IR 05000344/1990001
| ML20055C390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1990 |
| From: | Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C389 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-01-MM, 50-344-90-1-MM, NUDOCS 9003080223 | |
| Download: ML20055C390 (47) | |
Text
.
_-. _ _
_
...
s;
.
'
-
,
l
';
,
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
,
REGION.V; Report No. 50-344/90-01 Docket No. 50-344
- License No. NPF-1 I
Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W.~ Salmon Street Portland, Oregon Facility Name:
TrojanNuclearPowerPlant Meeting'at:
Region V. Offices, Walnut Creek, California
Report Prepared by:
M.-M. Mendonca, Chief i
Reactor Projects Section 1
'
Approved by:
$LA~
2 -12 -W
5. A. Richards, Chief.
-Date. Signed ReactorProjectsBranch
Meeting Summary:
Meeting on January 12, 1990 (Report No. 50-344/90-01)
- A management meeting was held in the Region V Office, Walnut Creek, California to discuss PGE improvement plans for Trojan as documented in-the--report and-outlined in the licensee handout.
-
.
,
.
>
k i
I
.)
i i
!
"
9003080223 90021R i
PDR ADOCK 05000344 G
PNV
'a
,
-
-
j
-
_-
%
,
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Meeting Attendees-a.
Licensee Attendees
\\
-
.i W. M. Higgins, Senior Vice President
.
D. W. Cockfield, Vice President, Nuclear T. D. Walt, General Manager, Technical. Functions C. K. Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Ouality Functions R. E. Susee, Manager, Work Planning and Control G. D. Hicks, General Manager, Plant Support R. M. Nelson, Manager, Nuclear Safety and Regulation Department S. A. Bauer, Manager, Nuclear Regulation Branch J. F. Whelan, Manager, Maintenance Department A. R.' Ankrum. Manager, Nuclear Security B. F. Fishel, Organization Consultant-J h
b.
NRC Atter. dees j
q J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator
,
.j R. P. Zimmerman, Director, Division-of Reactor Safety and Projects.
.
'
R. A. Scarano, Director, Division of Radiation l Safety and Safeguards'
S. A. Richards, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch D. F. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch C. M. Trammel, III, Acting Director, Project Directorate V. NRR M. M. Mendonca, Cnief, Project Section 1:
- R. C. Barr, Senior Resident Inspector, Trojan -
R. J. Pate, Chief, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards < Branch j
F. A. Wenslawski, Chief, Facilities Radiological: Protectio'~Section n
F. R. Huey, Chief Engineering Section L. L. Coblentz, Radiation Specialist:
G. N. Cook, Senior Region V Public Affairs Officer c.
State of Oregon Attendees H. F. Moomey, Manager of Reactor Safety, ODOE
)
2.
Details Mr. Martin began by indicating that the puEpose of the meeting was to-provide Portland General Electric an opportunity to present their.
~
'
improvement plans to the NRC. He then-turned the. meeting discussi,on over-to Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins began the meeting by indicating thatl Portland Genera _1-
- Electric Company (PGE) felt that changes must be made-to improve the-i standards of performance at Trojan.
He continued that an improvement:
'i plan had been provided to the NRC.and-that a number of initiatives beyond -
l that Nuclear Division Imprcvement Plan (NDIP) were planned.- Mr; Higgins'
l I
indicated that the entire picture for improvement must be one.
,
!
comprehensive plan with known, desired end products 1.e., a plan from beginning to end' defining what the' organization has to be..
-
,
- '
,
,0
,
,,
p.
'
'
.
-'
.
.
,.
'
l l
Mr. Higgins indicated that PGE plans to make fundamental changesiin how
!
their organization does_ business, rather than just individual, sound-
-
technical changes. He wants to make sure that management' messages-are not dysfunctional and counter to what really matters, which is safety at
's any cost.
He continued that to get his managers on the right track and
?
'
live and breath this philosophy, is the kind of behavior needed to get'the.
'
message across to all plant personnel.
Mr. Higgins said that PGE has objectives and he believes that they are in the right priority. He recognized that there are problems at Trojan, a'nd he indicated that one important piece in correcting those problems is-that PGE must assure that their messages are consistent with the desired I
performance. He indicated that PGE must assure that they provide the right resources to achieve the type of performance that they want.
He emphasized management accountability, especially for supervisors, and assuring that expectations are satisfied.
For example, he indicated concern that the procedure rewrite program was providing the right product and that the corrective action program may have been so bogged down that it was not totally effective.
Further, Mr. Higgins' indicated concern in the procedure compliance: area and that to improve in this area
!
they need to assure that supervisors are out observing work,and giving
!
guidance.
l
At this point, Mr. Higgins stressed accountability and the fact that management statements do not get the messages across like actual managerial l
and supervisory involvement. He indicated that fundamental. changes were I
needed and were ongoing, not the least of which was the way managers operate to get to the true cause of problems, not just symptoms. Mr.
i
,
'
Higgins indicated that in the past, the work environment tended to l
suppress problems, and that PGE was now working to reward bringing.
i problems out; that in the past, PGE has been effective at giving orders to correct problems, but not at assuring the corrective actions were properly accomplished.
