IR 05000344/1990015
| ML20043H882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1990 |
| From: | Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043H878 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-15-MM, NUDOCS 9006270014 | |
| Download: ML20043H882 (88) | |
Text
-
..
.
-
- -. -
-
-..
..
..
,
'
,
.-
U.' S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
,
REGION V.
Report No. 50-344/90-15
/!
Docket No. 50-344 f
License No. NPF-1 Licensee:
Portland General Electric Company 121-S. W. Salmon Street-Portland, Oregon 97204
'
Facility Namei TrojanNuclearPowerPlanti Meeting at:
Trojan Nuclear Power Plant,'Prescott, Oregon Report Prepared by:
R. C..Barr Senior Resident' Inspector-Approved by:
-.$N 6-l\\ ClO i
'
5. A. Richards,. Chief Date Signed ReactorProjectsBranch
.q Meeting Summary:
Meetino on May'10, 1990 (Report Noi 50-344/90-15)
AmanagementmeetingwasheldattheTrojanSite,Prescott,-Oregon,todiscuss
'
!
PGE improvement plans and recent issues at Trojan,:as documented in:the c
following report and outlined in the licensee handout.
,
,
.,
i
!
.;
.L h
ti
>
9006270014 900611ADOCK0500gg4
'
PDR Q
i
.
.
-..
..
.
.
~,
.
_
- -..
...
~_-
m
,
4,
'
y
,
-r j
DETAILS 1.
hetingAttendees a.
Libensee1 Attendees W. M. Higgins, Senior Vice President T. D.' Walt Vice President Nuclear C. P. Yundl Plant General Manager, Acting W. R. Robins,on, Prospective Plant General Manager G. At Lieuallen, General Manager Trojan Excellence C. K. Seaman,-General Manager Nuclear Quality Assurance D.W. Swan, Manager,TechnicalServices
.
A.~ R. Ankrum, Manager, Nuclear Security d Regulation R. M. Nelson, Manager Nuclear Safety an S. A. Bauer, Branch Ma, nager, Nuclear Regulation
-
J. F. Whelan, Manager, Maintenance-D. P. Couch-Compliance Engineer-A.N.Barnelt, Manager,.HumanResourcesNuclearDivision D. A. Demaris,'Public Relations, PGE b.-
NRC Attendees J. B. Martin, Regional' Administrator S. A. Richards, Chief, Reactor Projects-Branch D. F. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch J.F.MelfI, Senior-ResidentInspector,l Trojan R. C. Barr ResidentInspector, Trojan c.
State of Oregon Attendees D..
Stewart-Smith Administrator, Siting and Regulations, 000E-H. F. Moomey, Manage,r of Reactor Safety, 000E A. L. Bless, Resident, ODOE
,
d.
Bonneville Power Administration-J. T. Irish, Program Analyst,-BPA 2.
Details
'l Mr. Martin opened the meeting by stating that the NRC 7ersonnel present had read the latest version (revision 2,4/30/90) of tie Nuclear Division
,ImprovementPlan(NDIP).
He; stated his desire to discuss the improvement.
program implementation phase, particularily the engineering and corrective action programs.
Mr. Martin then turned the meeting over to Mr.-Walt.
Mr. Walt stated that the Improvement Plan was a results oriented plan designed to focus on issues by incoraorating active management participation. Mr. Walt noted that levision 1 of the NDIP established theobjectivesandframeworkformajorimprovementsthatPGEwantedto achieve.
Mr. Walt then described the Strategic Planning Model (SPM), the management concept PGE is employing to accomplish program and l
,
i
..
m
,
organization changes.;.Mr.. Walt continued that-the Maintenance-Improvement Plan (MIP),ing Model (SPM) years ago{ was a plan that did not adopted 1.1/2 use the Strategic Plann
,4and tia PGE was assessing the-MIP against the SPM to ensure that it was consistent.- He also briefly discussed the establishment of managemer.1 performance standards ~and the expectations:with regard to meeting those standards.
Mr. Walt continued by describing the Plan for Excellence.
He stated that.
theTrojan-LeadershipTeamwasfocusingoneightissuesthatwere. divided into the: following two: categories:,
Design-Stage o
Prioritization Process o
Commitment ~Managagement
.
o-Performance of the Manager / Supervisor o
Procedure Improvement o
Managing Performance Problems o
Materials Management i
Monitoring / Adjustment Stage I
o Corrective Action Program of Work Control He stated that an Information Management System was being established to track performance improvement for these eight issues.. He also noted that PGE was setting' Department assessments-were incorporated into the NDIP up measures of effectiveness.
Mr. Barr asked how feedback and QA Forexample,QAaudits.oftheCorrectiveActionProgram(CAP)were-effective, but apaeared late in achieving a proactive self assessment.
Mr. Walt agreed t1at PGE had not built.ap3ropriate feedback-loops:into the CAP and the Work Control System,1but le noted that they had learned from those experiences and would factor feedback-and performance measures
-
into the other NDIP~ initiatives.
Mr.-Higgins described specifically what the-leadership. team needed to do to establish effective feedback.
mechanisms.
Mr. Martin questioned how the above listed eight. areas'related to the Engineering Improvement Program.
Mr. Walt-stated that the functional-areas were headed up by Line General Managers and the Vice President.
The functional areas were Engineering, Maintenance, Planning and Control, and Quality Assurance (QA).
Furthermore, the eight issues listed above apply in varying degrees to alllfour functional areas,. including Engineering.
Mr. Walt continued by describing the prioritization process and management commitments.
He noted that PGE does not want to make commitments that do not get done.
Mr. Martin questioned the mechanism PGE employs to verify that committed actions were effectively accomplished and obtained the. desired results.
He noted that some organizations do effectiveness reviews to ensure the-actions taken to.
correct a deficiency achieved the desired results.
Mr. Walt noted that in the-past they had not done as well as desired in that area.
M...
_
_
_
_ _
_
___
l
.-
T
'
,
]
<
Seaman stated they were going to examine the CAP to see how effective-Corrective Action Requests have been at getting the desired results.; Mr.
a Martin stated that actions committed to be done in haste were sometimes, y
after reflection, not the best actions to take.
He also noted that the-i NRC does not have a problem with rescheduling or cancelling a commitment i
if a change makes sense.
HefurtherstatedthatNRC'sobjectiveiisa
managed commitment process to ensure that commitments remain on track and.
E are sensible.
Mr. Kirsch'noted that his review of the commitment-
-
'
"
tracking list (CTL) had identified that PGE managers did not have=a good working knowledge.of the-commitments for which they were responsible.-
.;
Mr. Walt responded that managers.now do stay current on the CTL content
!
and *e dates.
The me of.the Manager /Subervisor was discussed next.Mr. Martin recalled that-events in'th last year revealed instances of weakness in e
Trojan managers and supervisors carrying out their responsibilities.
He'
noted that line management--followup is-a-vital component in assuring
quality.
Mr. Higgins related that one of tle objectives of the NDIP was-
'
to. improve resource-allocation and to free up'the supervisors to perform-to new expectations with regard:to spending time in the plant observing-
!_
worker-performance.
He mentioned as an example that the work control.
!
system, when-fully implemented, would allow the' maintenance supervisors to get out into the field-and allow the-senior control! room operators to
!
'
.more effectively monitor. shift operations.
Mr. 'Whelan added that the
-
.:
maintenance organization had not yet succeeded in removing administrative burdens from the maintenance supervisors.
He recognized the need for program changes and improvements and reaffirmed.that the manager's/
)
supervisor'sgreatestresponsibilitywas-to'assurethatactivitieswere
,
conducted correctly and safely.
'
.
l Mr. Hicks led the discussion on the Procedure Imarovement Program. -He
related the changes being implemented regarding low procedures and
procedure deviations were approved.
He noted that since the
'
implementation of these changes, the time to revise a dropped from 60 to 29 days and has enabled processing _ procedure hasof tw
,
procedure changes.
Mr. Walt next led the discussion on Material Management.and the issues that PGE was encountering with respect to material procurement and commercial grade dedication.
He noted that the )rocess is time
intensive, requires efficiency improvements and las resulted in delays in getting parts in the hands of the craftsman.
Mr. Hicks noted PGE had implemented a program to streamline the procurement process-resulting in a more timely attainment of parts.
He-noted that commercial grade
.
,
dedication would be helped by an industry wide effort to qualify vendors.
.
i
'
Mr. Yundt next discussed the Work Control Center (WCC) and the controllingofworkatTrojan.
