IR 05000324/1993032
| ML20057C340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1993 |
| From: | Carroll R, Christensen H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057C335 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-93-32, 50-325-93-32, NUDOCS 9309280234 | |
| Download: ML20057C340 (10) | |
Text
. - - -. _ _ _ _ _.
,.
-
.
UNITED STATES
[pnec%e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
,
- * ~
REGloN 11 h
E 101 MARIETTA STREET N.W., SUITE 2900
'
7. -
- j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 0199
%....+/
Report Nos.: 50-325/93-32 and 50-324/93-32 l
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602
Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.: DPR-71 and DPR-62 Facility Name:
Brunswick Units 1 and 2
!
l
'
Inspection Conducted: August 16-20, 1993 I(mJdb
///S/f_3 Lead Inspector: g'E. Carroll, Projec p ngineer R.
Date' Signed l
Reactor Projects Section IA
,
Division of Reactor Projects j
Accompanying Inspectors:
P. H. Byron i
M. T. Markley W. H. Miller Approved by: h
-
N 9[/I 93
-
H.' O. Christensen, Chief Ddte Si/gned Reactor Projects Section IA Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY Scope:
This inspection was the first of several special team inspections planned to specifically evaluate the effectiveness of those efforts being taken to bring about long-term sustained improvement at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
Focusing on the Brunswick Three-Year Plan and CP&L's Corporate Improvement Initiatives, this inspection assessed improvements in management oversight /
leadership, as it relates to: expectations and standards; senior management involvement; overall management control; and communications.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The licensee has made progress towards improving management oversight /
leadership.
It is recognized, however, that improvement efforts need to be continued.
Thus far, overall management of the Brunswick Three-Year Plan has been good.
Changes made to the Three-Year Plan were considered appropriate. They were l
reviewed by proper levels of management and reflected good management
'
involvement. Administration of the Three-Year Plan was recently elevated to 9309280234 930915 PDR ADDCK 05000324 O
PDR f
..
..
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
.
.
.
the Site Vice President's special assistant. This and other favorable contrasts to the Integrated Action Plan (i.e., establishment of success criteria for each initiative, planned self-assessments, and initial focus on key initiatives) are indications that the Three-Year Plan is presently headed in the right direction.
However, uncertainties are raised by such matters as
,
strategic plan development
-
'
Licensee meetings (e.g., Management Review, Four "Cs", etc...) reflected improved management involvement and control.
Likewise, recent meetings of the Nuclear Safety Review and Oversight Committees appeared to be appropriately focused towards enhancing management oversight.
,
Overall, the site communication plan has been effectively implemented. As part of this key Three-Year Plan initiative, the Monday Memo publication and Four "Cs" meetings were considered to be very good communication tools.
Each provided a well received forum where management reinforced goals and expectations. Although intra-organization communications were found to be
-
generally good, there were indications of some difficulties in communicating up and down within the Operations organization.
.
The licensee has developed Individual Performance Expectations (IPEs) for each employee. Although they were under assessment / revision at the time of the inspection, the IPEs appeared to support the goals of the plant and were
'
understood at all levels evaluated.
Each individual interviewed knew their role / responsibility towards achieving plant success. However, with respect to key initiative expectations / objectives, there were indications within the Operations and Maintenance organizations that recommendations from Total Quality focus teams were not being fully implemented. Also within the Operations organization, there were some indications that IPEs were not negotiated as intended and that there was not a sense of line ownership for
training.
!
5
--.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Anderson, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Plant
- J. Dobbs, Special Assistant to Site Vice President
- C. Hinnant, Director, Site Operations
- J. Brown, Plant Manager, Unit 1
- W. Levis, Acting Manager, Regulatory Affairs
- D. Ingram, Manager, Financial Services
- G. Barnes, Manager, Unit 1 Operations i
- C. Blackmon, Manager, Radwaste and Fire Protection
- G. Miller, Manager, Technical Support
- L. Gard, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects
,
- H. Bordeux, Supervisor, Quality Control
!
L. Loflin, Manager, Nuclear Assessment Department (NAD)
- M. Bradley, Manager, NAD - Brunswick
- D. Quick, Manager, Management and Organization, NAD - Brunswick
- R. Schlicter, Principal Engineer, NAD - Brunswick
- C. Lewis, Manager, Document Services
- R. Grazio, Manager, Brunswick Engineering Support Services
- K. Williamson, Manager, Engineering Plant Projects and Programs
- M. Forester, Manager, Engineering Project Controls
- G. Thearling, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- T. Jones, Senior Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
- K. Harris, Senior Specialist, Licensing R. Giemza, Director, Management and Professional Development M. Harris, Manager, Site Communications K. Hate', Coordinator, Corporate Improvement Initiatives Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians and administrative personnel.
