating experience, understood, and reinforced (through j balanced accountability).
- 2. NEP managers will provide the appropriate resources, tools, and I
training for their people to produce high quality work products to
- established schedules, budgets, and priorities. Shortfalls or j concerns will be promptly raised to senior management.
! 3. The identification and discussion of safety concerns will be encouraged, rewarded, and aggressively pursued to resolution.
Early communication of potential concerns to senior management is j also expected and encouraged.
i 4. Wherever possible, ma'nagers will support improvement in l plant / system design margins by physical means (modification,
- replacement, test, or inspection) rather than by analytical means j alone.
- 5. NEP managers will assure Crystal River Unit 3 safety design
, margins are maintained consistent with those of the other B&W plant owners and that open, active communication occurs among the
~
owners, and with Framatone, regarding design basis concerns and i proposed resolutions.
- 6. Each NEP manager will establish, trend, and periodically assess engineering effectiveness within his/her group using a series of l 1eading and lagging performance indicators.
4 l 7. A high level of management attention will be given to planning, scheduling, conducting, and establishing a team membership (including peer utility or technical experts) which will assure i self-assessments are sufficiently critical to achieve measurable
- program improvements. All findings will be tracked and resolved j through the site corrective action program.
l i
I
- 8. Each NEP manager will conduct frequent staff meetings to assure
- open communication and discussion of safety concerns, resource l needs, expectations, schedule requirements, department priorities, j and operating experience.
I 9. Should significant human or plant performance problems occur, managers are expected to cause a work stoppage (or " stand-down")
to communicate the problem, lessons learned, adjusted expectations or other corrective action required to all affected personnel.
- 10. It is essential the NEP management view high quality engineering support for the main control room crew (while operating, in an outage, or emergency response) as our purpose for existing. To this end, we expect to be a strong, knowledgeable, and vocal
- partner with operations and maintenance in achieving shared j success. This does not mean that engineering is expected to
- accommodate or acquiesce to requests, but rather that
- engineering's role is to take a position, as an equal stake i partner, based on a thorough technical review of the topic.
I 11. Engineering managers are expected to be directly involved in Operability Concern Resolutions (DCR's) and equipment operability
- calls. Man)gers are expected to gain first hand understanding of j the underlying technical issue relating to equipment operability i and/or OCR by walking down the problem in the field, when
, applicable, with the responsible engineer. Managers are then expected to assist the Shift Supervisor and Nuclear Shift Manager in understanding the problem and extent of condition.
l
! 12. Managers are expected to place high priority on meeting commitment 4 due dates. When a committed deadline is in jeopardy, early identification and communication to senior management, and to 1
licensing /NSAT, is also expected.
1
{
l 4
4 I
i i
I, 4
I
Florida INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
- Power coooemon Nuclear Operations Administration SA-2C 240-4660 Office MAC Te6ephone i
SUBJECT:
Senior Management Expectations of the Quality Programs Department i
TO: J.S. Baumstark DATE: October 22,1996 VPNP96-0042 A
l This,IOC establishes my expectations of the Quality Programs Department.
- It's expected that Quality Programs will monitor the performance of all operational aspects l within Nuclear Operations to determine compliance with the applicable Codes and Standards.
- These activities must be performed using the appropriate evaluation techniques.
- These performance activities must be accomplished in a comprehensive systematic manner using both Quality Control and Quality Assurance methods as described in the FSAR.
- These activities should be based on requirements and indicators derived from both plant and industry experience.
- These activities must be performed in a manner that maintains professional relations with line management.
- These activities must result in the early identification to management of significant problems and adverse trends.
. Results of the activities must be provided to management in clear and concise reports designed to convey the assessment activity performed, problems identified, and the information upon which problem identification is based.
. These activities must not undermine the authority of line management.
- The products produced by Quality Programs must provide information that supports all levels of line management in their endeavors to assess and improve Nuclear Operations performance. .
- All reports must be accurate and timely - information contained therein must be "Right, Reasonable and Relevant."
?.M. Beard, Jr.
PMB/str xc: G.L. Boldt Directors Managers
- ,;; ; ny
.b '
- ,2.1 g-=-=m-== r .=#+ ,. ==-----m*,.,.a.
l i
l l
)
Plant Manaeer Exnectations for All Plant i
i Sunervision i .
i 2 Actively strive to improve plant safety culture .;;.
l gg .
1 l Lead by Example, being constructively critical of l .
yourself and those who work for you i
i l
Continually reinforce the Event-Free Operations I
j Proeram - .
1 Actively support the corrective action process --
l Promote and routinely conduct self-assessments j , at the shop level i
l Promote and display teamwork in the conduct of I
all business 4:
1 as j ?? Display a " fire in the belly" attitude for sustained l improvement
! Rev.0
! 10-28-96
- l 1
_-_% msw,-sweMa-mam-wwm;-:; m.mmv#--
. 4 l 'W 7% ,,. 2 0 l r ?:,' \
d 2
.:L$$j 3
h - ;y I
i 1
.. _ . _ __ _ . - - . - _ _ - - _. . ~. - - . .
png y. m r .a:. a ,- .* ? ': *' .
INF#gljkh;,i,;*..g, it: .
.-"0, T.7/ k' D;;Q
- p Appendix B i
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
- I. Design Basis Program i
Responsible Target Recommendation Manager Completion Date
- 1. FPC should recognize the importance of the Design Basis and Licensing Basis and take steps to treat them as major programs with defined scope,
- clearly assigned ownership, and recognition throughout the
- organization. (IDRP 1)
- Dispositions Accepted. This G. Boldt 4/1/97 recommendation will be resolved L. Kelley
, by creation and implementation of one or more NOD's which
, address ownership and control of 1 the design basis and licens)ng f basis of the plant.