Further, Mr. Higgins said that PGE had not been
,
'
,
very good at setting priorities, and that this message was wrongly-reenforced by having the planning and scheduling groups outside the protected area fence. PGE plans to assure that there are enough resources in the right places to reenforce management's expectations, j
Mr. Higgins reemphasized that their improvement plan is-starting at the l
top of their organization. That it was not sufficient to only send the'
right messages, but to decide on the end product and assure that work
'
properly implemented the basic principles of total management and-supervisory involvement. PGE had~ established ~a leadership team to assure ownership and acceptance of the improvement plan. To assure that supervisors and employees are properly communicating is a major emphasis with the
organization and people. He indicated that supervisors are being challenged
_
to conduct fewer meetings and to spend more time in~ person-with workers to l
assure that expectations are clearly understood and implemented.
j l
Mr. Higgins indicated there was intense senior management involvement in j
Trojan from the Chief Executive Officer on down. -Senior managment is also
'
involved in team building, fnrmulating plans and methods with-a vision of
1 the end product. He indicated that they had budgeted essentially all resources l
l
,
i
!
i
-.
. - -
, _
.
,
'
w.,
.
.
that were requested by the nuclear division (which included 1310 PGE positions) and that he had additional resources if they were needed which i
he was holding specifically for potential Nuclear Division contingencies.
He said that they were planning a building inside the fence to provide l
better workspace and to reenforce with workers that their work is-important to the company.
Mr. Higgins said that there was a major redefinition of what is expected-of supervisors. The redefinition involved setting goals, and establishing
-
a reputation that those goal are always met. This also included assuring proper communication of these goals, establishing priorities, making the improvement program a way of life, and constantly looking for the end product.
Mr. Walt presented a Nuclear Division Improvement Plan update. He emphasized the defined end state for their improvement plan, and specific measures of performance. Mr. Walt-indicated that the plan's objectives had been developed with the input of many managers and supervisors'at the
'
plant to assure an appropriate sense of. ownership.
Five key objectives and associated, measurable indicators were discussed as outlined in the licensee handout, which is attached.
Mr.- Walt indicated that these objectives would be supported by measurable indicators throughout the-
,
organization, which were still under development. Mr. Martin
,
l indicated that the messages must be clear and communicated effectively to I.
all PGE personnel to assure they understand the principles involved..
'
Mr. Trammell emphastred the importance of a. timely feedback mechanism for people that do raise concerns. Mr. Martin emphasized the benefit of.
assuring that people recognize that it is good and of benefit to find problems. Mr. Martin also emphasized the need for effective evaluation l
of the efforts by management. Mr. Seaman indicated that Quality Assurance follow-up to date shows a sense of ownership and understanding for the improvement plan. Mr. Higgins indicated that they were trying an experiment of a fifth General Manager to be responsible solely for l
identifying what was working and what was not. _ Mr. Walt indicated the improvement plan was to be a "living" prcgram and an update was planned in April, 1990.
Mr. Whelan then ' discussed-the " cultural" changes needed in the maintenance area at Trojan and methods that were being used to reenforce the NDIP's objectives. Mr. Mendonca raised the issue of a wrong train maintenance problem on the hydrogen vent system and Mr. Wenslawski added that there was also a problem with the critique associated with that event. Mr. Cockfield indicated that event was under investigation by the
.
licensee and Mr. Mendonca indicated'that the NRC and PGE should discuss this event further at a later date. Mr. Martin pointed out' the
-
difficulty in assuring a proper understanding of expectations, and that
-
PGE had to assure that all levels of plant personnel understood so that-there would be several layers of defense against such problems. Mr.
"
Higgins agreed.
!
!
.
p
_.
"'
-
g
-
.
I'*.
'
<
l Mr. Susee then presented a diicussion on planning and scheduling, and _the need for improvement in this area. A team of people from Trojan hads visited a few other nuclear facilities to identify potential work control and scheduling improvements. Mr. Susee discussed changes in Trojan planning meetings that had been implementad and other changes as outlined in the licensee's attached handout.
Mr. Seaman then discussed the 0A area.and noted.that although'impr_ovements had been made, OA was not at the performance level that was desired.
Mr. Martin asked for an assessment of'the attitudes and' capabilities:in the 0A area and Mr. Seaman responded'with a discussion of some of:the organizational and personnel changes that had been instituted. Mr.
.
Cockfield indicated that many changes had been made before'Mr. Seaman's arrival and that 0A appeared to be on an improving trend although. efforts in training and staff development were continuing. Mr. Zimmerman stressed that PGE needed to ensure adequate, technical knowledge exists within the OA organization to independently assess performance at'
Trojan. He added that in specialized technical areas where the expertise may not permanently reside within 0A, contractors or rotations of personnel from elsewhere'in the company should be used to-independently assess performance. Mr. Higgins indicated that 0A had a
.
similar supervisory challenge to get supervision out to observe work activities as was the case in most of the licensee's disciplines..