NRC Personnel
- R. L. Prevatte, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit Interview 2.
Background As indicated in the Region II Administrator's letter of June 23, 1992 to CP&L, the major impediments to long-term and sustained improvement at Brunswick fell into the following four areas:
(1) management oversight / leadership; (2) work control processes; (3) self-assessment / corrective action programs; and (4) material condition upgrade.
In response to this letter, the licensee submitted both Corporate Improvement Initiatives (CII) and a comprehensive site improvement plan (Brunswick Three-Year Plan) on November 30 and December 15, 1992, respectively.
Integrating the CII, the Brunswick Three-Year Plan encompasses the licensee's approach to addressing the four major impediment areas.
_
>
Focusing on the Brunswick Three-Year Plan and CP&L's CII, this inspection was the first of several special team inspections planned to specifically evaluate the effectiveness of improvement efforts within the four major impediment areas.
Recognizing its importance to success within the other three areas, the area assessed in this inspection was management oversight / leadership, as it relates to:
Establishment of management expectations and standards
Improvement of senior management involvement / oversight
Overall improvement of management control and communicatic1s
During this inspection, the above fundamentals of management oversight /
leadership were assessed accordingly under "Hanagement Control and Involvement" and " Communications and Expectations".
Planned future inspections of the other three impediment areas will also provide insight to assess the continued effectiveness of management oversight /
leadership.
3.
Management Control and Involvement a.
Three-Year Plan Administration Inspector review determined that overall management of the Three-Year Plan has been good. A responsible working group was established to monitor implementation, coordinate staff resources, and provide periodic status reports on the progress achieved.
They coordinate changes to the Three-Year Plan and provide "look ahead" notices for near-term milestones and schedular activities.
At the time of inspection, the licensee was in the process of reorganizing this function by elevating it from the line organization to a staff position reporting directly to the Site Vice President.
Senior management was effectively involved in reviewing Three-Year Plan initiative and project activities. All deletions, responsibility assignments and schedule changes were controlled, reviewed and approved by the appropriate level of senior management.
Each change reviewed by the inspectors was adequately supported. As appropriate, items deleted or changed were incorporated in other programs (e.g., Projects, Master Facilities Pl an, etc... ).
Eleven of forty initiatives were deleted and/or combined with other programs.
The licensee adequately implemented change management using station procedure BSP-14, Rev. 8, Project Identification and Project Change Process.
The licensee accelerated the schedule of a number of human performance related initiatives.
Some of these include: upgrading a
a management and supervisory development programs, improving expectations and communications, implementation of the work control and work management centers, and improving commitment and
l
.
corrective action programs. Management efforts to accelerate these issues were noteworthy in facilitating near-term improvements.
At the time of this inspection, no initiatives were complete. Of the 168 initiative and project sub-tasks currently scheduled, 161 were complete. Within the Three-Year Plan, there are 754 sub-r tasks of which 368 are related to initiatives and 386 are related to projects. The licensee is adequately managing progress on these items. The inspectors determined that the appropriate levels of station and corporate management reviewed and approved implementation progress and Plan direction.
.
Strategic Planning In April 1993, the CP&L Nuclear Generation Group (NGG) held a planning conference to compare performance levels to those objectives needed to obtain world class performance by 1996. This effort resulted in Strategic Planning Initiatives to redirect organizational efforts toward objectives, results and deliverables.
As such, corporate performance objectives were established for the organization, the plant and personnel. These initiatives focus on nuclear performance objectives and cost competitiveness. The licensee established executive strategic planning peer groups to coordinate CP&L efforts in developing and implementing the initiatives. Although the Strategic Plan was not finalized, the licensee began implementing some priority actions.
The licensee initiated actions to develop a Brunswick Nuclear Plant (BNP) Strategic Plan commensurate with NGG planning.
Nuclear performance objectives were established in terms of
,
improved Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
ratings, plant availability and power production costs.
In June 1993, the licensee initiated measures to integrate the NGG Strategic Planning Initiatives into the Three-Year Plan.
Specifically, the liceasee performed a self-assessment of the Three-Year Plan to incorporate elements of the NGG Strategic Plan.
Each initiative was reviewed by the responsible managers and
,
sponsors in accordance with station procedure PLP-25, Rev. O, Sel f-Asses sment.
Licensee management directed the responsible personnel to more clearly define deliverables, evaluate success criteria (measurable results), and change existing initiatives to bring them in line with the NGG Strategic Plan.
The Nuclear
Assessment Department (NAD) also conducted independent evaluations to assess the implementation and management of the Three-Year Plan.