- 2. Establish a clear and complete
- definition of what documents
- and/or sections of documents
- contain the Design Basis for CR-3. Revise NEP-216, Plant Design Basis Documents, as required. (IDRP 2)
Dispositions Accepted. This recommendation will be resolved K. Baker 1/3/97 by creation of the design basis F. Sullivan to NOD referred to in il above and complete by revision to the referenced interim NEP. Interim action in the form action (s) of guidance on the definition of design basis and a listing of 4/1/97 the design documents which to contain the design basis is complete necessary to support ongoing final work. procedure revisions 1 Glevision 1. 11/14/96)
- . . . - . . . . _ . . . - . . ~ _ . - . - - . . . - - . . . .
I i
Appendix B INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL REC 040GNDATIONS
} I. Design Basis Program (cont'd) *
! Responsible Target l Recommendation Manager Completion Date
- 3. Establish the legal and l
- regulatory status of the Crystal l
River Unit 3 Final Safety
- Analysis Report in relation to
! utilizing.the specific
! ~information for design I engineering purposes. Also
? establish what was the :
i independent review cycle for !
! FSAR submittals. Review the
- appropriateness of page 141, l
! Volume 1, paragraph 10 that l excludes the FSAR as a design l l
document. This may unnecessarily i restrict the use of information j contained in the FSAR for design 4 purposes. (IDRP 3) 8 Disposition Accepted. This recommendation will be resolved by:
o The NOD and NEP., revisions discussed in $1 and #2 G. Boldt 4/1/97 above, K. Baker o Creation of a nuclear licensing procedure to L. Kelley 4/1/97 address the review cycle B.Gutherman for FSAR submittals, o An FSAR^ amendment to address the issue on page K. Baker 4/1/97 141, Volume 1, paragraph B.Gutherman 10 regarding use of the FSAR as a design document.
l l
2 Otamsion 1,11/14/96)
i j Appendix B i
l-l INDEPENDENT DESIGF REVIEW PANEL REC 000tENDATIONS 1
I. Design Basis Program (cont'd)
- 1. Responsible Target
- Recommendation Manager Completion Date l
l 4. Assure that the responsibility
- for assuring plant operation is
! consistent with the design basis j is clearly defined and j understood. (IDRP 7)
- Disposition
- Accepted. This i recommendation vill be resolved l o A combination of the NOD G. Boldt 4/1/97 L referred to in il above, l a new AT " Conduct of l
. Nuclear Engineering and i l Projects", and within the f NED standards which are j sub-tier documents of the j
+ AI,
! o within appropriate
! operations department B. Hickle 4/1/97 AI(s) and OI(s) .
- 5. Consider including all design
, basis documents (See IDRP
- Recommendation 2) at the
- designated plant locations for 1 design bases documents and l- electronically on FulText.
i (IDRP 14) l Disposition: Accepted. It may
! not be possible or practical to K. Baker 6/30/97
! include all design basis H. Conklin l documents on Fu1 Text due to limitations of the software, e however those documents that are l compatible vill be placed on
- Fu1 Text. Approximately 20 sets i of design basis documents will l be placed at designated plant i locations.
1 i
j 3 Gtevision 1,11/14/ss) i k
1 1
i
! Appendix B l
, INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOBOtENDATIONS
! I. Design Basis Program (cont'd) l Responsible Target i Recommendation Manager Completion l Date j 5 l l 6. NOD-11, Maintenance of the l i Current Licensing Basis, should
! be revised to include specific !
I
! guidance for ensuring that FSAR changes are reviewed by ,
engineering to identify and then j make any appropriate revisions to design basis documents.
(IDRP 25)
Dispositions Accepted: A L. Kelley 4/1/97 revision to NOD-11 vill incorporate this recommendation.
- 7. FPC should consider promulgating a procedure for the control of design / licensing basis infornation~and documentation I that' applies to the entire Crystal River 3 nuclear organization. This procedure should require any change to the ;
plant, plant documentation or procedures be evaluated for effect on design basis information and documentation.
(IDRP 26) ,
This Dispositions Accepted.
recommendation will be K. Baker 6/30/97 incorporated into the NOD (s) B.Gutherman referred to in il above and a new CP implementing procedure.
4 Gtevision 1,11/14/96)
..___...m _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . ..._.__ _ _ . _ ._ _.. . _ _.. __ __. _.
i l
1 Appendix B i
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOBOtENDATIONS s
l I. Design. Basis Program (cont'd) )
i
- Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion )
i Date 1 l 8. Change NOD-52, commitment l Processing and Management of
- Programmatic Commitments, to
! clearly identify Design Bases as i an important element of the :
{ overall Configuration Management j Program, and to require actions
! to ensure thorough assessment
' and treatment of changes, l including the supporting or
- underlying analyses and i assumptions thereto, as well as
{ hardware issues (Structures, i Systems and Components).
{ (IDRP 38) i Disposition: Accepted. This i recommendation will be resolved l by:
1 o A revision to NOD-52 to
! incorporate the above L. Kelley 2/1/97 elements, l
- o Corrective action may l
- need to be broader s- K. Baker 4/1/97 l
therefore, the above (NOD),
l elements will also be 6/30/97 considered in development (CP) 1 of the ROD and CP I
mentioned in il and #7 above.
5 atevision 1,11/14/s6)
l l 1
i l Appendix B
! INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS II. Engineering Expectations
! Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion 1 j Date l 1. Assign overall responsibility
- and ownership for maintaining l the Design Basis to a specific manager. Also assign ownership l of the design basis of defined j systems, structures and
! components to specific positions
' within the appropriate nuclear organization. Make the individuals in these positions
- responsible to provide an i independent review to ensura that any changes to proceder's or hardware affecting their i system or' component are i consistent with the design j basis. This would enhance expert i knowledge within the
! organization of key design basis
! information. (IDRP 4)
Disposition: Accepted. Overall i ownership of the plant design
- basis will be assigned to the l Manager of Nuclear Operations
! Engineering. Ownership of the design basis for individual i systems will be assigned to a l system design engineer. Design i basis ownership will be l established by.