Mr. Ankrum presented the security area and summarized that they have improved significantly and plan not to relax their efforts. Mr. Scarano adicated that a lot had been done and that the NRC was continuing to allow Trojan's progress.
'
Mr. Hicks presented the procedure. improvement plans and summarizedithat-the changes were going to require extensive cooperation by supervision and workers.
~
Mr. Walt discussed efforts in the Engineering and Technical areas and emphasized the same problem in assuring supervisnry involvement. Also a
.
concern on the high turnover rate was expressed and corporate efforts to deal with this problem were discussed. The latest SSFI_was mentioned as a good example of technical work that was held up to Trojan engineering.-
Mr. Walt indicated that a review of their last outage's Field Change Notices found an improvement, but the licensee was'not totally satisfied ~
that upfront engineering work was of the quality ~ they ' wanted.
Mr. Walt then discussed the procedural compliance problem as a symptom of the accountability problem. He emphasized the need for supervisory oversight and self critical assessments. He indicated PGE was not satisfied and would work on these elements on a priority bases. Mr.
Mendonca pointed-out that the lack of specific guid0nce for verbatim-
compliance, and for supervisory involvement, were perhaps sending mixed messages and that the licensee needed to assure clear, consistent messages to their personnel and should consider such formal guidance ~.
,
'
in
'
5'-
-R s
.
Mr. Higgins-summarized that PGE was placing adequate ' resources on Trojan..
with the best people they could and that they were changing the attitude of; workers to assure improvements were achieved. He indicated that PGE management would assura that results were achieved.
.
Mr. Martin concluded the meeting by indicating that the licensee seemed to have a sense of conviction' to improve, that management must continue to.
'
follow-through in order.for. the plan.to work, that' a110t of management time must be placed on the follow-through, and that the plans were commendable.
Mr. Martin indicated that the NRC would follow up withjthe licensee probably in several months with a meeting at the site.
,
,
.
.
-
,
!
!
$s
'
>
-1
-
.
A
3 t
a
.
l-t l
.,
w
.
'
e t
i
i TROJA'N NUCLEAR PLANT
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC i
'
.
NUCLEAR DIVISION IMPROVEMENT
~
.i
.
,
.
l
!
NRC REGION V - WALNUT CREEK l
!
l i
!
l JANUARY 12,.1990
.._
,
!
i-l
u
!
.
..
.
..
,
.
,.,..
-
,, -.. - -...
.
... -.
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _
"E.
e,.
'
.,
t AGENDA
-
INTRODUCTION WALT HIGGINS
,
NDIP TOM WALT
SPECIFIC ISSUES
-
MAINTENANCE JOHN WHELAN WORK CONTROL BUD SUSEE
-
SURVEILLANCES BUD SUSEE
~
L ENGINEERING TECH WORK TOM. WALT PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE TOM WALT
' PROCEDURE CONTROLS-DENNY HICKS
'
i SECURITY AL ANKRUM QA & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS CRAIG SEAMAN
-
.N.
CONCLUSION WALT HIGGINS 119-NRC
--
-
e iv.-
<
-
--
-
-
.__,____________.____.___________..___m__._m,._
_..... _... _. _ _..
. _ -.. _..
__
__ _
.
. _ _ _
.
,
.,
.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCE TROJAN PARTICIPANTS
=
NUCLEAR DIVISION IMPROVEMENT
=
- RECOGNIZE PROBLEMS EXIST
.
- IMPROVED PROCESS FOR PROBLEM RESOLUTION
- COMMITMENT TO SUCCESS-
~
.,
e i
i l
l
,-
i
'
,
- l l
'
-
.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -, _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ -
.
- -
...
l "
..
i
.:
..
Z
<Z
- t L
OJ
.
I-
-> F-J Z
!
E2
'
!
<w I
W>
O l
JO H
Om Da Zg
-
ii
.
I Y
L
..- -
.. --
..
-
-
-
. - - - - -
-. -
-
. _ - - - - -
-. u
..
NUCLEAR DIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN SPECIFIC INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
-
SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 29,1989
,
UPDATE WILL BE ISSUED IN JANUARY
.
,
UPDATE WILL:
-
PROVIDE STATUS OF INITIATIVES-
^
-
ACTIONS COMPLETED AS IDENTIFIED
INCLUDING SUBSEQUENT LETTERS
~
-
INCLUDE AMPLIFIED INITIATIVES :
!
WORK CONTROL'
'
!
-
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
.
i
-
SURVElLLANCE' SCHEDULING j
-
PROCEDURE CONTROLS m
-
.
I
- '
-
-
-
_
. -
.
..
.
.
m
- - - - -
- - --- - ---- - - --- -
-
. -
-.
.
- -.;
i
NUCLEAR DIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN
'i
i-1 INCLUDE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR
-
-
THE INITIATIVES
!
l
.
DESCRIPTION OF ENHANCED NUCLEAR DIVISION
-
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
- -
-
l
_
.
- l t
i 8 ~N RC -
.
,.
,
v., +
-
s,y.
...,
-7
,,....
,
...
