IR 05000267/1986031
| ML20212D213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Dubois D, Gagliardo J, Randy Hall, Jaudon J, Danielle Sullivan, Yandell L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212D193 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-267-86-31, NUDOCS 8612310320 | |
| Download: ML20212D213 (8) | |
Text
.
._
.
,
APPENDIX
!
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-267/86-31 License: DPR-34 Docket: 50-267 Licensee: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC)
P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840
Faciljty Name:
Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station (FSV)
Inspection At:
FSV Site, Weld County, Platteville, Colorado InspectionCondcted[ November 17-21, 1986
,
l# lI
"
/b/
/
Inspectors:
,
Datp i
V. E. Gb911ardo, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch l3 /
Sb w
&
f. 7. Ja)Idoli, Chier, Projen Section A Date
@eaktor Projects Branch 11AC h b 9b Date
'
L. A. YpndeIl, Chief, Emergency Preparedness ndJafeguardsProgramsSection
,
1% I($ kl I
(
O. J. StGlivan, Senior Inspection Specialist Date i
'
Performance Appraisal Section, IE
/
W
/
/.C E6
. L.(dub s 5enior,Mlesident Inspector Date
'
ope'r N ear Station
i l
8612310320 861219 PDR ADOCK 05000267
G PDR
- - _ - _.
.
-
_ -
_ _
-
-
-
-
-_
.--
. - _ -. _ _ _ -.
... _ -..
._
_. _.
. _.
_.
_._
.
_.
-
-
.
. *
.
.
-
,
,
. Approved:
.
[
/
/h
R. E. Hall, Deputy, Director, Division of Date-z Reactor Safety and Projects Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted November 17-21, 1986 (Report 50-267/86-31)
Area Inspected:
Special, announced assessment of the effectiveness of the
'
management initiatives to improve the performance of the Fort St. Vrain staff.
Results: Within the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
,
,
'
i i
l l
i
!
I
'.
s l
t
'
i I
t i
i e
-,,~n,
,.-,--
.-n.
. - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -, ~. - - - -. - - - ~ - -.--
-
-
-
.
O
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Public Service Company of Colorado
- R. O. Williams, Vice President, Nuclear
- J. Gahm, Manager, Nuclear Production
- P. Tomlinson, Manager, Quality Assurance
- D. Warembourg, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
'
Others
- R. E. Farrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
- P. W. Michaud, NRC Resident Inspector The NRC inspectors contacted numerous other licensee personnel from all four nuclear divisions.
- Denotes those attending exit interview conducted November 21, 1986.
2.
Assessment Description and Methodology The purpose of this inspection was to assess the effectiveness of licensee management initiatives and changes to improve (enhance) the performance of licensee personnel.
It was a specific goal of the assessment to determine if the changes made by licensee management had been effectively communicated down to all levels of the four nuclear divisions and to ascertain if there has been any apparent change in the performance of individuals.
The methodology used in the assessment was to conduct interviews at the performance level and at the first-line supervisor level of the
,
i organization.
A series of questions was developed, each of which was
designed to assess the perceptions, attitude, and experience of the individuals being interviewed in the five assessment areas delineated below.
The questions were intended to probe the areas, but the interviewers were free to ask additional questions to assure that a complete understanding of the responses given by the interviewee.
The five assessment areas examined and an explanation of the scope of each
.
area is listed below:
i l
Area Explanation Attitude Determine the interviewee's attitude toward quality, safety, management and his work.
Is he/she aware of and receptive to the changes being implemented by management.
Has his/her attitude changed in response to management's initiatives.
_ - _
_ -
. _ _ _,
_
_
_ - _ _ _, _ - _ _
_
_. _
_. _
.
..
-
__
._
.--
-
-.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _.
-
-
.
.
..
Responsibility and Ascertain if the individual was aware of his Program Directives responsibilities and management's expectations.