- o By IOC as an interia i action, G. Boldt 11/30/97 l o By changes to appropriate i procedures (e.g. F. Sullivan 4/1/97 l NOD's,NEP's, AI's, and/or K. Baker l NED standards) .
j j 6 (Revision 1, 11/14/96) i i
i i
i
-~ . . _ .- . - - . . - . - . . . . - - _ - . . . - . . . . - -
- - - . _ ~ . . . - . - . . .
t Appendix B 1
4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONKENDATIONS-1 II. Engineering Expectations (cont'd) i Responsible Thrget l
Recommendation Manager completion Date i 2. The Panel recommends that when i' dealing with design basis issues, FPC take greater e advantage of discussions with the other B&W utilities. (IDRP 12) l Disposition: Accepted. This recommendation will be resolved i by:
- o Adding " design basis R. Widell 2/15/97 i issues" as a standing agenda item for the B&WOG i steering committee, ;
1 o Including guidance for design engineers to F. Sullivan 12/31/97 l discuss design basis K. Baker
! issuer or questions with
, the other B&W owners in l thr NED standards.
i l 3. Establish additional
- expectations for the plant's i Design Review Panel to ensure j that design basis implications
) of the modification have been i adequately reviewed and
- considered. (IDRP 18) l Dispositions Accepted.
- Zrpectations for the Design F. Sullivan 4/1/97 i Review Panel will be added to i the NED standards.
l 1
i e
i j
4 7 Otevision 1,11/14/96) f 1
i I
4 1
i
! Appendix B l
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONMENDATION8 l II. Engineering Expectations (cont'd) i l Responsible Target Recommendation Manager Completion
. Date
- 4. To help ensure that inaccuracies in design basis information and documentation are identified and corrected over time, establish clear expectations:
o that engineering personnel are accountable for reviewing and correcting design information and requirements.
o that all personnel are expected to report design basis deficiencies or questions so they can be addressed. (IDRP 27)
Disposition: Accepted. This recommendation will be resolved by:
o Incorporating the above expectations for F. Sullivan 4/1/97 engineering personnel in K. Baker the NED standards, o Incorporating requirements for all personnel to report 3.Baumstark 11/30/97 design basis deficiencies or questions in CP-111. _
8 Otevision 1.11/14/96)
i l
)
Appendix B I
! INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECmnrauDATIONS l
l III. Training a
' i Responsible Target !
Recommendation Manager Completion 1 l '
Date
, 1. Develop a training program for j ensuring that FPC nuclear
> employees understand what ,
l documents constitute the design basis and the appropriate change ,
i control procedures for these documents, particularly when plant modifications are ;
involved. In addition, the training program should cover the distinctive uses of design basis information, licensing basis information and the impact of non-safety ssC's on the plant's design basis. (IDRP 5) ;
Dispositions Accepted. This recommendation will be resolved by:
o conducting interim training (for appropriate personnel K. Baker 3/1/97 in engineering and other F. Sullivan organizations) based on development of the definition of design basis and the designation of design basis documents, o completion of lesson plans for initial and continuing R. Hide 11 6l30/97 operator and technical training curricula, o completion of initial training. R. Hidell 12/31/97 9 Otevis6on 1,11/14/es)
. - - . . . . _ ~ _ - . - . - . . . . - . - - . . - . - . ~ . _ - - _ . . - . - ~ - . . = - - . - . - . -
l l
- l. !
Appendix B l
l INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOBOtENDATIONS i
III. Training (cont'd) i Responsible Target
- Recommendation Manager Completion i l Date i
! 2. The training on the design basis
- and the use of design basis !
information should be delivered
} to the appropriate individuals i in organizations outside the
! engineering sections, and it j should be covered in continuing j training programs for those i groups. (IDRP 13)
{. Disposition: Accepted. Addressed Addressed l Implementation of this in #1 above in #1 above ;
i recommendation is included in ;
l the response to #1 above.
4
- 3. Develop a station Safety i
)
- Evaluation (SE) training and j qualification program that will
- result in a consistent j understanding of SE process l requirements, by all personnel
! who perform, review and approve l SEs. (IDRP 34) i Dispositions Accepted: This l; recommendation vill be resolved by:
- o Establishing an interim l requirement for all safety F. Sullivan Complete
} evaluations supporting R. Kno11 i plant modification to be
- reviewed by the safety
} analysis group,
! o Revising the procedures for performance of safety L. Kelley 2/1/97 evaluations, G. Ha1non o conducting training for appropriate personnel R. Hide 11 6/30/97 designated to perform Training safety evaluations. Complete 10 atevision 1,11/14/ss)
i
}
- Appendix B 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOBOWNDATIONS t
l III. Training (cont'd)
Responsible Target; Recommendation Manager Completion i Date i 4. The plan for the annual
{
Engineering Phase 3 (continuing)
! training should be broken into i three or four sessions and the l Curriculum Review Committee j should provide topic input to i each session. This would allow i Phase 3 training to be j responsive to current issues.
(IDRP 35)
Dispositions Accepted. D. Tidwell 1/31/97 Engineering continuing training T. su111 van revise 1997 vill be broken into more than training one session so that engineers plan can be kept'more current on design basis and other engineering related operating experience.
- 5. The Phase 3 continuing training curriculum should be more reflective of current design basis and licensing basis issues. (IDRP 36)
Disposition: Accepted. The operating experience content of D. Tidwell 1/31/97 engineering continuing training K. Baker will be updated to include the B.Gutherman latest information on these topics.