..
.
y_
, _ _ _, _ _,, _ _,
- ,
.-
-
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN a
,
.,
'
,
REASSESS EXISTING PROGRAMS AND a
a IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES i
CONSULTANT EVALUATION
--
i
- EXPERIENCED SENIOR NUCLEAR: MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
-
- ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT
,
ADDRESS BOTH-TECHNICAL AND HUMAN CONSIDERATIONS
.
--
.
UTILIZE INTERVIEWS, FOCUS GROUPS AND
--
RESULTS EVALUATION
.
"EXC LLENCE TEAM" AND LINE ORGANIZATION
'
--
i TO REVIEW AND VALIDATE i
!
LEADERSHIP TEAM APPROVAL ~
--
i j
s:-nnc
e j
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - -
-- ---
.
,
.-
_
-
-.
.
... _.;- l
_.
_ _ _ - -
- - - -
-
- - - - - - - - -
-
- -
- - -
,
,
,
.,=l
-
-
-
,
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
=
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE ENDURING PROGRAM FORIMPROVEMENT
!
-
DEFINED MISSION AND COMMITMENT STATEMENTS
.
-
ESTABLISHED-MEASURABLE INDICATORS FOR KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS
-
EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS jl
-
AND INITIATIVES
~
-
DEVELOPING, INTEGRATING AND PRIORITIZING
IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES
.
l
-
PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR INITIATIVES
,
-
MONITOR PROGRESS AND ADJUST INITIATIVES
""*
-
LIVING PROGRAM i
_
-
..
-
-
--.
.. ;
<
-
.
..
!
l L
OUR MISSION
+
WE ARE COMMITTED TO SAFELY OPERATE THE TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY RELIABLY AND ECONOMICALLY FOR PGE AND OUR CUSTOMERS.
P
%
STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT
.
SAFETY AND OU ALITY
.
TROJAN WILL BE OPERATED WITH SAFETY FOREMOST FOR OUR
-
NElGHBORS. THE ENVIRONMENT.AND OURSELVES.
WE WILL SUSTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.
-
WE ARE COMMITTED TO OUALITY AND EXCELLENCE.
-
PEOPLE WE WILL DEVELOP. RECOGNIZE, ATTRACT AND RETAIN PEOPLE WHO
-
ARE COMMITTED TO OUALITY AND EXCELLENCE.
- TROJAN WILL BE A REWARDING PLACE TO WORK.
-
PRIDE. INTEGRITY. TRUST AND TEAMWORK ARE OUR STANDARDS.
-
BUSINESS WE WILL ACHIEVE SUPERIOR NUCLEAR BUSINESS PERFORMANCE
-
WHICH RESULTS IN COMPETITIVE PRODUCTION _OF ELECTRICITY.
l-WE WILL SEEK OUT AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES TO
-
!
BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE.
WE WILL BE GOOD CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY.
-
- gWILL BE GOOD STEWARDS OF CORPORATE RESOURCES.
l t
l U
-
-
...
-
.
.
...
.
_. _ _ _. _ _.
-
--
-
.
.
,
,
-
,
i
.
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN j
MEASURABLE INDICATORS
=
t
KEY AREA :
fi SAFETY FIRST
=
.
l PERFORMANCE INDICATORS :
~
-
NUMBER OF UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS l
-
NUMBER OF: REACTOR TRIPS PER THOUSAND HOURS
'
'
-
RELIABILITY. OF FUEL-
'
.
l
-
AVAILABILITY OF SAFETY SYSTEMS.
-
RADIOLOGICAL AND OTHER MATERIAL RELEASES
!
-
AMOUNT'OF WASTE MATERIAL GENER.ATED j
-
COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR EMPLOYEES j
-
LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE / REPORTABLE INJURY TREND-L
-
NUMB.ER OF PERSONNEL. CONTAMINATIONS
_
-
EFFECTIVENESS OF FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM
,
'
.-
!.-
!
l
.-
._
_
.
_.
.
-
- -
-
-
.
-
-
.
__
-
. _
- -
-
. - _
_
.
..
_
..
..
--
.;
.
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
!
MEASURABLE INDICATORS
-
.
'
>
KEY AREA :
I RELIABLE GENERATION t
=
i
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS :
.
-
PLANT AVAllABILITY
]
-
AMOUNT OF GENERATION COMPARED TO PLANNED
.
-
EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGING OUTAGE SCHEDULES
~
,
-
i
"
J f
i i
i_
.
._
_.
-
.
.
_
> -.
....
.
__
-
. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _.
..
_. __ _ -_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
_
,
,
,
.
i
-
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MEASURABLE INDICATORS
KEY AREA :
ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE
=
-
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS :
FUEL COST PER KWH OF GENERATION
,
-
OVERALL UNIT PRODUCTION COST PER KWH i
-
OF GENERATION
,.,,,
.
..
!
.
.
L
i
<~--s
-
- * * -
w#A-*
~
-
e
~
w n-
-.-
- +'-' -. --.
~.
-.
-
.- --
-.a t-
.:.x
-
. - -
-
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ -
-
--
.