The discussion' focused on'recent problems PGE has had with the implementation of the WCC. Mr. Yundt recalled that they had been trying to implement-the WCC since last year, and since February, 1990, the WCC was under one manager. Problems encountered The WCC~ began functionin in March.
scheduled, but not planned, and work being planned, but with parts not available.
Mr. Yundt outlined the WCC objectives.
He stated that one
,
n
-
,
.
-
-,n
,
,,
. - -
-
-
..
.
.
-
.-.
J
{
(
-
^
'
obiective of-the WCC was to reduce the administrative work' load on the i
ShiftSupervisors(SS)andMaintenanceSupervisors(MS).
He continued
!
the discussion by recognizing that the responsibilities of WCC personnel
and'thedetailedim)1ementinydhaveacharterandtemporaryproceduresin procedures had nottyet been drafted; j
however, he noted.tlat PGE d
.
L place.
A task' force had been formed to evaluate and improve the r
,
'
. implementation process.
Mr.-Yundt added that this was an example of:
y j
l-making a commitment without fully understanding the extent of the effort A'
i and resources required for the task.
Mr. Walt noted that there were-MRs i
that had been deferred due to WCC. implementation issues.
He stated that j
implementation of.the WCC was a commitment that'was not.done-as.
effectively as it should.have been.
Mr. Robinson continued that'
implementing a WCC is an. interactive process that takes-intense
!
management oversight and partici)ation-over several years.
Mr. Martin.
recognized that c1ange is-often lard to implement.- Mr. Martin questioned I
whet.1er the work control commitment was to<the NRCL Mr. Walt-stated the.
commitment was to the Oregon Department'of Energy (0 DOE).- Mr.181ess.
l
-
noted that PGE could have come-back to 000E witi a proposal to revise the
'
'
commitment date if and when it became obvious"that the date would be difficult to-achieve.
Mr. Walt re could have gone back to ODOE.
Mr. plied that they realized that they.
Martin. asked what the QA
.i organization's assessment was on the implementation of the WCC.
Mr. -
-
'
Higgins responded that QA noted:that they.need to go out and see how the program was implemented, t
Mr. Martin expressed concern'over the number of backlogged maintenance -
i items, work prioritization and the potential-impact.on safety. -Mr. Yundt l
l replied that individually-each deferred maintenance item had been evaluated, and the affect of the aggregate would be evaluated in the Ready for Startup (RFSU) review.
Mr. Seaman also stated that QA would
.
look at the'RFSU list beginning the following week.. Mr. Whelan noted
'
that a group of managers had reviewed the MRs-and sorted the MRs into
,
L three groups:
to be done before startup, to be done in 1991, and-to be
- '
done after the 1990 outage.
Mr. Yundt noted that they had looked.at NCRs, CTLs, and JC0s.
In conclusion, Mr. Whelan stated that
'
approximately 2500 MRs were initially planned to be worked during the
1990 Outage and that they were deferring about 500-750 of the 2500.
He further stated that approximately 850 MRs were considered to be must do
and these were being. tracked closely.
Mr. Higgins recognized the complexity of the concern-and committed to assemble information on the
'
,
,
,
l backlog and its impact to safety, and provide it to the Regional 0ffice for their review and discussion during a future management meeting.
-
Mr. Seaman then discussed the implementation of the Corrective Action Program (CAP).
He-noted-that the CAP combined three corrective action
'
systems into one system; the' CAP performance indicators showed that the
CAP was meeting the expected performance;Mr. Seaman stated that tieand times 3roblem
evaluations were substantially reduced.
volume of nonconformances had been reduced because duplication of-reporting had been eliminated.
He discussed the following CAP weaknesses
identified durin Committee (MCAC)g initial implementation: Management Corrective Action
-effectiveness, Corrective Action Request (CAR)
i processing when questions exist over the validity of the issue,iscussed and i
consistency in the quality of the CAR evaluation.
He briefly d j
i
'
.
.
.
-
-
..
.
.
..
.
.-
.
- _ ____.
5;
"
,
.
J-
each of'the weaknesses and the actions being taken to resolve the weaknesses.
He also noted that-the Quality Assurance Department was-J conducting a review of the CAP to identify additional areas for
!
improvement.
!
l-Mr.- Whelan next briefly described the Maintenance Improvement Plan (MIP)
!
L and the goal of improving the performance of the Maintenance Organization-through clear definition of expectations.
Mr. Yundt added that recent-evolutions and events indicated additional manm ement emphasis was
't
,
-required for non-routine tests and maintenance activities.-
'
Mr. Lieuallen then discussed the Nuclear Division Improvement Plan's
i emphasis on improving the performance of Managers and Supervisors.. He stated that recent staffing changes =were generally perceived by Nuclear
.
De)artment personnel as positive.
Mr. Martin emphasized.that he viewed PGE personnel changes that were' occurring at-' Trojan as internal PGE
'
matters.
i Mr. Walt next discussed the Engineering Excellence Program (EEP).
He
work had substantially improved in the past three years.y of engineering stated that TENERA was assisting PGE and that the qualit He supported-
,
that conclusion by pointing out that 90% of. engineering work was done
-
in-house.
Mr. Walt also recognized that further. improvements were needed with respect to the timeliness of Requests-for Engineering Evaluation-
-
(RFEs), the detail of Design Change Packages (DCPs), and the quality of
-
. iti respect,to the quality of DCP's, Mr.
some engineering procedures.
W l
Martin pointed out that early in the constructica of nuclear facilities, i
construction on occasion, would lead the design'and result in unnecessary
rework.
He emphasized embracing a deliberate and controlled design process that would get the job done right the first time.' Mr. Walt L
stated PGE's goal was to have the DCP com)1eted one year ahead of the h
construction work.
Mr. Walt noted that tie QA-department was planning an
,
'
audit of Design Change Packages and the audit team would be augmented by
outside experts.
Mr.: Walt emphasized that the Design Basis Document j
(DBD) and DBD validation effort were critical to improving.the quality of
.
design change packages.
He explained that the design and system
>
engineers, and the licensing engineers -used the DBDs extensively during
,
'
their job assignments.
He noted the ongoing DBD walkdowns were
,,
hand-over-hand walkdowns that would ensure that DBD users would have an i
accurate and high quality product.
i Mr. Walt next discussed commitment mana ement and the commitment tracking
)
list (CTL).
He noted that approximate 1 40% of the items on the CTL were
,
overdue.
He stated that CARS were trac ed by a separateLmeans.
Mr. Walt stated that two of the goals of.the NDIP were to improve perfdrmance in-i the management of commitments and the quality of commitment resolution.
Mr. Martin responded by recognizing that the making and managing of
_
commitments is a challenge for every nuclear utility and the responsibilityofassuringsafeoperationofthefacIlitythrough
commitment management lies solely with PGE.
In conclusion, Mr. Martin stated that the meeting was useful because-it
<
provided the opportunity to focus on broader programmatic issues.
He
noted that setting accurate priorities, and making and effectively l
.. -. -
-
.- -
--
-.
..
.
._
.
.
[
.-
.
.. -
'
l managing commitments is the essence of good-management, He noted that-safety issues ~are dealt with most effectively when the more basic management issues, like those addressed in this meetingInterest in sing are resolved?
!
He emphasized that PGE management should not let NRC's
issues divert PGE's focus on performance improvement.
He~ continued by-saying that if PGE believes NRC is warping the pers)ective or. safety i
significance of issues,' that they are obligated to ating that to NRC's attention.
He stated ~that PGE needs:to place emphasis on safety and not.
schedule; that change should be approached gradually.and conservatively; l
andthatstamina'isasimE,iwelldefinedideasandaconsistentsetof. Improvements sh ottant as vigilance.
be made radically but wit
-
values.
For exemple, even though the DBD program.was sensibly conceived,.
(
the first attempt did not achieve the desired results because actual.
plant' configuration was not checked'against the design.
However,.the second attempt appears to be yielding the desired results.- He stated.
'
that he appreciated the opportunity to meet; recognized the need to. keep the communication channels open; and that he had concluded that PGE'was-focusing on the right_ issues.
.;
,
I l
[
!
t f
.
>
f
1 l'
<
.
s h
!
.,.
__ _ _ _ _ -
-
i
.
.
.
f
,
, 3l
- . 3 ;. Q.W p j
+
'
'
,,
,
-
.'h ;
1'N '
'
'
<
t
,
,,. :
i
,'l, >
,f.m.
g-
>
'
t.
'
f,i
,
,
,
.
,)
,n
- I q
'.s
.
.g g,
'
I-
,,; f ' l '(., y ~
'?, ' $
- '
g
+
'
' '
- .sw + i q u,,
- >
.