4 1
11 atevisnan 1,11/14/9s)
I
} I 1
- Appendix B 1
4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONMENDATION8 l
i 1 III. Training (cont'd) i
) Responsible Target i ~ Recommendation Manager Completion i
! Date
- 6. Reinforce engineering ownership of its design basis training l 4 program. (IDRP 37)
' Disposition: Accepted. F.Sullivan 4/1/97
- Engineering ownership of its K. Baker design basis training program 1 will be emphasized in 1 appropriate procedure revisions. l 1
i i
i l
1 4
f l
4 i.
! 12 Otevision 1,11/14/96) i i
, _ - _ . _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ - . _ . - . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _
i i
i i
Appendix B l INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONMENDATIONS l
2 IV. Procedures A. Nuclear Engineering Procedures 4
Responsible Target Recommendation Manager Completion Date l ,
! 1. Performance errors identified i during design verification reviews should be monitored and remedial training and corrective actions provided for repetitive problems. (IDRP 17) 3 Dispositions Accepted. The K. Baker 4/1/97 l verification process will be D. Tidwell s revised in NKP-261 to include
- tracking of performance errors.
i Lessons learned will be
- addressed by the curriculum
! committee through remedial i and/or continuing training.
[ 2. Develop specific guidance and i training for engineering personnel for conducting technical reviews of procedure changes. This should include j emphasis on evaluating the
! effect of procedure changes on
- design basis parameters and i design requirements and on i identifying possible revisions
- design basis documents. (IDRP i 22) i Dispositions Accepted. This t recommendation will be addressed K. Baker 6/30/97 i through revisions to the R. Nide11
- Qualified Reviewer program and
' AI-400 series procedures.
i i
13 memien 1,11/14/96)
<l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _._. _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _.. _ ._..._ _ .m _.,_ _ _ _.
i l
1 l Appendix B t
l INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RF.CouuuuDATIONS
. IV. Procedures (cont'd)
A. Nuclear Engineering Procedures (cont'd) 1 1 g Responsible Target
- l Recommendation Manager Completion Date f
l 3. Engineering management should i clearly communicate and
- reinforce the need to revise i design basis documents promptly i following implementation of a j olant modification or procedure
! . Tnge. Procedure NEP-216, i
- rnt Design Basis Documents, j ould be revised to provide j specific guidance for the i maximum time allowed to make
{ temporary changes to the design i basis documents and to l incorporate temporary changes as i permanent revisions. Other
! nuclear plants typically require permanent revision of design basis documents within 30 - 60 a days of implementing a plant j change. (IDRP 23) .
! Dispositions Accepted. NKP-216 K. Baker 4/1/97 i vill be revised to reinforce the need for timely revision of the design basis documents. Other plants will be screened to establish appropriate and 1 consistent revision times. NEP-l 210 may also require revision to
! address revision of the DBD's.
I i
4 14 (Revision 1,11/14/96) l
)
}
)'
1 i
i 1
I Appendix B '
i
] INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECnuMMMDATIONS ;
i j IV. Procedures (cont'd) '
, A. Nuclear Engineering Procedures (cont'd)
! Responsible Target Completion j Recommendation Manager 8 Date l 4. Revise procedure NEP-213, Design
- i. Analyses / Calculations, to j provide specific guidance or a
- check list for ensuring that design basis documents are
- - reviewed and revised as l necessary as a result of an j analysis or calculation. (IDRP
! 24) i Dispositions Accepted. NEP-223 K.. Baker 4/1/97 vill be revised as recommended.
- 5. Change the Modification Approval j' Record (MAR) process document (NEP-210) to ensure Design Bases j
l issues are clearly considered, identified and thoroughly i treated consistant with and
> similarly to NOD-52, commitment Processing and Management of l
Programmatic Commitments, and i AI-404A, Review of Technical Information, and AI-404B, l
i Review of Industry Operating j Experience. (IDRP 40) f Disposition: Accepted. NEP-220
- vill be revised as recommended. K. Baker 4/1/97 i-1 i
h
)
$ 15 Otevision 1,11/14/96)
I i
i
. _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ . ~
i i
i
! Appendix B l
t
! INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONMENDATIONS 1
- IV. Procedures (cont'd) 1 B. Administrative Instructions s Responsible Target
! Recommendation Manager Completion Date
~
J
! 1. Consider revising AI-400C, New l Procedures and Procedure Change i Roguests, to require a qualified review for all ,
- procedure changes by either l
- nuclear plant technical support (system engineering) or nuclear :
l engineering design. !
i Alternatively, consider adding '
to AI-400C, New Procedures and Procedure Change Requests, no?;e
! prescriptive conditions for when i l a qualified engineering review .,
j should be required. (IDRP 19) l 1 Dispositions Accepted. AT-400C
- vill be revised to clarify the K. Baker 4/1/97 conditions for when a qualified D. Kurtz
- review by engineering (systems a or design) is required.
k j 2. Revise AI-400F, New Procedures j And Procedure Change Processes l For Emergency operating i Procedures (EOPs), Abnormal '
l Procedures (APs), and i Verification Procedures (VPs),
to require a qualified review by nuclear engineering design for abnormal procedures and verification procedures as well as for emergency operating procedures. (IDRP 20)
Dispositions Accepted. AI-400F will be revised as recommended. K. Baker 4/1/97 G. Becker 16 atevision 1,11/14/96)
j l
l Appendix B l
4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOBOMNDATIONS l
I IV. Procedures (cont'd) i B. Administrative Instructions (cont'd) i
! Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion l
Date i
j 3. Include the Enclosure 11
- guidance from AI-400C, New i Procedures and Procedure Change
.' Requests, in AI-4007, New Procedures And Procedure Change
- Processes For Emergency l Operating Procedurns (ROPs),
l Abnormal Procedures (APs), and
- Verification Proced
- 2es (VPs) , i
' to assist the originator in l
! determining if the procedura l change affects design conditions
- - or design requirements. Consider l revising Enclosure 11 to be a
- check-off list to ensure i consideration of design basir,
{ issues. Provide guidance to l identify on the check-off list j the specific sections of the FSAR, technical specifications, i COLR, or design. basis documents i that may require revision. (IDRP 21)
Dispositions Accepted. M-400C
. Enclosure 11 will be revised and K. Baker 4/1/97 included in M-400F as G. Becker l
i recommended.
