ML20099J208

Assessment of Fitzpatrick Results Improvement Program

ML20099J208
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	06/30/1992
From:	POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20099J195	List: ML20099J208
References
PROC-920630, NUDOCS 9208200160
Download: ML20099J208 (6)

Text

_ _ -. . _ . _ ..

ENCLOSURE 2 5.

JUNE 1992 LSSESSMENT OF THE FuzrATRICK RESULTS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM e

x .Y ^

Revienwed by. __f z w_

-w fa2A Robert Pommy I

Reviewed by. A 2 Adhah Appmed by: m P PDR _

f .

I.

~

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Background .

The purpose of this repost is to assess the progress and effectiveness of the aedon plans in-resolving the issues ident1 Pied in the Fitzpatrick Results Improvernent Program (RIP). 'Illis report also sets forth the 74.cdology that was used to assess the RIP.- .

In June'_1992, .during a % week period, a New York Power Authodty

. Assesament Team conducted 204 interviews,.revieweri 292 documents, collected

- 100 surveys, observed various field activities and reviewed RIP -closure documentation.

the appiusch r A~ significant portion.of the team's effort centered on developing 3 to perform an effectivences evaluation which met the intent of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant's (JAF) Administrat Procedure 1.15 which states:

" Semi-annual ane*nments shall be i Liudd to ensure [ RIP]

effectiveness and to ensure communication and cooperadon exist.

These assessments shall be the responsibility of the Nucicar Leadership Team (NLT). A senior level manager shall be assigned responsibility for execution of the assessments."

Overall Evahsation -

The RIP Assessment Team hEs obsmed that the RIP t a well-conceived program that has been, r.nd will continue to be, an extenely usand tool fbr identifying and resolving issues that will, over time, help impsove the overall performance of JAF. The Ed.cdeiogy used to develop the RIP Program fostered significant cocpsidan among alte departments as well as divisions in the corporata office,

. and this teamwork is an important and solidifying elamam of the success of the-RIP Program.

i-However, the team strongly recommends that the RIP be..sii place gresect i

emphasis.on issue resoludon as opposed to action item counpletion. Presendy, individuals are held accountable only for'their andgned action items without

- sufficient consideration of the actual issue, although the Plant Leadership Team (PLT) in its review of completed action items does evale its effect on the

issue. By focusing individual staff members on the issues, it should become apparent whether or not the actions are == Wily resolving the lasues. This recommendation, along with others noted in this report, will serve to improve and L enhance the effectiveness of the RIP in i4A-/.ug its objecsive.

L u .1 i

i-4

-.+cm., = ,g- ,- r-w y r- e e'rw--- yw *-P

1l y  :.

Progress on the RIP Issues All 159 issues were myiewed in this annemment. For these issues, it has been determined that:

• 12 lasues are resolved.

39 issues are not yet resolved, but appropriate action is being taken 2 resolve the issure in a timely mr.nnar.

• 78 issues have action plans that the team recommends be enhanced to more effectively address the lasues.

30 issues have appropriate action plans but more timely action is requhed.

In many cases, issues are being addressed appropriately. In most cassa, for the 78 issues, additional actions att reconie to ensure that they will fully resohe W issues. In some cases, actions were not completed on a timely basis We uponsibilities for action itemos were either unclear, or certain prerequisites required for an acdon item had not yet been completed. In those cases, recomame=dans are being made to clarify the responsibilities in the action plan. :

Conclusions and, when applicable, Rooornmenderinns for each of the RIP issues are presented as an appendix to this report.

' Assessement of the RIP: Issue Ikavan=es-lAs an additional product of this manaann==w, the RIP mammanrnant team provided input on the overall psogrees of RIP isome resolution at JAF. While the team concluded that the RIP is ; 54 problemas at the plant, it also found that some

+=== would be heanaew to ensuring the psogram's errectiveness:

The focus of activity at JAF is prhner9y ahned at completion of the action items identiSed in RIP, rather then on raanhainn at the issues presented in that report. _ As _a consequenos, the team found several Issues where the action plan hasns had been cannpleend or nearly completed, but the issue had not or would not be resolved.