Have formalized directives, procedures, and guidanca been established as part of the organi_acion's quality goals.
Training and Determine if individual training and Development development had effectively prepared the employees to carry out their responsibilities.
This training should include technical and programmatic instruction.
Feedback and Evaluate the effectiveness of communications Communications upward and downward in each division and the communications between the divisions.
Management Oversite Assess the effectiveness of licensee management in making and monitoring the committed changes in the program and the degree to which management has demonstrated support for employee implementation of the program.
The assessment team evaluated the response to each question discussed with the interviewees to determine their perception of the program or its effectiveness.
The team met daily to identify and resolve, or justify, differences found by individual team members.
Although the assessment approach was non-rigorous in an analytical sense, the number of interviews conducted (101) and the close agreement on results among the assessment team nembers, provided assurance that the assessment results met the objectives.
The selection of personnel to be interviewed was made by the assessment team before the assessment, but the licensee was not informed of the interview schedule until the assessment team arrived onsite.
Interviewees were selected from interest groups (e.g., operators, engineers, QC inspectors,etc.).
Interviews were scheduled so that personnel selected from the same work group were interviewed sinultaneously or within a 2-hour period. This was done to minimize cross-talk and debriefing between personnel who had been interviewed and those who were to be interviewed.
3.
Assessment Results The assessment results and a summary are provided in the following subparagraphs:
a.
Attitude It was found that the vast majority of personnel at the working level and in first-line supervisory positions had an excellent attitud,
.
.
.
..
..
Personnel understood quality and were responsive to changes that would increase quality. The number of interviewees with a negative attitude was minimal. The employees appeared to be receptive to the management initiatives and were eager to participate in improving the performance and reputation of the site.
The answers in this area of the inspection did lead the team to
. conclude that there were some concerns in this area. Specifically, some interviewees expressed a degree of distrust toward management's commitment to change. This appeared to reflect breakdowns in the management chain within some work groups.
It was also noted that there appeared to be some vestiges of the lack of cooperation between divisions.
It was generally found that personnel at the working level could achieve close cooperation on a one-to-one basis with individuals in other divisions. However, some multi-division activities appeared to experience difficulty in completing the tasks rapidly. The team concluded that this was either a breakdown in interdivisional communications at the mid-management level and/or reflected a lack of strong oversite by one or more division managers. Both of these concerns are considered to be worthy of management attention.
The team noted that morale appeared to be very upbeat in the Quality Assurance Division. This appeared to be directly related to the recent management changes in that division.
It was also found that the licensee had recently hired some personnel for professional positions with extensive experience at other utilities or architect engineer firms.
These new hires exhibited an enthusiasm and drive
,
that was noteworthy.
There were nine questions used to evaluate this area.
Seven of the nine questions were found to have generally received positive answers, and this area received the second highest overall set of marks by the assessment team.
b.
Training and Development The team found that the licensee had a history of relatively weak training. There had been little accomplished in the area of developing employees for future assignments or responsibilities.
This situation was apparently undergoing change partly because of the licensee's work toward the INP0 accreditation of training.
Training accreditation efforts had apparently received management support, but except for some operator training, it had not yet reached a level of implementation that affected many licensee employees.
.
There apparently was no formal program to assure that engineering and licensing personnel received a sound understanding of appropriate codes and regulatory guides.
Development of individuals was non-uniform. Some managers or mid-level managers were apparently more receptive to provid:ag this i
y
.
.
.-
..
sort of training than were others.
There was a general perception that management would respond to training requests if the requestors made a strong case for the training.
Four specific questions were asked to assess this area.
All of these questions generally received responses that were given below average marks by the team, and this was the lowest overall area rated by the team.
c.
Responsibility and Program Directives This was found to be a strong area.
Individuals generally appeared to be clearly aware of their responsibilities and they demonstrated a clear awareness of the quality aspects of their job.
There were no specific concerns or problems of note in this area.
Five questions were used to assess this area.