.
,
,
,
-
qi L
e-
if t-
-k.
,.;
,
' $.
.
>
,,, -
.
.
.
m
,
,
L:,E Trojan Nuclear Plant i j i
I
.j '.,
<!:
s,; j g1 +
..
- !
. ga.
'
-, i ;- -
.'#,
.
.-4.
<
,
t NRC MANAGEMENT MEETING
'
d(; i
'
3...
-
E h
.
'w-s PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYJ
.l
[
.
,
!
3-
.,
,
1l
.
'
<lt s '. > j,-
.i
.
z';,w E k'
- > i,'t f ? * ',
l p-o '. O
,
s
,,
I 1.f
.f i
.
~
f
,
.
.
.
-
', t
$
,
!-
.;
[i '.1-<
'
- .
-,
.
-.
.
,
-
.gl 6. '
- q, j
'
,
i
<
Q'
- .;
<
.
,
,
,
>
L
a
'
t MAY 10,1990..
,
,
,"
s, i
.
leo 5h
%
.
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _, _,..,,,,..,. _. _ _ _. _..., _,.. _.,, _.,,, _,, _,, _....,., _,
.. _. _ _ _,
t sum num e
amm mas um amm num nas amm mum um aus e
em m uma e
age 1
-
, I)
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
l
!
!
1.0 PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE l
2.0 CORRECTIVE - ACTION PROGRAM l
,
3.0 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS d
l 4.0 ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE PROGRAM
,
l 5.0 DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT VALIDATION i
>
i 6.0 COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT-
i
!
7.0 OVERSIGHT OF MAINTENANCE-
~
i OVERSIGHT.OF NON-ROUTINE EVOLUTIONS-j
8.0 PERFORMANCE OF MANAGER / SUPERVISOR 1AND MANAGING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS j
,.
,
!
i
$
.
_ -.
_
-
g.
. _. _...
..
..
-r
..
.
e
- -.
-~
-
_ _ -. _ _ _ _
aus amm se sus' aus -ass aus aus aus em aus ses aus sus aus aus. aus aus sus
-
_
.
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT
^
. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC NRC MANAGEMENT 1 MEETING
~
May 10,1990
..
,
,
.m-i<,se--s6
,s..
- "i-me'm.-r
--m.
e-a
.m m.
=-ews.
u:
'n-asJ-2
+m----
-.w--.--.w.- + -
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
.,
i
-
.
..
!
AGENDA i
.
.
a
-
.
elNTRODUCTION
o l
- PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE j
>
i
- CORRECTIVE ACTION
'
e l
PROGRAM
!
.
l-
- PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
!
- ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE
,
!
PROGRAM
.
'
t
. ~
,
..
.
.
-
.
...
.
.~
..
-
..
-
-
-
.
- -
.
.
,
...
...
.
- DBD VALIDATION
- COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT
- OVERSIGHT OF MAINTENANCE
- & NON-ROUTINE EVOLUTIONS
- PERFORMANCE OF MANAGER /
SUPERVISOR
& MANAGING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS
=
-
.
.
-_
_ -. -,,. - - - - _. _ -, _ _. _ -. _ - _.,. - - - _ _ - - _, _ _ _ _,,, -, - -, - - -,
-_
-,. -, - -.,, - - _ _ _ _ _
.
.
~
'
__
!
!
I
'
";
'
,
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE :
a
i i
i
TOM WALT
!
4.
!
i l
l ACTING VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR
l
!
l
-_ - - _.
-
.._.
. _.... _.,
,
,
, _
.. _
-.
.
...
. _
.
. -...
-.
.
-
_
... -...
....
--
.
_
_
_
__
__
.
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
}'
NUCLEAR DIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN First issued September 29,1989 List of Specific Actions Revision 1: January 31,1990 Establish Framework for. Major improvements Mission, Objectives Defined Safety Firstl Reliable Generation Economically. Competitive Public Confidence.
Dedicated, Productive Work Force
-
Performance Indicators-
...
L
.----- _ _ _
_
_ _
_
_-
_
-. _ _. - _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_.,
__
__
,
m.
-
sur
==
==
==
==
==
as
-
.
~
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
.
Revision 2
-
April 30,1990 Plan for Excellence Strategic Planning Model Execution, Monitoring, Ad.iustment, Results: Emphasized Performance Indicators
-
-
.
-
nr-L
- d;:
3':..
-.
.:T!:::2:,C::
.,2.
.IE:-'
, - - - -"-1-
--"' ' '
' ' ' ' '" ' " "' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' '
--.
-..
-
. _ _ _ _ _ _
-. -... -
.
-.
--. _ _ _ _ _ -.
___ -_
.__
...
- _ _ -- _-
_-__-
l
.-
=.
= =
l
_..
~
_
_-
.
.
'
STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL
.
,
ENVIRONMENT; o
(SUPPLIERS, COMPETITORS)
l l
t
i
'
STATUS CHANGE PLAN GOAL l
!
PMASE 1 P M.S f.
_
/)
(;
t
..............
.....
- ' * " " '
MEANS
[
o"m* * " " * "o" '
e.....,
.
O acreons o
.;
- j j
g
\\'/
\\ /
F
,
k k
'
U y
- """'"'
_
.........................
t ENDS
=
=
. ". ' ".. '.....,........
...........
_
.<...
,
INTERIM PERFORMANCE ON CHARTER
CUSTOMERS, PUBLIC, REGULATORS
$
i FIGURE 1
'
,
a
2
, _ _
_
_
_
-
. -. -
-
.
-
.. - ~, - - - - -
-.. - -
. - -
-
-. - -
- - - - - = - -
- - - - - - < - - - -
.
.
_
_
_
_
_.
!
,,
..
i PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
.
.
-
.
^
Initial Leadership Agenda Design Stage i
Prioritization Process-
!
Commitment Management
!
Performance of the Manager /Supervi.sor
'
Procedure : Improvement Managing Performance Problems
Materials Management-i Monitoring / Adjustment Stage
,
l Corrective Action Program i
. Work Control-
.
.
'
!
Additional Agenda items Will be Added When-
!
Initial items:are Complete-
...
,
!
!
I
. =.. _.
-
.. _...
-
.
-
. _:,.
..
. -
_., _.
_,
..
..
.
--
.;
-
...
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE I.-
LEADERSHIP AGENDA SELECTION
-
DIRECTION AND/OR POLICY NEEDED
PROBLEMS ARE PlVOTAL TO OTHER ISSUES
=
COOPERATION AT HIGHEST LEVELS
ROADBLOCK REMOVAL
INCREASED EFFICIENCY WILL-RESULT
EMPLOYEE QUALIT.Y OF WORK LIFE WILL e
IMPROVE a
-.
-
-...-
=.
.
- -
-
--; :
-- --
--
--
-
_ _ _ _ _ -
-
.
-.-
.
-
....
~
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
.
LEADERSHIP AGENDA FOLLOW EACH ITEM 18 FOLLOWED. CLOSELY e
BY THE LEADERSHIP TEAM EACH ITEM HAS AN ^ ASSIGNED e
ACCOUNTABLE GEN MGR
- RESULTS (ie. WHAT WE ARE TRYING l
TO ACHIEVE) ARE DEFINED:
- PERFORMANCE MEASURES ARE : SET
- ITEMS WILL REMAIN ON AGENDALUNTIL RESULTS ARE ACHIEVED ~
l
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- .2._ _ _c3
- .e 5 ::::2.._a.c2.::..
..m._
-
- -
,
,
.
~
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
.
.
- UNIFORM METHOD FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS
- BETTER GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYEES
- IMPROVED COORDINATION
- AlD TO MAKING COMMITMENTS-
- MOST IMPORTANT WORK RECEIVES THE MOST ATTENTION.
l
<+sn'-.-,.
.-
.--.
..-.,
-.e
-
s-an-r--
,$n--
--- - -..--. - -
ra__-
-
--
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
.;
.
COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT
.
!
-
..
PRIORITIZE AND RESOURCE
l MEET OR CONSClOUSLY REVISE
-
ORIGINAL PURPOSE FULFILLED l
'
-
l RESPONSIBLE PERSONS HAVE INFLUENCE
'
i
-
i
'
_
.
!
e
!
'!
!
l I
I i
l
=
-
.
,
. -..
_
._
,
_
._.
,
.
_ _,
_,. _,. _,
.
_
-
_. _.