i i
1 j 17 Otevision 1.11/14/96)
i
)
' Appendix B j
i
- INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECONNENDATIONS IV. Procedures (cont'd)
! B. Administrative Instructions (cont'd) 2 Responsible Target j
, Recommendation Manager Completion i 2 Date i 4. Change procedures AI-404A,
- Review of Technical Information,
- and AI-404B, Review of Industry i Operating Experience, to ensure
- Design Bases issues are clearly considered, identified, and i thoroughly treated. (IDRP 39) j Disposition: Accepted. AI-404A and B will be revised as K. Baker 4/1/97 \
recommended.
i I l
1 18 aterision 1,11/14/96)
..- ..-.- - . - . . . . . .. - . . . . - . ~ . . . - - . - . . - . - . - - . . - . _ . - . - ~ . -
l, Appendix B 4
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECO30mMDATIONS l
IV. Procedures (cont'd)
C. Compliance Procedures i
- Responsible Target l Recommendation Manager Completion i Date s
! 1. Ensure procedure CP-150, l
Identifying and Processing j operability Concerns, has an
- appropriate " process" to ensure i that only appropriate items are j notified and reported. (IDRP 41) l Disposition
- Accepted. G. Halnon 1/3/97
! Revisions will be made in CP-l 151, " External Reporting i Requirements" to incorporate
- this recommendation.
l 2. Ensure procedure CP-150, i Identifying and Processing
)~ Operability concerns, includes
]
appropriate guidance from NUREG-l 1022 to take advantage of the
- allowed time frame to evaluate l an issue prior to notification.
l (IDRP 42)
Dispositions Accepted. This
. will be included in CP-151. G. Ha1non 1/3/97 l
- 3. Revise CP-150, Identifying and Processing Operability Concerns, to be consistent with industry practice for the shift
] supervisor to seek assistance in
! determining the need to make a i notification. (IDRP 43) '
i Dispositions Accepted. This
- will be included in CP-151. G. Ha1non 1/3/97 l
l l
1 i
4 19 Otevision 1,11/14/96) j i
I i
.. . . . .=. - _ --. - - - -- - . - . . - . . . . - . . - . . . - . - - - .. .-.. - . - ..-- -._.
l !
$ I
! Appendix B j L
I' INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS l~ V. Technical Issues t
1 1
- Responsible Target l Recommendation Manager Completion 4 Date I 1. FPC should complete its efforts to better clarify the bases and E approach to handling piping analysis and piping support
! design basis issues. (IDRP 6) l Disposition: Accepted. Interim F. Sullivan 6/30/97 l action taken to bring in Ed Wais
! to review the current piping and l l support analyses.
1 2. The panel recommends and CR-3 i had decided to install design
! upgrades to the HPI system to i enhance operating margin in the
{ avant of certain postulated j transients. (IDRP 8) i Dispositions Accepted. FPC is l planning to install NPI F. Sullivan Refuel 11
- crossover pipes aaG revitating ,
l Venturis in Refue.1 1).. '
ll: 3. The panel recommends and CR-3 has decided to conduct a
- thorough ir vostigation to j determine why similar balance-of-plant design features are
! limiting at CR-3 and not at j TMI-1. (IDRP 9) 8 Disposition: Accepted. FPC e vill conduct the recommended F. Sullivan 6/30/97 review.
. ,,a
+
e 4
1 20 ateision 1,11/14/ss) i l
i 4
l i
i l Appendix B
, INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECORDIENDATIONS i
f V. Technical Issues (cont'd)
{ Responsible Target i Recommendation Manager Completion j Date
- take any appropriate action.
- (IDRP 10)
Dispositions Accepted. Review F. Sullivan 6/30/97 of the July report is directly
- connected with recommendation #3 l
above. TPC will enter the subject report into the vendor l information program to control j the review.
t
! 5. Obtain controlled copies of the l' Framatone/B&W type 52 reference j documents for use by station
- engineering personnel with
! appropriate proprietary l l
information protection. (IDRP 15)
Dispositions Accepted. FPC
- vill obtain site copies of (or J. Colby 2l1/97
- site access to) the B&W proprietary design documents.
There is an apparent error in
, the above recommendation in that j the type S2 documents referred i to should be type 32 documents.
i I
I i
j i
l i
- 21 atevision 1.11/14/96)
I i
i
-. _ . _ . . . _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .. _ . . _ . . ~ ._.._.____._.__.m______ . . _ . . _ . _ _ .
i i
i I i
Appendix B INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS V. Technical Issues (cont'd) .
Responsible Target Recommendation . Manager Completion Date
- 6. The Panel encourages FPC to continue implementation of a graded approach to instrument error calculations. (IDRP 45)
Disposition: Accepted. The J. Masada Tied to graded approach to setpoint senior calculations and instrument management error determinations is focus item continuing. #SF-96-15 22 atevision 1,11/14/96)
i Appendix B i
I INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS VI. Safety Evaluations i
i i Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion 1 Date 3 Station management should 1.
! consider including within the j NGRC annual assessment, the Quarterly Manager Assessment, or
- l. PRC reviews an assessment of the i cumulative effect of design
! basis and design discrepancies j on plant safety. (IDRP 29)
- Dispositions Accepted. A Senior 1/3/97 i decision will be made as to Management l which group is best to perform Team j the review and the respective charter will be revised.