-:
.
'
.
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN MEASURABLE INDICATORS
=
I
'
KEY ' AREA :
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE j
=
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS :
l'
- IMPROVING TRENDS IN NRG RATINGS
- IMPROVING TRENDS IN THE NATURE AND NUMBER
.
OF-NOTICES OF VIOLATION
- IMPROVING TRENDS IN NRC OPEN ITEMS i
.
,
i e
P
!
.
J
%
^*9
's-
'aW,-
-
W-*w-A m
%:
+
y 4%
y y
____ e9 - _ _ __ _ _ _,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
_ _,
g
'
-
. _ _... _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -
- -..
--
-
- _ __ _
_ _ _ _ _
_
,
,
,
-
.
,
s ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
<
'
MEASURABLE INDICATORS
=
KEY AREA :
-:
COMMITTED WORK FORCE l
=
'
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS :
,
- IMPROVING TRENDS IN ATTENDANCE RATES IMPROVING TRENDS IN RETENTION RATES
!
-
.
- MANAGE. MENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM l
3
.
l
- PROGRAMS FOR RECOGNIZING SUPERIOR
!
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS
'
-
'
- EXECUTIVE AND GENERAL MANAGER
.
l-COMMUNICATION PROGRAM
- EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-l
)
l l
i l
!
'
l
,
,
- .
.
_.. _. _. -
_
_
_
.,,
___
._, _
.~
.
.
.
.
.
ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN MISSION, COMMITMENTS, MEASUREABLE INDICATORS
=
/
LEADERSHIP TEAM DEVELOPED AND APPROVED
/
BASEDeUPON OUR COMMITMENT TO CULTURAL VALUES
INTEGRITY
PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
,
TIMELY AND THOROUGH RESPONSE TO PROBLEMS
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
PROVIDE ENVIRONMENT FOR SUCCESS
QUALITY TEAMWORK ATTENTION TO DETAll
=
"""
ADAPTING TO CHANGING STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
.
.e..es1
,r
.
.49t-
.:.
.t--
--y e
'-
yfuir-r-M.:g-
--*F--r..i mJ..*
-wJ tii.r.
-
'i%i-
. -i
,4:-----^Fd-2.si*ai-.
- - -- --i
=nic-eA..
--t e..:-
iir--'a-li.d---
--s.m
---., --
.*r-e..
i.s q 1
.a-.
..iu.su-i.ii,.ii..uc_,.._,i,.
n
_ _ _ _ _
.p_-
-. -.._..--i:. -.-
......<e......<i2._i-s-q..<
-
_
__
,
m ENHANCED IMPROVEMENT PLAN
.
DEVELOP, INTEGRAT!NG AND PRIORITIZING
IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES
- BASED UPON ASSESSMENT RESULTS
- DEVELOPED BY LINE ORGANIZATION
'
- DEFINED RESULTS AND MEASUREMENT INDICATORS
- VALIDATED BY THE EXCELLENCE TEAM AND APPROVED
'
BY THE LEADERSHIP TEAM
.
~,
,
PROVIDE AESOURCES FOR INITIATIVES a
MONITOR PROGRESS AND ADJUST-lMPROVEMENT
=
INITIATIVES LIVING PROGRAM,. UPDATE OBJECTIVES,
=
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES tt -N RC
--
.:
.
SUMMARY
.
MISSION AND STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT ISSUED
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR KEY AREAS
=
ESTABLISHED ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT INITIATIVES AND EXISTING
--
=
PROGRAMS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF INITIAL MAJOR INITIATIVES NOW
=
-
- WORK CONTROL
.
,
- SURVEILLANCE SCHEDULING i
- PROCEDURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
- CORRECTIVE-ACTION PROGRAM
- FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON CULTURAL VALUES
=
ENHANCED PROGRAM WILL BE SUBMITTED-
,
IN APRIL 1990
-
f
,,,,,
s_,,,--,-,--w-,w------
-,, -, - - -,,_
_ _ -,, _,
__,,, - - -
-__,w,
,
-,,_e,, _ --_m.,_-a wa- - - - - a
,a,a,-nsyan
,w a m y,mn asg_4,a n
,
a p
x y
s a,,4
- 9
.
,;
.
,
-)
.
i
'
q
-
!
W Z
0
<C Z
J
'
<C W
Z I
~
W
'
H L
Z Z
<C I
O
,
t I
i
!
'l l
o
!
!
i-
....,
____....
.
.._..,_...-._._...._.,__.-._____..;.u.
,
4_.............,.,. _..... ;.,,,.., - _ _.. _. _. _ _.. -j
_
.......
..
.
.
.
E.
'
j g
MAINTENANCE
$
$
ATTITUDE CHANGE
=
i i
f MAINTENANCE' REQUEST (MR) BACKLOG
.
D
IMPROVED ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATION
_
l
-
l TEAMWORK BETWEEN MAINTENANCE AND QA
-.
a
.
I i
!