.. _ _
_
-
,
PERFORMANCE OF MANAGER /
i L
SUPERVISOR
~ !
l l
l DELEGATE DECISIONS CLdSER-TO ACTION l
<
,
y t
LIFT ATTENTION TO BIGGER ISSUES i
- -
c t
STRENGTHEN PEOPLE ORIENTATION
MANAGER FOLLOW THROUGH TO
"
GET RESULTS
-
.
!
.
!
-
,
+
r
~w,o,
.wm---w
,,
,
,.e-
,
,,,,
_ -; ^;~;- ';i[;~; ;;, y
,
_
_,
.1
')
PROCEDURE IMPROVEMENT
.
_
,
!
- SIMPLE, CLEAR, EFFICIENT.
,
- ACCURATE, CONSISTENT, AVAILABLE i
REDUCE: COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS
~
l l
- REDUCE WORK DELAYS
i
'
- REDUCE BURDENHOF-REVISIONS:
i
,
e i
i
-
!
i a
-
.
i
- - _. _ - -
-.
_ _ _ _
.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
__
_ _ _ _
i
-.
.:
PROCEDUREIMPROVEMENT
']
.
COMPLETED ACTIONS
o
TASK FORCE STUDY OF CHANGE PROCESS, j
ORGANIZATION, AND. HARDWARE j
ORGANIZATION MOVED INTO l
'
' PROTECTED AREA
CHANGE TO PROCESS APPROVED.
- BY PRB
.
l PROCEDURE STEERING COMMITTEE
!
!
!
ELECTRONIC TRACKING SYSTEM
i
>
l
=-
=
-..
-.
. -
. -
. ~.
-
...
.
.,
-
---
_
__
_ _
_
- ---
- - _ -
--
.
,
c-...__y l
.
.j
'
MANAGING PERFORMANCE
$
PROBLEMS
"
i
REBUILD EMPLOYEE CONFIDENCE e
,
l ENSURE FAIR, CONSISTENT TREATMENT l
,
,
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE e
i i
DEFINED CONSEQUENCES
.
,
HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE e
l GOAL SETTING
.
,
.
..,
.
- =.-
-.
-
.
,
.
-
.
.
.
- -
--
-
-
.. -
'
~
-
. -
-
.
~
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
.
- TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE PROCUREMENT
- SYSTEMATIC COMMERCIAL-GRADE EVALUATION
- STREAMLINE PURCHASING PROCESS
.
O
_ _. _.
-
==-
-.
-
-.
~
-
.
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
.
ACTIONS COMPLETED e TASK FORCE CREATED e EIGHTY THREE RECOMMENDATIONS BEING REVIEWED, PRIORITIZED PROCESS PRODUCES MATERIALS THAT e
.
MEET STANDARDS
-
.
..
__
_
!
i
'i i
!
l CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
.,
!
>
l l
!
!
- UNIFIED CORRECTIVE ACTION DOCUMENT
!
- STREAMLINE REVIEW i
!
- PROVIDE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
l COMMITTEE
)
i
!
L
- TIMELY IDENTIFICATION / RESOLUTION l
!
'
i
i l
l
.
.
-
.
.
..
-
.
-
.
.-
-
.
-
-
_
__._ _
_____
.. __ ___.
.
.
-
!
WORK' CONTROL CENTER
-
.
l i
PROVIDE CENTRALIZED GROUP l
a i
!
PROVIDE INDEPENDENT SRO REVIEW
!
l
!
-
IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY
l
!
- IMPROVE COMMUNICATION i
i
- PREVENT SAFETY-RELATED TRAIN i
VIOLATIONS
.
.
'
i
!
MINIMlZE EQUIPMENT DOWN TIME
~
?
i-
!
.
.
.
,,
+'%
m
,,y
,.
_=w r
---,= -
y eyv -,,.
.,.
.g,
,
.p eg.,p
,-
- .
,
..m,-m,,
____._____ _., _,
m,
-
an
==
am
==
== e
==
me
=
e. as
.
~
WORK CONTROL CENTER
.
ACTIONS COMPLETED WORK CONTROL, PLANNING / SCHEDULING, e
OUTAGE MGMT COMBINED ESTABLISHED INTERIM CHARTER AND e
PROCESS TASK FORCE CREATED e
l
_
. _ _.
-.
--
__.-K~.l
.
-i PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
- i Functional Area Excellence Programs i
{
,
!
A Single Plan Which Applies the Elements of the Strategic l
'
Planning Model to a Specific Functional Area and incorporates Objectives, Goals, Strategies, Tasks, j
and Performance Indicators.
)
Established for the Main Functional Areas Lead Area:
Engineering
,
Follow on 1990 Areas i
!
!
Maintenance
-
,
l Quality Assurance i
-
.
[
Planning & Control j
-
j Materials j
-
i i
Schedule Supports 1991 Budget Preparation j
.
l i
i l.
..
.
_
_
.
.
..
aus sus ama ens aan aus en aus se aan am amm eum ass eso sua as saa say
,
.
FUNCTIONAL AREA EXCELLENCE PROGRAM PROCESS
.
Interviews with Managers, Supervisors, and Employees
Workshops With Managers, Supervisors & Representatives
- Provided a forum for Interactive Dialogue and Formed the Basis for Further Analysis
- Resulted in Formation of Subcommittees Focused on Higher Priority issues and Strategies for improvement
- Each Subcommittee Provided Data Which Characterized Issues to be Used as input-Results in Broad Objectives
- Strategies Proposed as Short-Term, Long-Term, and as Generalitems for Consideration Development of Action Plans
- Includes Goals, Strategies and Performance Indicators
.
(BA GBe 9
.-. ~.. _ _. ~
- -.. -
- - - - -
~~~~
-
___,_y__,_-_--,
-
,
__,,,_
!
-
.:
!
PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
.
.,
'
i l
i
-
l 1991 - Additional Functional Area Excellence Plans
i
!
i i
,
i i
i i
j Living Process
-
Frequent Reassessment of Achieved
'
Results,. Desired Results, Required. Capability, Necessary i
!
Change Plans, Monitor Results, Make Adjustments
'
l i
!
!
l-
i-!
,
i i
j
...
!
i t'
,...
- - -
-
-
.
... -
,
...
.
.
..
.
...
..
_
-.
..
.
.
..-.
-
- -
- -
.
__
--__-
. _ _.
_.
-
- - -.
-...
i me aus am um aus aus se sus as sus sus an en sus man sus aus em aus l
l
!
-
>:
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
.
,
!
'
I
!
i i
!
I
!
l
i CRAIG SEAMAN
'
i
.
I t
J
-
!
i
!
!
-
,
i i
i i
I l
!
!
i
i
~
i
!
GENERAL MANAGER, QUALITY ASSURANCE
,
'
- .
i l
'3
'
!
.
-.
,,..
.
_
,
...
..
-
..
..
-
.
...
.
^
TROJAN CORRECTIVE ACTION
.
PROGRAM
- VISION--DESIRED RESULTS
- PHASEl e PHASE ll
- PHASE Ill
- PLAN OF ACTION / MILESTONES
..
_
i
-
!
-1 i
.
DESIRED END STATE
<
'
,
i
"THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM PROMPTLY
!
i
!
l lDENTIFIES NONCONFORMANCES AND EFFECTIVELY i
!
\\
I IMPLEMENTS CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IN A TIMELY i
t
!
l MANNER"
i
i
!
!
i I
l t
l
.
l i
'
..
~ ~
-
.
.
- -.... -... -. - - - -.
. - - -. - - -!
-_
_
..
.-.-
_-
-.
,
,
i.
ama amo sus em aus
==
sus aus a n amm uma sus man me amm as amo sus em
!
.
.
-
.
.
STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL
.
t
ENVIRONMENT (SUPPLIERS, COMPETITORS)
f r
i r
STATUS CHANGE PLAN GOAL
'
!
.....
......
......
!
')
I)
g
<
..........
.....
i i
MEANS
" " " '
r o" ",",.," o"
.........
,
i
O actions o
i i
i iA
[
t
\\1
\\ /
V v
%
" * * * " '
_
%_
i v
...............
..
ENDS
..'.........
_
=_
=
". ' ".. ' ".
....,....
,......
_
,
_
INTERIM PERFORMANCE ON CHARTER
CUSTOMERS. PUBLIC, REGULATORS
- -
I
!
FIGURE 1
-
.
.
l
'
.-
-
-
__
., _ -.
-4
.-.
., _.
. -
. -
-.
. _ _,, -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
_ - -
--
.
.-
,
,
-
-
-
...----;
,
l'
!
-
.
.
.,
PHASEI
.!
INTERIM DESIRED RESULTS
- !
-
!
!