The performance of these assessments was a noteworthy effort by the licensee, as a number of organizational and programmatic benefits were realized. Of particular importance was
'
the licensee's realization of the need to better define / strengthen the success criteria which was initially developed in May 1993 on l
..
.
.
.
-
. -
--
-
.
.
.
,
the initiative level. Accordingly, the licensee plans to revise the success criteria and perform additional self-assessments to ensure that the completion of the initiatives achieve the desired results.
Resource Allocation The Three-Year Plan is the current business plan for Brunswick.
The licensee also does financial planning separate from the Three-Year Plan.
It is the licensee's intent to merge this financial planning with the Three-Year Plan and the BNP Strategic Plan. As described, all initiatives and projects in the Three-Year Plan are planned to be funded consistent with the BNP Strategic Plan. The licensee indicated that this will become more formalized in their submittal of the revised Three-Year Plan in December 1993.
Currently, resources have been allocated to implement the Plan.
However, some activities in the Plan were not funded or were not being actively worked.
Licensee management recognized this deficiency and took measures to address it. Thus far, management actions have resulted in meaningful improvements in performance.
Although responsible licensee personnel acknowledged the need to do more, there is some uncertainty with respect to the licensee's future goals. Specifically, inspector review of the BNP Strategic Plan indicated that the licensee has some challenging goals in terms of reduced costs beyond 1995. These objectives appear to be based on the scheduled return of Unit I to operation, implementation of zero-based budgeting, focusing on deliverables, maintaining existing plant equipment, and reducing the number of plant modifications.
Recognizing that none of the Three-Year Plan initiatives have yet been completed, and major revisions to the
'
Three-Year Plan and CII are in progress, new strategic planning initiatives provide uncertainties regarding the overall direction of improvement efforts in the future, b.
Licensee Meetings With the assistance of the resident inspector staff, pertinent licensee meetings (several of which were initiated under the Three-Year Plan) were attended to assess: management interaction, involvement, and oversight; the reinforcement of goals and expectations; and communication effectiveness. Meetings attended were as follows:
(July 22 and August 19, 1993) - Monthly Manaagent Review
Heetinas conducted by the site management team to apprise corporate management and the Company President / Chief Operating Officer (C00) of budgetary issues, project and initiative status, plant improvements and challenges, recent inspections and evaluations, etc.
,
...
. _ _
_
.
.
.
.
(August 2, 1993) - Maintenance Oraanization Meetina
conducted by the Unit 2 Maintenance Manager to present the
.
'
" STAR" self-checking program, discuss items of interest, address questions and concerns, etc.
(July 21 and August 19, 1993) - Monthly Four Cs Meetinas
conducted by the Company President /C00, who responded to a small group of employees' compliments, convictions, concerns, and comments.
Corporate and Site management were also in attendance.
(August 6, 1993) - Mors.H Four Cs Meetina conducted by the
Site Vice President, with an agenda similar to those described above.
i (August 6,1993) - Monthly Supervisors Meetina conducted by
the Site Vice President to present a " Great Ideas" award, discuss items of interest, address questions and concerns, l
etc. The Executive Vice President, NGG, attended this meeting.
During the above meetings, management demonstrated good
,
involvement / interaction.
Improved senior management
'
involvement / oversight was also exhibited in several of the l
meetings.
For the most part, there were good open communications
'
with goals and expectations being discussed / reinforced.
l c.
Nuclear Safety Review and Oversight Committees Inspectors reviewed the charters and published meeting minutes of
the Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee (NSOC) and the Brunswick Nuclear Safety Review Committee (NSRC). They were reviewed with
!
respect to management oversight, as implemented under Corporate Improvement Initiative CII-2.
j The NSOC (which is currently chaired by the CP&L President /C00)
was established to advise and assist company management and the
,
'
Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibilities for safe and efficient operation of CP&L's nuclear plants.
Similarly, the Brunswick NSRC (which is currently chaired by the Nuclear
Assessment Department Manager) was established to advise the Site Vice President on the adequacy and implementation of nuclear safety policies and problem solutions, provide a strong outside nuclear industry perspective to Brunswick's nuclear safety performance, and provide an independent source of nuclear safety information for management.
Both committees have two outside nuclear experts, one of which is common to both.
Required by their respective Charters to meet at least quarterly,
.
the NSOC has met two times and the site NSRC has met four times since their first meetings in March 1993. Based on the minutes,
,
the early meetings of both committees were essentially formative
!
>
.. -..
!
.
.
.
,
i in nature. However, as evidenced by discussions of more significant issues, latter meetings appeared to be appropriately focused towards enhancing management oversight.
4.
Communications and Expectations The Brunswick Three-Year Plan defines the mission, vision and goals for the plant.