" CONDUCT OF MAINTENANCE" MANUAL L
-
IMPROVED CONDITION OF SHOPS
-t e s -se n c
_
__
- ,il,!!
l
,l n
a
-
.
.
-_
~
_
_
_
~
.
-
_
N
-
_
.
_
O a
-
-
~
_
I
+
T
~.
_
.
a A
m L
-
a
-
e
-
O IF E
-
-
E
?
-w R
C
-
I w
-
T C
E N
S
-
N E
s n
O P A U
L S
S C
&
~
L I
y LE D
o.
K AV U
,
-
~
R CR B
w O
IN U p
W H S
-
-
~
C
.
C
-
R N.
E
3 T
_
-
-
,
,
,.
m
-
-
-
.
~
j
_
-
m.
i2)
.!a
- !
4l t
Il,
[
f,
_ _ _ _
.. _ _ _._ _ - _ __ _.. _ _. _ -
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m
,
- l l.a
-
.
!
l WORK CONTROL-l
!
ISSUE :
.
SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT l
AVAILABILITY
,
-
TRAIN-RELATED OUTAGES l
I
COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES
1 l
WORK PACKAGE QUALITY f
l
UNNECESSARY SHIFT SUPERVISOR
'
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES ON SHIFT
<
ACTIONS :
TASK FORCE
-
PLANNING AND CONTROL
>
-
QUALITY ASSURANCE
-
MAINTENANCE
-
OPERATIONS
-
PLANT MODIFICATIONS
!
~
PLANT VISITS
'
-
FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY-
)
-
DIABLO CANYON
""~*
.
s
.-
_ _.. _. _,,..
.
........
. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.... _...., _ _ _....... _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,. _..
_
.
..
,
'
-
.i
.
i WORK CONTROL l
j i
WORK CONTROL CENTER (WCC) CONCEPT a
-
WORK GROUPS INTERFACE IN WCC
-
I
-
SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR (SRO)
'
l
-- MAINTENANCE REQUEST PRIORITIES
!
-- WORK PACKAGE REVIEWS
'
-- EQUIPMENT CLEARANCES j
-- WORK PACKAGE CLOSEOUT
.
-
FUNCTIONAL FOR 1990 OUTAGE
,
,
I
$ 8 / $ * N it C
-
.
.i
-
-
WORK CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
-
REORGANIZATION TO SUPPORT WCC
-- PLANNING AND CONTROL REPORT TO PLANT GENERAL MANAGER
-- COST CONTROL AND BUDGET PLANNING REPORT TO GM PLANT SUPPORT
-
-
MORNING MEETING FORMAT CHANGE
-
PLAN-OF-THE-DAY RESTRUCTURE
-- TRAIN-RELATED ITEMS
-- CURRENTLY WORKING
-- SCHEDULED IN NEXT 24 HOURS
-- PERSON-lN-CHARGE ASSIGNMENT WCC - SMALL FUNDAMENTAL
BUILDING BLOCK
- CAPABILITY TO EXPAND AND GROW L
.......
_ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - -
..
..
-
-
.
-
- ,
.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SURVEILLANCES
)
ISSUE :.
MISSED TS SURVEILLANCES l
INADEQUATE CONTROLLING MECHANISM
NO ASSURANCE MECHANISM i
f ACTIONS : *
REVIEW TS VS PROCEDURES
CROSS REFERENCE DATABASE
!
COORDINATED WITH TROJAN
'
SCHEDULING SYSTEM i
COMPUTERIZED SCHEDULING SYSTEM
-
PLAN-OF-THE-DAY PROGRAM
<
'
-
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM INTERFACE WITH OUTAGE SCHEDULE
.
89*NRC
_. _,.. _..., _...
, _...... _ _.
_.. _.. _ _,,. _.. _. _, _, _.. _ _. _ _ _,.. _ _
.... _...,..,. _, _ -.. -, -..,.,. _.. _..,... _. -.,
-
-_
.
.
.
.
.
l l
i ENGINEERING TECHNICAL WORK i
.
PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
.
i
-
l TOM WALT
'
i I
)
......
t i
.
!
m
..
.
..
_
.
.........__~~,_s
-
.. -
.. -...
.
.
..
.
.
..
d
__
-_
,
.
.
.
.
>
-
,
ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL WORK
!
ISSUE:
DESIGN BASIS INFORMATION t
CALCULATION QUALITY
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT i
. PRIORITIES / CONTROL OF TECHNICAL WORK
!
HIGH TURNOVER RATE / EXPERIENCE
DESIGN ENGINEERING INVOLVEMENT IN
!
.
l DAY-TO-DAY PROBLEMS
,
!
t
I
!
!
-
ACTIONS :
DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS
!
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
- SCHEDULE WORK
COMPENSATION / INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SSFl l
- TECHNICAL STAFF TRAINING PROGRAM i
.
j
MOVED ENGINEERING TO SITE L
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE PROGRAM r
..
.
.
-.
- -.
.
..
- -
- - -.
- -.
..
-
.
!..
-
.
PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE i
,
l ISSUE :.
COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURES
,
CLARITY. OF PROCEDURES
RECOGNITION OF PROBLEM
'
CORRECTION OF PROBLEM
'
-,
ACTIONS :.
FOCUSED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION l
'
ACCOUNTABILITY
!
!
!
EMPHASIS THROUGH TRAINING
LESSONS LEARNED e
PROCEDURE UPGRADE
MORE TO DO
3FeNRC
......,..
..,. - -........ - -.... -.. - -.. -..
......
. _ _. - - - _. _. - _.... - _ -.. -.. - - _ _ _ _.
-. -
. - - - - - - -.. -. ~.. -.. - -. -... _.. -.... - -. -..... - -. _ -....
...
" *
i s
i i
l,
-
-
&Z W
J
O
$
W w
>O Z
M e
O o
.
_
a O
I
_2 e
>
'
Z
W Z
Z c
O
'
W D
D Q
-
Q
-
w
>
I O
W
!
O E
!
c i
!
- l
.!
'
i j
j i
i
-
.... ~
.
.
.
. -
.
..
.
.
..
..
...
..
.-_
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - --- - -
-
-
.
_
_
.
.
,
-
!
!'
PROCEDURE REVISION & CONTROL t
i
!
!
PROCEDURAL NON-COMPLIANCE
!
INSUFFICIENT ORGANIZATIONAL STANDARDS j
FOR PROCEDURE PROCESSING
'
!
i
- ISSUE A DIRECTIVE FOR STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE PROCESSING
!
,
!
LACK OF AN INTEGRATED PROCEDURE DATABASE l
- ESTABLISH COMMON PROCEDURE DATABASE
,
- CENTRALIZE PROCEDURE PROCESSING
!
-
l REVISION AND DISTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY
MODIFY METHODOLOGY FOR PROCEDURAL
-
-
!
REVIEW AND REVISION
{
ESTABLISH CENTRAL DOCUMENT CONTROL
-
l INABILITY TO ASSESS PERFORMANCE
'
- ESTABLISH AND MONITOR PERFORMANCE
'
lNDICATORS FOR PROCEDURAL PROCESSES
" - -"
i.
l
.
w
-
-
~~
i w..---
.-3s
-,.
,
n.-
-* + -
e v
- 4*
.m..-v.t-
-
-u ee+
w www-e e-
..,
w y-w.-
.w.-w
---,,s-.--
--,wi-w-se
p_.,-_
,
__
__
-,,, _, - - - _
,e_
-_n-,
.
g
)
i
!
+
'
.
[
l l
.
l
>
D T
!
>
_
l i
D Z
,
i O
<C Lu
m J
<C
i e
?*
.
,
i I
!
n
,.,#-
...,,-.---..,,,,..-w....-,.%.,
.,,-,,
.~,.___,..<.._,--,.....m....-.-.w-...+..~......-----
..n.. - -
-
l l
.
SECURITY ISSUE :
ATTITUDE
WEAPONS PROFICIENCY
CONTROL OF * TIMELY COMPLETION OF MODIFICATIONS
- SECURITY OFFICER RETENTION
COMPENSATORY POSTS
.
ACTIONS :
- OWNERSHIP ATTITUDE
.
- IMPROVED WEAPONS PROFICIENCY
IMPROVED CONTROL
-
REDUCED VOLUME OF Si DOCUMENTS
-
REDUCED SI STORAGE LOCATIONS
-
MORE RESTRICTIVE SI HANDLING METHODS
~. - -
.
- - _ _. _.
--
--
~-
-
' - -
-'
' ' ' -
'
- -
-
u_
-
-
=
-m_..
_.s
..
-_
.
-
.
.:
!
-
!
SECURITY i
i
!
ACTIONS :
IMPROVED COORDINATION AND LIAISON FOR l
(cont.)
SECURITY-RELATED UPGRADES
-
MODIFIED SECONDARY POWER SUPPLY BARRIERS f
CCTV SYSTEM UPGRADES i
-
-
PROTECTED AREA LIGHTING
,
-
GENERIC LETTER 89-07
!
.
,
-
lMPLEMENTED FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM-
-
.
!
s
REDUCED SECURITY OFFICER ATTRITION RATE
!
!
f
REDUCED NUMBER-OF COMPENSATORY OFFICERS POSTED
!
.
,
l
........
I
!
.
,
s
--
-
.u
-
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e+
-v e-
- -+
-w.
-
' - - -.
--w-e
- =w~-
, + - ++ - -. - +
.--4 e.
..
w s www-.~-ewe-
-
<
. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _.. _. _. _ _.._.
_;___
,
-
.
.
!
Remed W apon rof c n y Pr gram i
I S
160 '
140--
~
~~~
~ ' ~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
'
~~Z
-
l R
120-
~
~~
~~
-~
~~
'
l T
100-
~
~~
Y
~
_
f
'~
'~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
" ~ ~ ~
60-
' '
4 0'-
^
~~~~
~~~~
~~
~~~~~
S
-
2 0 '-
.
-
-
S 0-
'
'
-
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC l
1989 l
l l
E Security Force M Remedial Class (includes both Weapons)
!