I
. COMBINE NCAR,.NCR, AND ER INTO A SINGLE
-
SYSTEM TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION AND
!
!
ROBLE S WILL BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF
j PROBLEM-SOLVERS IN THREE DAYS OR LESS i
i l
- INCREASE LINE ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY j
AND ACCOUNTABILITY j
i
- EARLY MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT TO ASSIGN l
EVALUATOR AND ESTABLISH SEVERITY LEVEL i
(HELP WITH PRIORITIES)
!
.
l e PROMPT AND DOCUMENTED OPERABILITY AND REPORTABILITY DETERMINATIONS
)
i
- AGGRESSIVE FOLLOWUP TO ASSESS STATUS OF l
<
PROGRAM AND IDENTIFY REQUIRED-ADJUSTMENTS i
,
!
I
!
!
!
-
.
..
.
,
aus aus ama ese aus aus as aus amm see ans as sus amm sus aus aus em aus
.
.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
.
- INITIATION TIME i
(Time required to get CARS to
'
the evaluator;l e EVALUATION TIME (Time required to define corrective actions;l
- COMPLETION TIME (Time required to implement correction actions)
- OVERDUE ACTIONS
- EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM--THROUGH QA-ASSESSMENTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT PROBLEMS
_
_ - - -
r _ _- _ _ _- _-
_
_
_
_-
_
_ - _
_ _ _
_
. _ _ _
_
_.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_,
!
i
.
i-l
-
L INITIATION TIME
.
'
\\
l
" TIME TO GET PROBLEM TO THE EVALUATOR"
!
i-l l
l l
I a
!
k PREVIOUS PROGRAMS NEW PROGRAM
'
(NCRs/NCARs)
GOAL CARS
!
.
AVERAGE TIME 7 DAYS 3 DAYS 2 DAYS-i
!
i
t i
!
l i
!
!
!
i
!
>
>
i i
- TYPICALLY, ONE WORKING DAY I
!
l t
l
,
-
l
!
-
. -.
-
_.
..
...
.
_
.. - -..
- -
- -.. - -.. - -
.
-
-
-__-.
-..
.
.
-___
_
.
_ -
__ - -
-.
._
- - _ -
_ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _.
,
'.
.
EVALUATION / CLOSEOUT
.
,
i TIMES
.
.
-
i AVERAGE
!
!
EVALUATION TIMES
.
t'
ERs 46 DAYS
,
NCARs i
43 DAYS
!
i
.
,
,
!
NCRs 62 DAYS
=
!
!
!
CARS 19 DAYS
!
.
.
!
AVERAGE
!
CLOSEOUT TIMES i
!
ERs
!
118 DAYS
,
NCARs 150 DAYS
)
,
NCRs i
i 208 DAYS
!
!
!
!
!
l CARS 36 DAYS
,
,
!
-
i l-
--.!
.-
....
.
-
- - -. -
-
-..
..
.
_
_
-
.
L OVERDUE ACTIONS
~
-.j
.
i
!
!
i NCARs APPROX.40%
l
!
i i
i l
NCRs APPROX.40%
!
L.
!
i l
\\
l CARS APPROX.25%
t i
'
t i
!
l l
'
i
!
'
l
!.
t I
l I
l t
-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - -
--.
.
.
. ~
.
.
_ _
_
-
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_.
.__
_ - _ _
._ _ _
een amm som aus
==
sus som en ens men amo sus
==
ese amm en ens aus aus
-
.
i
-
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM
~
.
(FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES)
!
i
!,
l
- QA SURVEILLANCES (B!-WEEKLY)
- LINE ORGANIZATION FEEDBACK (WEEKLY)
).
- CAP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I
!
i-
'
L
.
-
i
,
i
.
- _
_,
.
.
,
.
.
_
.-.
.
~
sus amo
==
==
==
ens sus au mus mm
==
se aim em ase
==
amm ens aus
.
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM
'
.
(FOLLOW-UP RESULTS)
!
- CAP PROCEDURES
!
!
- User Accountabilities j
- Severity Level Definitions
!
- Ease of Use i
- OPERABILITY / REPORTABILITY
,
l DETERMINATIONS l
= MANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION COMMITTEE (MCAC)
. EVALUATION GUIDANCE
,
= TRAINING
!
- DUE DAi'ES l
!'
,
.
.,
_m
.,,,
,
,, -,. -. - ~ _ _ _
---
-- -
an aus
==
aus see amm ses sus me une amm sus ame aus as as
==
sus em
~
~,
.-
ACTIONS TO DATE
-
a CHANGE TO CAP PROCEDURE
. CLARIFIED CAR FORMS
- CORRECTED IDENTIFIED ERRORS
<
>
- INCREASED SUPPORT FOR MCAC
- LICENSING
- 2 ADDITIONAL LINE MANAGERS
- ESTABLISHED PROJECT TEAM
-
...,....._,,..,..:..a su
_..:.-...m-
.. _......
...
- -.
...
,.. _ _.. _
.
.
-
---
..
__
....
_
...
..
..
sus aus aus en ens aus sus sus e
sua e
e e
m WB e
m BB W
.
.
CAR PROJECT TEAM
.
- MULTI-DISCIPLINE TEAM OA - SUPERVISOR PM/EA - ENGINEER 111 PSE - SUPERVISOR NSRD - ENGINEER IV (SRO CERT)
NPE - SUPERVISOR -
- PURPOSE 1. IMMEDIATE ACTION: To evaluate identified recommendations /
deficiencies and propose changes to enhance timeliness and efficiency.
2. Identify and recommend changes to enhance CAP effectiveness - Phase 11
-
- VISION:
"The Corrective Action Program promptly identifies nonconformances and effectively implements corrective actions in a timely manner."
......
_
_ _.
-
__
- --
.
-
_
_ -
. _
-
-
-- _
.
-
-
-
-
;
,
-
.
-i
!
PHASE ll
.
.
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
!
- THRESHOLD
!
- OPERABILITY / REPORTABILITY
{
'
!
- EVALUATIONS (Root Cause)
!
- IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION i
i e CORRECTIVE ACTION FOLLOW-UP l
!
!
,
!
CAPABILITIES
-
j RESOURCES / ORGANIZATION
]
=
i TRAINING l
QA PROGRAM
i
}
l'
.
..m
.
.
.
.
-
.. ~.... -
..
.
....
.. -..,., -,,, -.... -..,....,, _, _ _ _. _ _.... _ _.., _.., _ _ _ _ _. _.
..
..
__
_
_
_
_
!.
-
I
-
PLAN OF ACTION /
.
l MILESTONES
i i
i
!
!
PHASEI
i
- IMPLEMENT NEW PROCEDURES-COMPLETE i
!
!
- SHORT TERM PROCEDURAL 5/15/90
i l
REFINEMENTS DEFINED
!
- IMPLEMENTED 6/1/90 l
i i
PHASE 11
- PROJECT TEAM PROPOSALS 6/15/90 l
,
i
,
- IMPLEMENT JUNE-AUGUST '90
i PHASE 111
- PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP ON-GOING i
,
.
.
.m
"-
.
n.
.
--
.
.
-
-'
6'
-F*'-
u-4
&
"
&
C W
- #
s'*
4 w..
v w
u.,
,Wweep--er -#* f
+.
ww, iw-+-m 4e+-
_-g%_ae_fygawht
-
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W
.
~
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
.
TOM WALT
-
GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS
- - - - _ - _ _ _
=
-============a
--
.
.
~
CURRENT CAPABILITY
- EXISTING PROCEDURE COVERS JOB PRIORITIZATION FOR CAPITAL-IMPROVEMENTS
- MAJORITY OF WORK IS O&M AND NOT SYSTEMATICALLY PRIORITIZED THROUGHOUT THE DIVISION
- MANY WORK TASKS ARE DATE DRIVEN-BY PRIOR COMMITMENT AND/OR PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS-
-
-_
_
_
__
-
_
-!
-
.
t
.
DESIRED END STATE l
UNIFORM PRIORITIZATION OF NUCLEAR
l DIVISION WORK i
i
!
i
MOST IMPORTANT WORK RECEIVES
i PROPER EMPHASIS
'
i l
LEAST IMPORTANT WORK IS
l DEFERRED OR CANCELLED
,
i l
NEW WORK IS PRIORITIZED
t t
[
BEFORE COMMITMENT IS MADE
WORK GROUPS HAVE INPUT
i L
i
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.
_ -
_ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ -
- - _ _ - _ _ - -
. - - -
-.-
==
-!
-l i
'
.
ACTION COMPLETED ~
-
!
ACTION PLANS HAVE BEEN PRIORITIZED
!