The mission is to provide safe, reliable, economic and environmentally sound electricity from nuclear energy with a vision for
-
'
BNP to be recognized as a "world class" leader by operating in the top quartile of U.S. nuclear plants by 1996. The goals established to achieve these results are for the plant to operate safely, be in the upper 25 percentile of NRC SALP ratings, have a unit availability of 85
)
percent, and operate at a specified production cost. Under initiatives
of the Three-Year Plan, the licensee implemented a communications plan, established human performance-related training and developed individual performance expectations as key steps towards achieving BNP's mission,
'
vision and goals.
Issued in February 1993, the specific objectives of the site i
communications plan are:
l Improve managers' recognition of the importance of day-to-day
communications with employees and fellow Brunswick managers and
provide them with training and coaching in communications skills.
Support managers' communications efforts through clear procedures
~
for disseminating important news in a timely manner, and enhanced communication vehicles designed to provide employees with ready access to current news.
Improve teamwork between organizations by successful
implementation of desired communication skills, as promoted in the fundamentals of " Managing Relationships at Work".
Provide a means of measuring progress towards improved
communications at the Brunswick Plant.
An onsite communications manager was assigned by the corporate communications department to assist site management in achieving the above objectives. Accordingly, activities being implemented under the i
communications initiative include: weekly staff meetings for each work group with managers and supervisors; communication training to all managers and supervisors; monthly safety meetings; monthly manager and supervisor meetings conducted by the Site Vice President; weekly newsletter (Monday MEMO); video monitor displays and other electronic media; quarterly family newsletter; information centers / bulletin boards;-
annual employee feedback surveys; and monthly Four Cs meetings conducted by the Site Vice President in addition to those conducted by the Company President / COO.
<
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
l
..
l
The inspectors reviewed several recent issues of the " Monday MEM0" publication and found them to be very good. They contained news and items of information about the plant, as well as information to motivate the employees.
Similarly, the inspectors found that the Four Cs meetings they attended provided a very good forum for open communica-tions. As such, they were all conducive to discussing / reinforcing goals and expectations. The conspicuously placed plant video monitors and bulletin boards were also reviewed by the inspectors.
Found to contain pertinent information about the plant and other items of interest, they too were considered to be effective means of communication.
Interviews of individuals were conducted by the inspectors to further assess management effectiveness in communicating goals, objectives and expectations from both the plant and individual perspective.
In order to discern individual expectations, the inspectors reviewed selected Individual Performance Expectations (IPEs) and human performance-related training materials (e.g., Total Quality, Effective Performance Management, Management and Supervisory Development, STAR self-checking, etc...).
Except for the Site Vice President, interviewees were selected at random from the Operations, Maintenance and Technical Support Organizations.
Based on the results of these interviews, meetings attended (see paragraph 3.b) and reviews of the various publications and l
other communication media, the inspectors determined that the communication program at Brunswick was being effectively implemented.
Overall, intra-organization communication appeared to be good. ilowever, within the Operations organizations there were indications of some difficulties in disseminating information both up and down the internal communications train. Nevertheless, all of the employees interviewed understood their role and respons'Lilities towards achieving plant success.
To assess conformance with strategic initiatives, the licensee conducted a self-assessment of the IPEs for all Section Managers, 50 percent of all Unit Managers and 50 percent of all Sub-Unit Managers. A similar assessment of IPEs for 25 percent of the remaining members of the plant's staff was in progress at the time of this inspection. This assessment is scheduled to be completed in late 1993. The completed assessments identified a need for IPE improvements in the areas of generic expectations, outage management and communications. As such, the licensee is taking appropriate action to address this matter.
Although in agreement with the licensee's self-assessments, the inspectors' review of the IPEs still found them supportive overall of the plant goals and expectations. The inspector's review also concluded that not all the IPEs within Operations were negotiated with the employees, as Effective Performance Management discusses (Three-Year Plan Initiative TY201).
In contrast, employees interviewed from the other two organizations expressed satisfaction in having had input in the development of their IPE.
- _-________________________ - ______ ___-_________ ___-_-______
-.-~
i
.
.
I
With respect to key initiative expectations / objectives, the inspectors also determined that not all individuals' within the Operations organization felt that they had ownership of training (Three-Year Plan
'
Initiative TY202). Additionally, there were indications within the Operations and Maintenance organizations that recommendations from Total
'
Quality focus Teams were not being fully implemented (Three-Year Plan Initiative TY201). The above issues were discerned from the interviews previously discussed and the Four Cs meeting held on August 19, 1993.
^
5.
Exit Interview
'
The inspection scope and results were summarized on August 20, 1993, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspectors described
>
the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
!
Proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
>
$
c
!
l
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
- --