[
q l
i
'
-
.
l
..,
-
_
_-
.... -.,
... -.
._,,._._:.______
.
m.
.
m.
.
-
-
_ _.
- _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
O I
.
Safeguards information Storage
50
--
-- - -
-
- - - -..
- -
- - -
-
- -
- - - - - - - - -
- - -
-. -.
>:
- ~ ~ ~ - - - - - -
,....
_.....
..... _... _...,..
I
-~
-
E,,_,___
,,,_ _
_
.
+'
-~-
!
--
---
.
-
.
t
- -
April 1989 January 1990
E Containers l~
-l Locations
-
--
__
..
.
..
.
.
..
..
.-
.
.
..
$
I l**
,
ij.g
.#
)
- l
O
,
Z
<
<
x D
w
<
w W
<
O
>
.
g
_
i
<
O
,
!
I
.i
!
l
!
.)
4~.,., -.. _. _....,, _. _, _ _. _ _. _. -,..,.. _ _... _.., _.. _ _ _, _,...,,.. _..... _,....., _
,,__.,_..
.._,...,.__._.......,.. _. _.,__.,.,,- _
- ..
i
,
,.
.
...
,
F ISSUES
!
i i
MUST BE EFFECTIVE IN INDEPENDENT, PROFESSIONAL i
ASSESSMENT AND IN ASSURING THAT MEANINGFUL
!
-
SOLUTIONS TO RAISED CONCERNS HAVE BEEN
!
!
IMPLEMENTED.
'
,
.
.
d
.
MUST IMPROVE OUR CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT NQAD
FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY.
i
,
!
i
,
MUST MAINTAIN A SUSTAINED, SUPPORTIVE, SERIOUS i
EFFORT FOCUSED ON STAFF AND MANAGEMENT
!
!
ATTITUDES ABOUT THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY.
'
-
'
i i
i i
,
!
. -..,.... -
.. -... -
_.,. _ _.
.
__
..,
.,
.
.
.
.
-..
_...
.iI
.-.--
-
.
- -
- -. -..
i
.
,
1,
.
i
'
APPROACF
- Intrusive
'
- Random / Unannounced Surveillances
- Continuous Presence in Plant
- Critical / Questioning Attitude
.
l i
- Predictive
!
- Identifies Developing Problems Early
>
l
- Knowledgeable of Industry Concerns
.
- Responsive
.
f l
- Rapid Response on New issues
- Involved Throughout Evaluation / Resolution
'
.
- Performance and Compliance Oriented
- Ensure Conformance With Requirements
'
- Measure Performance-Catalyst for l
Raising Standards
{
- Technically Knowledgeable and Experienced
'
- Technical Experts in All Disciplines
- Experienced With Credibility
- Valuable Knowledge Resource for Other
!
Departments i
i i
e
,.
-, -
-
--
- - -...,,,, -, - -
w-,.
. -. -, - - - -.
.,,
-,.. -.,,., -, -
,
,. -,
, -,,
_
-
_
_
.
---
--
..
.
,
.
.,
...
l STATUS
'
!
i
.
'
!
!
,
l l
- Performance-Based QA
'
.
-
Use of Technical Experts i
-
Audits
--Emergency Plan Execution
i-
--Fire Protection i
,
'
-
Tests
!
--Receipt of Materials
--Fitness for Duty
--Security
{
- Team Building
-
Plant Modifications
-
Maintenance-l&C l
-
Inter-QA
- Staff
!
-
Management / Technical
'
-
Added PM/EA
-
Authorized Complement 77
!
- '
.
.
i
..,,,
,
--
, _.
.,
.... _
___._,,___,._,,...._,.__,..._,,..-...__.__.-.,....I
,
,
.
..,
.-
STATUS
.
- Training
-
Curriculum Developed
-
Continuum
. Effectiveness of Reporting Goals for Timeliness
-
-
Increase Trending Frequency
-
Improve Usability
- C@octive Action Program Combine NCAR, NCR, ER
-
Timeliness
-
Prompt Management involvement
- Completed SSFI
- TNOB Audit of QA
- Focused Management Support
l
.
s wsf LMMSI@lMIBBRMM9ffR
.. _ _... -.. - - - - - - - - -......... - _. -
-.. - - - - - - - -. - - - - -.
- - - - - - -
--
8 g.
'
,
.
e*
y
.
i
Z z
O
-O-DD
-
J I
'
g
.
Z b
o O
1
t
,
l,
?
.
,. '
.
i j
!
I
,
.
.,
.
A g
'
'
,-
a
. * ' *
,y l
<
!
CON CLUS ON
,
e i
e
.
.
RECOGNITION OF PROBLEMS BY PGE
i
!
t IMPROVED PROCESS FOR PROBLEM
.
RESOLUTION
,
.
PGE COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVE GOALS
-
!
l
,
i I
I
!
!
i
e
t/ 4 *N RC i
I
'
9e
-
I
-. _
_ _..
_
_
_ _.. _ -..
.
_
.
.
.
_ _,.. - - _... _... _..... _..
.