'
,
BY GENERAL MANAGERS
'
!
PRIORITIZED WORK LISTS HAVE BEEN
.
'
ESTABLISHED IN SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS l
GENERAL MANAGERS AND. DEPARTMENT
l MANAGERS ARE PRIORITIZING WORK i
'
AS NEW ISSUES ARE RAISED
~
!
PARTICIPATION IN REGION V
I MANAGERS WORKING GROUP i
a
!
)
. -
- - -
.
- -
-.
- -
- - - -
-
- - - -
- -
- - -
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
~1 PRIORITIZATION TEAM
. RESPONSIBLE GEN MGR-TOM WALT
- RESPONSIBLE MGR-MARK HOFFMAN e PROJECT MGR-GARY MITCHELL (MEMBER REG V PRIORITIZATION WORKING GROUP)
-.
.
,
-'
-
-.-.
-
-
-
..
.
.
ACTION PLAN
- ASSIGN RESPONSIBLE MGR:AND PROJECT MGR-COMPLETE
.
MAY 1990
- ESTABLISH PLAN, SCHEDULE,
& PERFORMANCE MEASURES-JUNE 1990
- DEVELOP PROCESS AUGUST 19901-paymer 7 c :
.
q 7y
.
m gp; gg:.e
..
___________________
...
~
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE
.
PROGRAM TOM WALT GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS
,
l
L
-
--
.
---.
-..
.
- - - - _ _
,
_
_
_
________
_______
.a
ENGINEERING AREAS
~-l i
l L
- NUCLEAR PLANT ENGINEERING l
- PLANT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING r
'
- REACTOR / SURVEILLANCE TEST ENGINEERING l
!
.
i
- PLANT MODIFICATIONS
i i
- NUCLEAR SAFETY & REGULATION DEPT
!
(
- MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING
.
q
!
\\
.
-
t
!
l
!
,
l
.
.
_
.
..
.
.
.
~ ~..
__
-.--
-
..
___________________
..
.
ENGINEERING CAPABILITIES
~
.
i
.
l
-
- DESIGN CHANGE j-
l
= CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
- PLANT PERFORMANCE.& RELIABILITYL
!
- MATERIALS MANAGEMENT!
- CONDITION REPORTING &-RESOL.UTION
. REACTOR ENGINEERING j
- HSAFETY1 EVALUATION j
. TESTING & EVALUATION:
-!
j
!
..
- - -
. -.
-.
- -
. -
- -.
.
-
-. -.-- - - - - - ---
-.
.
- - - -
- - -
- ---
i
. - -
{
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE PROGRAM
~
L NPE PILOT PROGRAM l
'
- !
.
I
- FUNCTIONAL AREA CONCERNS IDENTIFIED
'
THROUGH INTERVIEWS AT ALL LEVELS
!
- MGRS/ SUPERVISORS PRIORITIZE ISSUES
!
AT A GROUP MEETING
,
'
- SUPERV! SORS FROM OTHER FUNCTIONAL l
AREAS PROVIDE INPUT
- SUBCOMMITTEES UNDER SUPERVISORS ASSIGNED ISSUES, FORM ACTION PLANS a
.
.
-.
.
.
-
-
-
.
-
,
NUCLEAR PLANT ENGINEERING a
CONCERNS
~l
.l l
.
- PROCEDURALLINEFFICIENCIES
,
= WORK PRIORITIZATION
.
.
- PROCUREMENT ENGINEERING
!
i q
- LACK 'OF CLEAR DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
'
AND INTERFACES
'
'
i
- CONTROL / RESOLUTION OF BACKLOG l
.
,
. RESPONSIVENESS TO THE. CUSTOMER
- i
'
i
. TURNOVER OF ENGINEERS-
'
'
i
.
.
l i
.
l
..
.
.
J
.- -
-.
-
.
. _ -
..
.
-
L--
---
- -----------a i
.
.:
l
.!
l
.
-
l-ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE PLAN
,
OUTLINE
~
.
OBJECTIVES-ADDRESS IDENTIFIED ISSUES
l
- GOALS-ESTABLISH FOR EACH OBJECTIVE
.
l
STRATEGIES-SHORT TERM & LONGETERM i
e i
- ACTION PLAN-lMPLEMENT THE ! STRATEGIES
)
i
- PERFORMANCE INDICATORS-MONITOR 1THE
]
l EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CHANGE j
,
l
!
u
!
l
!
!
.
.
-_
.__
_
-
_
_
.
..
..
-
-
.
NPE PLAN I
SIX OBJECTIVES DEVELOPED
-
1.0 MISSION AND OBJECTIVES
- DEVELOP. CLEAR NPE MISSION STATNMENT
-
- DEFINE -lNPUTS, PRODUCTS, INTERFACES 2.0 WORK MANAGEMENT alMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS OF WORK MGMT
- DEVELOP PRIORITY / TRACKING SYSTEM
- ENSURE COMMITMENTS ARE APPROPRIATELY ASSIGNED, SCHEDULED, AND MANAGED
,
.
2..
.
...
.ur
...
.m-
+.r-,--.w..,
.ur
......
,- -
--e-- - - -- - -- - - <
-T-.
.. -
--im.--
- -....
-.ini
-
i.+...m.r.n.,
i...-
-.mae..-
.. -.
s.ip
-.4-
--.;-. -- - -- ;-.-----. ---- i--
i.----amu--
. - -- -........i.. --
.,,,
..-
a i-.-l
.
-
-
. _ _ _ _
_
_.
__
._ _.
-
aus ame ens aus mas sum uma sus: sum one aus aus aus.amm en mas ama amm ens
.
NPE PLAN i
i 3.0 PROCEDURES
i
- DEVELOP CLEAR PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK i
-* ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL -HIERARCHY
'AND INTERFACES
!
i
- REDUCE PROCEDURAL COMPLEXITY-
1 4.0 PROCUREMENT ENGINEERING-i
!
'
- DEFINE JOB SCOPE
- DEFINE WORK. PROCESS
,
!
!
alMPROVE PERFORMANCE
,
t i-
{
j
1
!
'
.
i
'!
..
.,
, ~
, _.. - ~,
. - - ~
.e,
,-
-,.--._x.
-., _. -. _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. _,
-
-
_
..__ - __ _ _ -
- _ -
_
aus. aus sus som aus sum uma ses-aus aus aus aus aus aus ans ans aus aus aus
.
NPE PLAN
.
5.0 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT / DESIGN CONTROL DESIGN BASIS RECONSTRUCTION
CALCULATIONS
6.0 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND ' PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT STAFFING
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-m_.
_
- -~-ef-
- w
- '
-4---
--h--
e*s
-
- e---
^
==--:-a-----.-
- -'hm.
A3.m-- - - -
_-w--A
-
--
. - - - -
-.
.
t==
-
.
==
au
-
- x:
!
'
j
'
.
.
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE PLAN
.
r
.
FEATURES
,
!
i
.
'
- DEVELOPMENT OF SHORT AND LONG TERM
STRATEGIES TO FOCUS ON ACTIONS THAT j
CAN PROVIDE lMMEDIATE AS WELL AS l
.
!
LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS
!
- SYSTEMATIC WAY TO FOCUS ON SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF
.
TECHNICAL WORK
.
l
\\
L
= LINKAGE TO OTHER lMPROVEMENT l
1 INITIATIVES SUCH AS THE REGION V
'
!
ENGINEERING MANAGERS FORUM ~
.
-
-
i
-
1-i i
STATUS / SCHEDULE
-]
.e
..
dQ
'
NPE HAS COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT
!
'
l OF OBJECTIVES, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES.
i ACTION PLANS AND PERFORMANCE
!
INDICATORS WILL BE IN PLACE
!
BY JULY 1990
~
,
,
REMAINING ENGINEERING GROUPS WILL l
!
COMPLETE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND l
ACTION PLANS BY SEPTEMBER 1990.
j l
~
l
\\
L
l
!
.l l
- -. _
--
...
.
.
-.
- -
-
- - -.
_.
.
_
_
_ _ _
.
-
-
-
.
.
L
'e a
DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT L
l VALIDATION
!
u
,
.i
,[
i
i
TOM WALT
i i
'
i i
j.
-
GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS.
i
!
)
_
..3
._
_
.
_..
_
_.