Three of the five received very strong answers on the average, and the remaining two received answers which graded very close to the average.
This area received the highest marks from the team.
d.
Communication and Feedback Personnel generally demonstrated an awareness of policy changes and significant activities at the site.
There were examples of communication breakdowns, which appeared to be focused at the mid-management levels.
The team found that cooperation between divisions had improved.
There was, however, some examples of a lack of cooperation between the nuclear production and nuclear engineering divisions that appeared to be more than isolated occurrences.
It was noted that there had been an apparent improvement in getting stronger employee involvement in reviewing and providing feedback to i
procedure and design changes.
This improvement had the effect of assuring that changes were accomplished in a way that resolved the
'
l issue which had initiated the change request.
The increased employee involvement was judged by the team to be a positive sign and was an issue that the interviewees were pleased to acknowledge.
First-line supervisors believed that they did an excellent job of briefing their personnel on ongoing activities and policy issues at the site.
Performance level personnel did not believe that they were
,
that well informed.
One recent event that highlighted the nature of l
!
the problem in communications involved the removal of the plant from i
the rate base.
Division managers had been informed of the decision.
Some groups within certain divisions (but not the whole of all divisions) were informed of this before the newspaper articles appeared.
Many groups learned of the action from the newspapers.
This was perceived as an important issue of which management did not inform the rank and file.
l
- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _
- ..-
Six questions were used by the team to evaluate this area. Overall,
the answers received in response to these questions were low, and were considered indicative of the fact that additional management attention must be devoted to assuring that communications continue to improve.
e.
Management Oversite Management visibility, involvement, and support were perceived as having improved significantly beginning last summer. However, there was an undercurrent, which seemed to be widespeard, that all levels of management had not been caught up in the enthusiasm for the changes as shown by top management. This was referred to as " pockets of resistance" by interviewees.
In a similar sense, the team found that there was a general perception that in the past, middle managers were not held accountable for poor performance and that there was a long history of promotions based on friendship rather than merit.
This latter perception was so widely and strongly held that it is
'
considered to be representative of more than a sour attitude by a few chronic complainers. The team believes that these conditions were indicative of the continuing challenge that licensee management needs to address and resolve.
Although management visibility had apparcntly increased, there were a significant number of comments that indicated that a few managers had been and remained almost invisible to their subordinates at the
,
working level. There were also a few instances described (with great specificity) of apparent mid-management attempts to stiffle initiative or resist any upward thrust of suggestions for improvement or change.
I The team concluded that this was probably closely allied to the aforementioned " pockets of resistance".
On the positive side, the team also discovered instances wherein problems that did not get resolved at the division or at the mid-manager level, were escalated to top management and quickly handled. Another example of positive management oversite concerned planning and scheduling. This had been identified in SALP as a weak l
area and the licensee's initial response had been to bring in contractor personnel. This had not proven to be effective, and the
'
contractor personnel were generally resented ty the rank and file.
The licensee then began staffing its own planning and scheduling groups. Although this was a difficult task in the midst of an outage dnd still requires management attention, it demonstrates management's flexibility, responsiveness and oversite.
This area was rated as being about average with the changes and the
remaining problems both visible.
l l
r. =
>
..
..
...
f.
Summary It was evident, from this assessment, that management initiatives to improve and to change the performance at Fort St. Vrain were having an effect throughout the organization.
The commitment to quality and safety was universal, and the rank and file were receptive to change.
The conclusion of the inspection team was that the attitude of personnel and the effectiveness of management have shown considerable improvement and should not impose any constraint on plant restart.
It was also concluded, however, that management's efforts are far from complete and their efforts to enhance the performance of site personnel and build an integrated and capable team must continue with the same dedication that has brought about the improvements noted by the team.
4.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held on November 21, 1986, with those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
At this meeting, the NRC inspectors discussed the scope and findings of this inspection.
,i i
{
l
\\
!