- 2. FPC should establish a " stand
- alone" Safety Evaluation (SE)
' format that requires an l integrated discussion of the
- proposed change, its effect on safety, and the USQ determination. (IDRP 31)
Disposition Accepted. B.Gutherman 4/1/97 I
- 3. A subcommittee of the NGRC should review SEs after the fact sufficiently to address quality, trends, and issues and report the results to the full NGRC.
(IDRP 32)
Disposition: Accepted. The NGRC will consider establishing Senior 1/3/97 a subcommittee to review a Management sample of the SE's performed. Team 23 (Revision 1,11/14/96)
- - - _ . - - - - . . . - . _ . . - . . - - - - - . - . . - _ . - - - . ~ . . . . . . . .
1 I Appendix B l INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOletENDATIONS
! VI. Safety Evaluations 4
i Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion
! Date i
4
- 4. Consider limiting the number of j personnel allowed to perform, review, and approve SEs. This
- should result in sustaining a i level of proficiency in the j process and thereby improving
.. the overall quality of SEs.
(IDRP 33) l Dispositions Accepted. FPC Senior 1/3/97 l will make a decision on this Management recommendation and factor the Team i resulting approach into the i response to Training recommendation 93 above.
i 1
l q
1 I
i i
i i
t a
1 i
i i
l 4
j 24 atnision 1,11/14/96) f I
- l 1
} Appendix B i
1 j INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS l i
! VII. Management Issues i
I Responsible Target l Recommendation Manager Completion 4
' Date
- 1. FPC should take action to have I i the Steering Committee of the l B&W owners Group add the subject ,
of Design Basis to its regular j meeting agenda. significant i
value could be gained by l developing a more standardized j approach to this important,
- . emerging issue of design basis i validation and control. (IDRP 11) j Disposition
- Accepted. See R. Widell 2/15/97 i Engineering Expectations
! recommendation #2 above.
4 I
i i
.I 1-1 2
i i
i i
i i,
25 Otevision 1.11/14/96)
1 I i l Appendix B
! INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
\
j VII. Management-Issues (cont'd)
} Responsible Target
- Recommendation Manager Completion Date
! 2. FPC management should revise l resource planning and work l management practices to ensure
{ that adequate time and priority
- is provided to perform high
! quality engineering work and
- reviews. This should include an
!' effective screening. process to i cancel engineering work requests I of marginal value and to assign l appropriate priority and
} schedules to all engineering
[ work. (IDRP 16) j Dispositions Accepted. This i recommendation will be resolved
! by:
i o Interim action to establish G. Boldt Complete 1 i top ten priorities for i engineering and a revised i PNRG process to reduce the l backlog of plant. l i modification work, l
} o An integrated, resource-1 loaded, schedule for F. Sullivan 4/30/97 engineering work.
- 3. FPC should proceed with the planned selective SSFIs to further assess and ensure the adequacy of the design basis information. (IDRP 28)
Dispositions Accepted. FPC plans to conduct 1-2 SSFI's on Senior To be .
important safety systems per Management included in l year'for the next five years. Team each years annual plan 26 Ohmsion 1.11/14/96)
Appendix B INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
) VII. Management Issues (cont'd) i i Responsible Target j Recommendation Manager Completion
) Date I 4. The assessment of recent design i basis LERs (Tanguay report) on
- plant safety should be revised i to include an explicit conclusion regarding the cumulative effect of the 44 LERs l reviewed.
4 (IDRP 30)
- Dispositions Accepted. Action P. Tanguay Complete
- complete.
! 5. FPC undertake action to
- periodically assess the adequacy
- ef the Design Bases Program and i to report on it in a manner that
- is visible to management and j requires organizational !
- response. (IDRP 44) 1 l Disposition Accepted. This G. Boldt Tied to l l recommendation vill be resolved J.Baumstark Engineering j by: self o Engineering department assessment
, self-assessments, and QPD I o Quality Programs audits. annual j audit plans i 6. The Panel's charter was " Design i Basis"; however, it found that i in some regards similar problems
- existed in the Licensing Basis.
! As implied in Recommendation 1, i FPC should take steps to improve the definition, understanding, and use of the Licensing Basis i and consider at least i Recommendations 2, 4, 5 and 7 in l that regard. (IDRP 46)
Disposition: Accepted. L. Kelley 6/1/97 i
l I 27 Otevision 1,11/14/96) l
)
i I
i
. - - - . - - . - - - - ~ . . . . . _ . . . - -. .-.-. -. . -. . - . . - . _
i
! Appendix B i
I INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PANEL RECnansmuDATIONS i
i VII. Managener.t Issues (cont'd)
Responsible Target i Recommendation Manager Completion Data
) 7. Develop guidance for operations' personnel that establishes i expectations for their review of l engineering analyses and
- calculations. It should be
{ clear that the operations'
{ review is to validate input i
assumptions related to how the plant is operated and to review outputs for effect on plant operation, not to provide a full engineering verification. (IDRP 47)
Disposition: Accepted. This K. Baker 4/1/97 recommendation vill be resolved R. Davis through revision to appropriate operations procedures (e.g. AT- {
500 and/or the OI's)
I l
28 atevision 1,11/14/96)
i i
) 10/29/96
- Rev. 0 L CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 l RESTART PLAN l 1
i i
Obiectives ;
i i .
e Achieve Significant In-Plant Safety Margin Improvement. j l '
i e Improve Materiel Condition of the Plant with Emphasis on the Secondary Side. j i ;
e ic mpiish ali Restart Miiestones on rime.
[
, e Have No OSHA Reportable Injuries. !
e Have No Violations Resulting in Femlated Enforcement.