. _,
- -
_ _ -
. _ _.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_;
_
_
_
_
~
DESIGN BA818 DOCUMENT PROGRAM
-
OVERVIEW
-
PROCESS CONTROLLED BY PROCEDURE NDP 200-6, DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS CONTENT & FORMAT ESTABLISHED IN PGE TOPICAL REPORT PGE-1055, CONTENT -& LEVEL OF DETAIL CRITERIA FOR DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS-
.WILL MEET GUIDELINES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGN BASES-DOCUMENTATION PROGRAMS, ESTABLISHEDLBY THE REGION V ENGINEERING MANAGERS' FORUM PROGRAM PLANS DEVELOPMENT -OF ABOUT 70 DBDS 26 ISSUED 1TO DATE
.
7 IN APPROVAL CYCLE-4 PLANNED.FOR 1990 33 ADDITIONAL DBDS : PLANNED TO BE WRITTEN BY END OF 1994
...
-.
. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
~
- - - - -
.
=-
~ -
-
-
-
---l--
- - - - -
- - - -, -
-
- - - ~.- -.. - - -
- - - -
-
--e aus mum uma. umm e - amm amm aus ame aus em aum ' sus. ame-amm ens aus
.
DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT PROGRAM
'
,
DBD WALKDOWN/ VALIDATION
COMMITTED TO WALKDOWN/ VALIDATE-SEVEN SYSTEM DBDS IN 1990 PLAN TO WALKDOWN/ VALIDATE SYSTEM DBDS FOR ALL'
.
.
i SAFETY-RELATED' SYSTEMS BY END OF 1994 i
PROCESS CONTROLLED BY PROCEDURE.NDP -200-9,.
j SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS VALIDATION IDENTIFYING & EVALUATING ALL SYSTEM DISCREPANCIES-
PROCESS CONTROLLED 'BY. PROCEDURE NDP 200-1.0, j
-
DESIGN BASIS OPEN-ITEMS / DISCREPANCIES
'
,
..
.
L VALIDATION PROGRAM INCLUDES REVIEW ~ OFE SUPPORTING l
PROCEDURES & DOCUMENTATION
.
,
,
i i
..
mecatow
-
(
$
- - -,, -.
.-%
..
w-.
3,.
.,re-
-g
'~m.
^
24" e yv--
^ - *
-w
-
v'
s
' -
- -
=
a'w'=+m-
-
aus: see saa sus aus aus mas sua ass. mas ame aus-aus eum aus: aus amm. ama es
.
DBD WALKDOWN/VAllDATION
~
DBD WALKDOWN8
-
DBD 'WALKDOWNS 'ARE TO CONFIRM ACTUALL PLANT CONFIGURATION MATCHES DESIGN BASES IN DBDS PROGRAM IS-NOT A DESIGN VERIFICATION-WALKDOWN TEAMS CONSIST OF AT LEAST THREE INDIVIDUALS
- -DESIGN ENGINEER -FROM NUCLEAR PLANT-ENGINEERING-
- SYSTEM ENGINEER FROM PLANT SYSTEMS : ENGINEERING
- QUALITY-INSPECTOR FROM QUALITY ASSURANCE-PHYSICAL " HAND OVER-HAND" WALKDOWN OF SYSTEM
- BASED ON PIPING-AND-INSTRUMENT DIAGRAMS
- BASED ON ELECRICAL SINGLE LINE DRAWINGS-
- BASED ON DBD DESCRIPTION
..
_ _ _ _ -,
.
._
~~.
. -,.
-,. - -
_ - _, _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
___
._-
_ - _ _ _ _
_ _.,
.
_
_._ _
_ _ _ _.
. _ _ _
-
.
se m.
sum see-men:
.=
sus a
_
'l DBD WALKDOWN/ VALIDATIONS
~!
'
OPEN ITEMS / DISCREPANCIES
"
,
o
_
PROCESS FOR HANDLING & EVALUATING DISCREPANCIES
CONTROLLED BY PROCEDURE NDP. 200.-10, DESIGN BASIS OPEN ITEMS / DISCREPANCIES j
DISCREPANCIES WILL BE CLASSIFIED INTO -ONE OF SEVERAL l
CATEGORIES:
,
- MAINTENANCE REQUEST / PICK UP ITEMS
i L
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT '(CAR)
AS-BUILT DISCREPANCY NOTICE (DRAWING ERRORS)-
i
j
- OPENITEM i
ALL DISCREPANCIES AND DISPOSITIONS ARE REVIEWED BY.
!
A RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM
'
'
RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM CONSISTS OF' THREE MEMBERS:
NPE DISCIPLINEECHIEF OR DESIGNEE-
'
PSE BRANCH MANAGER OR DESIGNEE i
REPRESENTATIVE 'FROM NUCLEAR SAFETY & REGULATION i
t g
esserse i
,
.
q
.
_
_
._ _, _.
.. -
,
..
-
.
. -.
. ~ _, _.. _ _
Tams aus: an sus-ams aus..sms amm amm aus aus em nas ame aus sus ame-amm ame
.
COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT
.l l
i
!
l l
.
l TOM WALT
'
e i
i.
i
.
GENERAL. MANAGER, TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS
'
.
'
!
!
-
..
~..,.
,
- -.
.
.,
-
.
...
.
..
-
-
-
.
.q COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
=R Current Status-U CAPABILITIES:
Lack of tools for prioritization and scheduling
Policy (June 1989) that Commitment Tracking List'
(CTL) due dates will not be changed No mechanism for requesting work internally a
PERFORMANCE:
- Too many commitments are made without the resources to meet them; schedules are not met-
- Large backlog.of overdue'CTL items
- - Work and due dates are assigned without prior agreement by responsible department i
._.
.
-_
-
.-
--
-_
-_
_
[,,,,,..
[.;...
e e
ay
!
. I
!
COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM M
,
i Future Vision
~
l
CAPABILITIES-
~
i
>
!
L
- Provide a primary information source for commitment.
{
'
origin, status, schedule, and implementation.
}
- Provide a means for requesting work internally that.
,
allows for prioritization and ~ timely completion.
.
L
- Provide an effective tool for developing and revismg l
procedures, instructions and other documents that i
implement. commitments.
!
- Provide accurate information for management reviews
and audits;
'
!
.
RESULTS:
i
'
q
- A high level of confidence on the part of-management l
and external agencies that PGE commitments are
,
responded to in a timely manner, implemented, tracked,
and implementation maintained.
.
l
.
c
i
, _;_ _,
,,.u.
_
.
_
. _.. _
, _..
-
. _. _
.
.
II
__.--e.. -
j use um een as aus aus aus ama sus aus ass mas amm aus mas aus aus aus em CHANGE PLAN
~
Short-term Actions
-
- Hold critique for missed external commitments
- complete March 29,1990
- Assign Project Manager and Project Engineer
- complete April 18,1990
- Review existing work and reprioritize
- Letter rescheduling firmdate NRC commitments submitted May 9,1990
- Program for review of internal due dates projected for June 1990
- Upgrades to CTL computer program
- Add field for completion date
- Enhanced reporting capability
- Projected for July 1990
- Revise CTL procedure
- Allow due date changes with proper approval
- Institute departmental CTL coordinators
- Projected for June 1990
.
.
t 2'.
'_^
-
.
.
',7.:
-
~
-
.
_
.
.
-
-
..
...
CHANGE -PLAN t
~
-
Long-term ~ Actions-
~
!
i Develop Project Plan
- July 1990
~
Establish Performance Indicators i
Living Program l
- -
l
-
- Follow up
'!
- Evaluate :
-
l~
- Adjust--
!
l
.
i
.
!
"
.I
,
-
- !
i
.
-
!
I
.
'!
j j
-
-i
'
'
i
!
.. _.. _
--
.. - -
. _
- -.
..
-
.
._.
._
_
2 --
- -
.
--- -_
-- _
_ _ _ _ -
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ - _ _ _
-- -
-
-
.
--
---
.
.t I
l OVERSIGHT OF ~ MAINTENANCE l..
,
?
.
I
!
'
,
.i l
.
i JOHN WHELAN l
!
.
i i
.
y
!
'l t.
!
!
<
l
I l
-
.
.
,
.
.
t i
MANAGER, MAINTENANCE
-
.t
,
i l
'
!
1
>
-
j i
.
. -
.
--
-
-. -
-
.
-. -
.
-
-
.
-
- -
-
.ame.==
ame mes. ens mes sem sem mes mas-aus ess.ame uma ses-mas sus mas em
.
OVERSIGHT OF MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES
~
- EXPECTATIONS COMMUNICATED BY:
-CONDUCT OF MAINTENANCE MANUAL-MEMORANDUMS. TO ALL MAINT
-
SUPERVISORS-
- CHANGE PERFORMANCE AND CULTURE THROUGH-COACHING. AND COUNSELING BY MAINTENANCE-MANAGER elMPROVE WORK. CONTROLL. PROCESS TO FREE MAINT SUPERVISORS. FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND ALLOW MORE IN-PLANT TIME
- - - _
=
_
-
.-
-
_ _ _ _ _-
..