=

• N mm managementand communie=dans should be enhanced for RIP items, including (1) assigning reapanwihiHden for issue sesolution as well as action items, (2) dtviding long-term action items (those act due to be completed for several_ months or years) into a series of actions that include short-term % and (3) recognir.ing that certain 2-

+

y ,

s, y - . , , ._m.~. . _ _ _ , __._ - _ - __

.=

s issues (such as those involving morale and management oversight) may never be permanently " closed *, and should have action items that require periodk review and follow-up on those haiw a Certain issues should be consoMatai to centralize accountability and to enable resolution of the issues in an integrated manner.

With these course conections and others noted in thli report, the RIP program will become more effective in achieving overall performance improvements at JAF.

Observations and Mndinas Several overall observations and findings emerged during the RIP ==mement process. These are:

Operations and Iwata*==ca

• Action plans spr.cific to departmentally-contained issues appear to be on target and are progressing on schedule. (See Issues 02,010, IC4, ORG1, BG1-6 and BG8.)

= Taining issues, including those internal to other departmental issue lists, are ger.:nlly progressing d%1y. (See Issues T1, T2,75, T6, T8, 'I9, M13 and 06.)

• De availability of resources appears to have improved, but more effecu% ntl1M% of these resources needs most management auention. (See Issues M3, M6, P2 and P3.) ,

• Certain isAes and action plans regire most top mrsagement integration and cocidk=h rather than relying solely on self-contained departmental plans. (See Issues P2 and IC2.)

hah

• Nuclear Generanon staff noted that the Performance and System Engineering Groups' involvement in day-kHlay wodc activities has -

improved. He Syssem Engh,siing Group which ped +11y rvviews systern problems and remmmte cancive action was noted by the team to be highly effective and has resulted in more detallad DBDs being developed. (See Issues TS1 and TS2.)

• ne Opeating F.xperience Group's activities have irnproved in that the 3

.s l

l group has a solid program improwment plan, a resource schedule, and personnel have been hiral to address the backlog issue. (See Issue TS4.)

Several support groups at JAF, such.as MBL, Drawing Update and Plant Records Management Groups trad their increasing Wuan,, on a monthly basis and plans to effect a reduction in their harHag are in place. It was noted that all supervisors in the JAP Configuration Management Group are in acting positions. Permanent supervisors should be hired as soon as possible. (See Issues CC6, CC10 and SE8) .

Design Basis Documents (DBDs) were considered a positive aspect of the Configuration Group. (See issues SB12 and SB13.)

Roles and responsib!!! der for engineering and support groups in the Nuclear Generation Department have not been clearly defined. (See Issue SEl.)

Outage delays and increased engineering workload have resulted in slippage of many engineering action items. (See Issue TS4.)

Specific tr:1ning in enginectmg for pufM development needs to be improved. (See Issues CC5 and SE14.)

Work planning, scheduling, and prioriHradan require significant improvement and managernent attention. (See Issues TS4, CCl, SE4, SE6 and SE7.)

Managaneet and orsa, L,dson First-line supervisory training at the plant has been highly effective. (See Issue MO3.)

Morale at the plant is low, but may be beyond the reach of RIP-type

" action plans" and more W upon serful plant start-up, reductions in working hours, and gmuer regulatory /public acceptance.

(See Issue MO2.)

Leadership is not presently perceived as strong but the changes in management are probably too recent to show their effect at this time.

More time will be required to drwunne the effectivmess of the leadership issue actions. (See Issue MOI.)

4

,1

• Pirnnin Ud schedullog, both departmental and plant wide, are *m the culy males of devdooment and have not yet resulted in significant impravements. (See Issues MO4, P1 and P2.)

• Communications, prdenlarly from plant middle management to staff, un perceived as weak. (See issues MO5.)

Each of these issues are M!ted in the body of this report.

m k

l 5