)
l e Perform Restart Event Pree.
l e Achieve Prompt Scif Disclosures of Problems.
l l e Successfully Implement the new Procedure Change Process and Corrective Action i System.
l Management Expectations i
! SAIC i
i i e The plant will be maintained in a safe condition at all times. All work will be
! performed using defense, in-depth strategies.
i j e All design deficiencies that impact safety will be addressed to assure adequate safety margins exist before restart. .
l e Procedures will be followed exactly as written or work will be stopped and the j procedure corrected.
- e Strict attention and adherence to CR-3 industrial safety procedures and the j Accident Prevention Manual will be maintained at all times. These safety i standards will be strictly enforced.
I i
j i
i i
t i
1 i
o The plant will not be returned to power until scheduled work is complete and an iet restart safety review is conducted which clearly demonstrates that safety margins are E-:+pele for continued operation.
e Radiation doses will be controlled as low as reasonably achievable.
j e All regulatory requirements and legal commitments will be fully met. ;
e All interactions with our regulators will be timely, candid, and thorough.
l l e Regulatory concems will be promptly communicated within the organization and
! addressed thoroughly.
4
- e All work step verifications will be performed without omission.
N e . The schedule will control all work performed during the outage.
- Plant equipment problems will be corrected so as to minimize operator burden and ensure reliable operation until Refuel 11. l e Work problems will be communicated as soon as possible to the Nuclear Shift Manager.
i e Workmanship will be of the highest quality achievable.
e All required training will be conducted on plant modifications and associated procedure changes prior to power operations.
Organization / Responsibilities See Attachments I & II. .,
Communications During the restart of CR-3, communications with employees will be enhanced by:
e All Hands Kick-Off Meetings. These meetings will ensure that all employees are presented with the Restart Plan and afford each employee with the opportunity to have questions / concerns addressed.
l a
i
! e CR-3 Internal News Bulletins will be issued to ensure employees are made aware 1 l of the current status of restart activities.
e Restart objectives will be displayed on posters throughout the plant to help ensure
! cmployees remain focused on the objectives. .
i
]
- Outage Scope & Schedule See Attachment III for summary of outage scope. The outage schedule is currently under j development. The outage target completion date (plant in Mode 1) is February 28,1997.
1 Logistics 1
}
Meetings:
1 l e An 0615 along with a 1615 Daily Schedule Coordiadan Meeting will be held to coordinate emergent activities and confirm schedule direction.
]
i e An 0800 Plant Manager's Safety Review Meeting will be held to review plant status, ensure safety focus, and oversee restart objectives.
i l e An 0830 Senior Nuclear Officer's Meeting will continue to be held to brief the l Senior Nuclear Officer on Nuclear Operation's status and establish coordinated 1 l priorities for' resolution of important issues.
i e A Restart Command Center has been established in the Nuclear Administration l 4 Building Conference Room 203 for making key restart decisions.
I Work Schedules: :
e Normal work schedules will consist of two 10-hour shifts 5 days per week.
l e Critical Path work will be scheduled for two 10-hour shifts 6 days per week.
e Sundays will not normally be used for catchup. .,
- Budget e The budget will be developed after design details are finalized.
o All expenditures related to this outage are to be charged to accounting number 657000.
4
i i
Oversight Activities
! Restart Panel NOTE: Attachment IV depicts the reporting chain of the Restart Approva)
Authority.
- A Restart Team has been initiated. Membership includes
l Regulatory Checklist Coordinator j Containment Checklist Coordinator
- Programmatic Checklist Coordinator l Way Plant Checklist Covidiretor i Survai11== Test Checklist Coordinator ECCS Design Checklist Cc=Jirster
! The Restart Team will report to a Restart Panel. Membership includes:
! Director of Nuclear Plant Operations l Director of Quality Programs i i Outage Manager j 1%t Panel Member e The Restart Panel Chairman is the Vice President Nuclear Production.
i The Restart Panel will report to the Restart Authority, Senior Vice President Nuclear l Operations who will provide restart authorization.
Plant Review Committee
! Plant Review Committee is responsible for:
o maintaining oversight of the restart restraint check list, e reviewing 50.59 evaluations associated with outage work, and e monitoring AI-256, Outage Restart Readiness Guidelines.
Nuclear General Review Committee The NGRC provides broad safety oversight of the restart effort and provides recommendations to the Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations.
Technical Issues See Attachment V.
1
I Attachment I :
i Senior Vice President ;
Nuclear Operations (SeniorNuclearOfficer) [
i Director Nuclear Plant -
Director Quality Programs Operations -
o Independent RestartOversight i
(Restart Director) o Safe Unit Restart ,
o Outage Objectives Accomplishment gg gg [
Director Nuclear Engineering & Projects Operations Materials (VPNP) h'
& Controls " "*, g* j' ,"'8 ]
o OutageBudgetPreparation i o MaterialPrgeurement i o Outage Contract Administration Director Nuclear Director Nuclear Operations Site Support Operations Training o ucemingsupport o In-Processing o MARTraining
Attachrnent 11 ~
Director Nuclear Plant Operations Assistant Plant Director (Hickle) Assistant Plant Director Restart D,irector Maintenance &
Operations & Chemistry Radiation Protection (Davis) o Plant safety (Campbell) '
h o operations / Chemistry
, o Industrialsafety I o QualityMaintlConstruction/HP
~
.! Outage Manager (Koon) o schedule Accuracy & Execution o MilestoneMonitoring Materials (GAC) Projects (KFL)
NSMs o safescheduleExecution PRC Chairman (Halnon) o Start Up Restraints !
o 50.59 Reviews
- Communications Officer o nestartReadinessReview (Kurtz) o strategicCommunications Licensing Support i Engineering Support (Gutherman)
(Sullivan)(Terry) o NRCInterface Coordination &
Dissemination ofinformation o DesignDevelopment o system Engineeringsupport i
- = . . . _ . . - . - . - . - - - . . - - . - ~ - - . . - . _ . _ - - - . - - . _ . . - . . . . - . . . . .