+:
m--=.L.*-.=
h A.4-.%%
s..+.a+a.
u w..h=
,
u.6 e
m 4%-
m-w
=a
==a.m.4-
- - - - -
.
^.
'
.
.
I e
OVERSIGHT OF NON-ROUTINE
.
EVOLUTIONS
.
t a
-
,
-
PAUL YUNDT
,
!
.I
.!
.
E
.
i
--
. ;
i i
- t i
I
.
'i j
GENERAL MANAGER, TROJAN; PLANT
-
.
.-
i
,, _...
... _.
-.
.._ _-,
, :.:_. 1. -...
.,..-
. _. -.
.~
_.,.:.-.
...__s
, _....., _
.
-
_
.
,. -- -
- -. - - -. _ _ _ _.
__ _
. _ ___.
.
.
-
-
=
==
.-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
OVERSIGHT OF NON-ROUTINE EVOLUTIONS R
IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES j
l COMMUNICATE CONCERN / EXPECTATIONS TO ALL l
- *
l SUPERVISORS / MANAGERS 'BY PLANT MGR MEMO l
l l
- DISCUSS THIS CONCERN WITH ALL SUPERVISORS /
!
.
MANAGERS AT WEEKLY MANAGEMENT MEETING
!
!
!
- ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN OUR NDIP KEY ITEM l-FOR
" PERFORMANCE OF THE MANAGER /
SUPERVISOR"
'
i l
l r
,
i
'
i
!
!
._
1 I
.
4
....-.3
_,
..,
w
..
_.s-
.. _ -. - > -
..
,..;
... s p y
... _ _.D.,
_...w..
.
.
.
.
_
.
..
m[
m
.
l
.-_...e
.
.
PLANT MANAGER'S
..
OVERSIGHT MEMO
.
- RECENT EVENTS RAISE CONCERN FOR ADDITIONAL / IMPROVED
.
SUPERVISORY / MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT-OF -NON-ROUTINE
-
EVOLUTIONS
.
- NON-ROUTINE EVENTS DESERVE AN INCREASED LEVEL-OF ATTENTION
- EXAMPLES OF NON-ROUTINE EVENTS-
-SPECIAL OR ONE-TIME TESTS-
'
-ACTIVITIES-WHERE EXPECTED-RESULTS ARE NOT ACHIEVED
-
-REPEAT I AILURE OF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
,
i FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE j-lNSPECTION WHICH :YlELDS TOTALLY-UNEXPECTED RESULTS-
i
.
- SUPERVISORS / MANAGERS MUST BE SENSITIVE: TO l
i IDENTIFYING SUCH ITEMS
!
i
.
!
- WILL BE DISCUSSED AT WEEKLY-MGMT MEETING
-
!
l
'
-
-
-
-.
- _ -
-
-
~
m E sus aus see. aus aus. aus: - aus aus am. mas amm aus aus aus aus aus em see PERFORMANCE OF MANAGER /
_
L SUPERVISOR AND MANAGING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS GEORGE LIEUALLEN GENERAL MANAGER, TROJAN EXCELLENCE
_
.,,,,,am;.,,.2--3...;......,_,.,...;.,_.,-'"'#
. _...-:-9 T"W'"
-' - ' '" - ' - ' ' '
"MP-
' ^ '- ' " ' ' ' - 'A"'"--"--
*- "'"-""*- ' ' ' ' '
'"- ' ' - " " - ' * " ' ' ' ' " " ' ' ' " '
' ' - " ' " *
-"- '
'_ "'*'-
-
-
- _N_I
__
- .Cr_.,
-
-
-
-
---
l
...
i
.
PURPOSE
.;
.
i
>
TO EFFECT BASIC BEHAVIOR CHANGES IN
{
l SUPERVISORY PRACTICES
{
.
,
TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR SELECTING,
DEVELOPING, AND REWARDING l
SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS i
i
)
TO PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR OUR l
-
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM i
i'
{
.
-..
-
-
..
.-
.. -
..
. -
..
. -.. -
.
- -.
-. -.
-
l___________________
!
!
.!
!
DESIRED RESULTS i
-
!
i INTEGRATED LINKAGE BETWEEN STRATEGIC l
l PLANNING DOWN TO PLANNED ACTIONS EVERY JOB IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN
IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT ALL CRITICAL WORK IS PERF'ORMED EXACTLY AS PRESCRIBED
i
,
i
!
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS BECOME
l THE BASIC BEHAVIORAL STANDARD AT ALL L
LEVELS OF SUPERVISION i
!
!
i
.
.
_
_
_
_
_ _-
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
______
-l
PLAN
~!
..
i INTRODUCE 1ST GENERATION PROFILE 6/1/90
!
!
IMPLEMENT LEADERSHIP TEAM MODELT 7/1/90 i
.
I l
INTRODUCE CONCEPT TO 9/15/90
l MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS
a DEVELOP NEW PERFORMANCE 10/1/90
APPRAISAL FORMAT i
l
- TRAIN MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS 12/1/90 ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
!
l PROCESS l
l
i
t
,
i
.
I
,
!
!
>... -
_
. _.. -
_..
.,.
-.
.
...
. -.. _,
.
.
.
..
- -
-
.
.
-
..
. _. -.
..
. - - - _ _ - _ - - _ _
t a;
.
,
!
-
-
_
,
i
.
!
!
.
WORK CONTROL OBJECTIVES I
!
'
IDENTIFY AND CONTROL ALL WORK AFFECTING PLANT PROCESS SYSTEMS
f ESTABLISH CLEAR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PERSONNEL
.
INVOLVED IN WORK CONTROL i
>
IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVITY AND COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUPS
-
,
PREVENT SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT / TRAIN OPERABILITY PROBLEMS
L
!
OPTIMIZE EQUIPMENT WORK WHEN IT IS REMOVED FROM SERVICE
-
l
'
MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TIME EQUIPMENT IS OUT OF SERVICE
RELIEVE THE SHIFT SUPERVISOR OF UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES
-
l PROVIDE TRAINED / QUALIFIED PERSONNEL
-
i THROUGH ENHANCEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROCESS AND-MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF THE PROCESS THESE OBJECTIVES WILL BE ACHIEVED.
i L
'._
.
..
.
__
.
.
.
.
..
a
__
__ __
_ _ - _ -
.;-
.
-
,
KEY ELEMENTS OF WORK CONTROL
--
+ WORK ACTIVITY IDENTIFICATION
- WORK SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION
?
PLANNING / IMPACTING
- APPROVAL
.
SCHEDULING
'
- AUTHORIZATION COORDINATION
+ PERFORMANCE
- ADEQUACY
- STORAGE OF DATA HISTORY
EACH OF THESE KEY ELEMENTS WILL BE REVIEWED CONSIDERING THE GUIDELINES IDENTIFIED IN INP0 CONDUCT OF MAINTENANCE, NRC MAINTENANCE INSPECTION GUIDELINES, AS WELL AS, UTILIZING EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..
. _ _ _.......
-
,
o ',
-
..
SITE INTEGRATED SCHEDULE INPUT TRAINING A D LEAVE REFUELING ACTIVITIES
/
MATERIAL PROCUREMENT DESIGN ACTIVITIES INTEGRATED SCHEDULE CORRECTIVE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE SURVEILLANCE COMMITMENT TESTS ACTIONS INTEGRATIONS OF ALL WORK ACTIVITIES WHICH IMPACT THE PLANT PROCESS SYSTEMS MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK CONTROL PROCESS TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OBJECTIVES.
!
4807W
.
- _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ - _ _.
L
,
.
!
WORK CONTROL CENTER
'
,
.
ACTION PLAN
'
i
l ISSUE UPGRADED WORK CONTROL PROCESS
{
PROCEDURE AND FORMAL CHARTER-JUNE 1990 i
!
t
'
RESTRUCTURE / REORGANIZE PLANNING &
CONTROL DEPT-JULY 1990
L
REVIEW /RESTRU.CTURE MAINTENANCE
l REQUEST PROCESS-NOVEMBER 1990 l
l PROVIDE CENTRALIZED FACILITY FOR
l PLANNING / CONTROL DEPT-DEC 1990 OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM USERS &-
'
'
CHANGE AS NEEDED-ONGOING
!
!
!
..
.
....
.
.
..
.
...
...