]
Attachment ll1 1 OUTAGE SCOPE
SUMMARY
i i l Technical Projects as defined in Attachment V.
I
- I
! OTHER MAJOR PROJECTS: i l R.B. Ladders
- R.B. Coatings i R.W. Spool Replacement
{
MAJOR MAINTENANCE ITEMS:
! RCP Motor Oil Leaks l Polar Crane Work items i FHCR-1 Rebuild Fuel Holst and Reinstall
- Over Due On-Line Preventative Maintenance (CS's) (24) i Over Due Outage Preventative Maintenance (CS's) (36) l Over Due On-Line Calibrations (IC's) (20) l Over Due Outage Calibrations (IC's) (6) j Upcoming Preventative Maintenance through May 97 (CS's) (278) l Upcoming Calibrations (IC's) through May 97 (135) l Outage Related Preventative Maintenance (CS's) through October 97 (128)
! Outage Related Calibrations (IC's) through October 97 (36)
System Engineering Ranking Lists l Control Board Deficiency Tags (36)
! Operator Work Around items (8) l Surveillance Procedures (SP's) Normal and Outage Related (Evaluating those due a:
! 18 Months s 24 Months) l Fuse Control Program j Retorque OTSG Primary & Secondary Manways & Handholes l Multi-Case Circuit Breaker Changeout
- RWP-2A and Related items l CHHE-1 A and Related items
! .MSSV'S (6) Send off for Rebuild & Test .
! R.B. Jib Crane Seal Oil System Work j Cl System Outage i
1 I
r .._s _ , n.
j Crystal River Unit 3 Restart Approval i
! RestartAuthority i SVPNO 1
\
l h i
l';
i l
RestartPanel i Chainnan .
! VPNP 1
! l i U V V U i
PanelMernk OutageManager RestartPanelMember RestartPanelMember l
DNPO Indvdet 1
l t
1.
i V i
i i Restart Team I
i 4
{ Regulatory g,g_, Programmatic j Checklist Checklist ChecMin j Coordinator gg,, Coordinator 5
Surveillance ECCS Design Secondary TestChecklist PlantChecklist Checklist Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator
l i Attachment V
- TECHNICAL ISSUES ltem Desenprion Comments .
HPI Pump Recire Back to the MUT 1) Possible Procedure Fix, or ,
- 2) Possible Piping Fix.
i HPI Modifications to Improve SBLOCA Evaluations Are On-going.
Margins Mission Time of LPI Pumps Evaluations Are On-going.
Improve BSP-1B NPS!! Rebuild BSP-1B and Possibly BSP-1A.
EFW/EFIC Upgrade (Cavitating Venturis) A MUST for this Outage.
Comp Module A MUST for this Outage.
ASV-204 A MUST for this Outage.
EDG Imad Capability Rebuild Turbochargers and Modify Intercoolers, Evaluate Imad Removals, and Evaluate Accuracy of KW Meters.
Complete FMEA for loss of DC Power Evaluation Will Resolve Problems Raised via the Scenario.
Assess impact of GL %06 Approximately 13 Penetrations will be Modified to Prevent Overpressunzation.
Perform NPSH Review of EFP Suction Evaluation may Identify Worst Case as Swapover from EFT to CST Installing Two Check Valves.
Identify and Complete Graded Setpoint 8 EFIC Hi-Range Transmitters to be Cale's Needed to Evaluate New Transmitters Installed. .
Resolve NPSH Concern when SFPs are used This Can be Accomplished with Procedure to Recirc the BWST Changes.
Address any Current Concerns with GL % Evaluation will Address any Concerns.
01
i item Descrintion Comments Complete any OP, EP, and AP Changes Appropriate Procedure Revisions will be Needed to Implement the Above Resolutions Made to Reflect Changes made to the Plant.
EFV-12,13 MOV Crosstics Possibly Install AC or DC Motor Operators.
l Battery Safety Issues Considered as a Safety Issue and will be Resolved this Outage.
Safety Issues (Rotating Equipment Guards, Evaluation for Scope is On-going.
I2dders, Etc.)
4 i
d 4
e e
g i
l i
CRYST 31L REYTR ' UNIT 3 SITT 'DIR'ECTION .
.. . . :: .= .=
CR-3 CHALLENGES: -
t
- e To strengthen the nu, clear safety culture throughout the nuclear organization and in all elements of our nuclear program.
e To ensure organizational and programmatic changes are effectiye To meet these challenges, the following are the top 10 CR-3 priorities: '
improve safety system margin and methodically validate the design basis for key plant
~
a systems a Revise the corrective action process to include a single graded approach to problem identification, effective root and apparent cause determination, and meaningful performance.monitanng and trending.
m improve human performance with ernphasis on eliminating operator work-arounds,-
enhancing procedures, reducing administrative burden, and improving human error reduction skills.
- Revise and validate the 50.59 process against industry sta ards; communicate and' effective,1y implement the new process.
> Achieve technically accurate and timely regulatory submittals.
- Evaluate current and projected site rkload against resources to achieve sustained backlog reduction rates.
- Critically examine the integrated wok process, including planning, scheduling and work control for both the on-line and outage environments; establish an improvement plan.
y
- Establish and communicate standard methodologies by which we will manage change,
. including emerging issues and organizational and programmatic change.
- Create and implement an effective Management and Supervisory Development Program.
= improve adherence to nuclear security requirements.
. . . . ~ .
y .s
. ,. T .
T l g
'~
It1/$is'O6 s, ,, ., ,..
[ .
.n..