ML20113E316

Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness, for 960628

ML20113E316
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/28/1996
From:	NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:
Shared Package
ML20113E249	List: B15790, Submits Initial Results of Unit 3 Recovery Activities. Substantial Portion of Activities Completed ML20113E260 ML20113E262 ML20113E267 ML20113E281 ML20113E297 ML20113E301 ML20113E316
References
PROC-960628, NUDOCS 9607050240
Download: ML20113E316 (30)

Text

---

-

4

l. -

i i

l i i  ;

l Millstone 3 l 1

i Nuclear Key Performance Indicators  !

For .

Operational Readiness i

As of June 28,1996 1

1 I.

D DO O O 23 j PDR P

j'

! 3 l

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Onerational Readiness 1

l Summarv Critical Work Order Backlog: ...... ..1562 AWOs Number of Design Basis Data Package Goal: $ 500 AWOs Discrepancies dispositioned:...... ......... ......... .. 93

)

Total number needed to be dispositioned: 115 ,

Number of Operational Readiness Reviews comple ted : . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . ... ... ... .. ....... ............. ... .. 33

{

Current Number of Operator Burdens:......... ...11 i Number of reviews needed: 33 Goal 5 5 l Number ofInstalled Bypass Jumpers:.............. 43 Number of Hardware Modification completed: . 4 ,

Goal: 5 30 Total Number of Mods: 12 i l

Number of B/J > 2 cycles old: . . . .......... .........13 Number of Areas where Materiel Condition Goal: $ 11 upgrade is completed... ... ......... ..... ...... ... .. . . 0 ,

Total Number of Areas for Upgrade: 4 l l Number of UIRs Generated.. ............... .. . . 778 I Number of UIRs Dispositioned.... ..... .... ... 548 Number of Level "A & B" ACRs reviewed... .0 j

! Number of Startup UIRs Generated .. ......... 274 Total Number to be Reviewed: 26 l l Number of Startup UIRs Dispositioned ........ 184 Goal: Disposition all UIRs generated Number of Operability Determination issues Resolve all Startup UIRs resol ved... .. .. . . . .. .. .. ... . ... . . .. . . . .... .. .... .... . .. .. .. 17 Number of ODs to be resolved: 49

% of Components with MEPL Approved and in P M M S : .. . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .... . . .. . . . . . . 3 4 % Number of Open Justificiations for Continued 1

Goal: 100 % Operations to be Resolved. .. ......... ....... .. .... ...1 l

% of E & DCRs reviewed.... ..... ......... .... 100% FSAR System Reviews

% of PMRs reviewed .... . ............. ...... .. .. 97% # of systems with Identify function complete .. 33

% of S&W recommendations reviewed.. .100% # of systems with Basis function complete . .... 24 Goal: 100 % # ofsystem reviews thru PORC (complete). .... 9  !

Total Number of Open NCRs......... .. ........... 209 Number of 01Rs Generated ................... ..... .. 324 Number of OIRs DiSPositioned .... .... . ... . . 281 Goal: 5140 Number of Startup OIRs Generated .. . . .... .129 Number or NCRs > 60 days old without Goal: complete FSAR review of all 36 systems d.ispositions.... .. ... . . ... .. ..... .... .. . . . ... .... ..... . . .. 49 Disposition all OIRs generated Resolve all Startup OIRs Goal: Noneallowed r

I t

2

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Ooerational Readiness OEO1:

Materiel Condition Mid Cycle 6 AWO Status MID CYCLE 6 AWO STATUS 5500 (legend top to bottom of each bar) 5000 4500 -

Complete ...... .. ... . ... .. . .. . .... ...... .. 2 742 4000 3500 - Re test . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 0 3000 Wo rking.. .. . ..... .. . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . 654 2500 Work Planing . .. . . . . . . . . .. . 510 2000 1500 In Operations..... . . . ....... ......... 631 1000 , , , ,

\

Hold for parts .. .... . .. . ...............53 500 i In Eng r. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 0

s#######

s s s s n s ,5 E E E?'???? E E 5 E ?E 3 In Dept. Review ........ .... ...............46 A6s&assA

---nnun Cf d $ ;; Z Z Total Known...... ....... . ............ .... 5 060 Total Backlog Summary 2500 Total Backlon Summan' -

(legend top to bottom of each bar) 2000 Re test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 96

~-

"._i Workin g. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 2 1500 _ - -

.....,1 e e

! Work Planning .. . .. . ...... ... . .... 257 1000 -

. . In Operations ........ .... .. . ...... .. ... .. 405 In Engineering ..... ... .......... .. ........... 47 Department review ........... ... ........ .23 o.

!! n s u u n a u s s u u n u n

' ' ' _' O th er. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

> > c c e e e e e g

~

g n

y y

e y;yyy

-n ~ ~ n Total .. ... .............................1562

}

}

3

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OEO 1:

Materiel Condition CRITICAL AWO BACKLOG Critica1 AWO Backlog 2000 l 1800,-,_ _ _- -

l 1600 Critical AWO Backlog...... ... ... ... ... . . 1562 l 1400 l 1200 -

1000 -

800 600 400 -

l 200 -

0 '

l 30-May 6-J u n 13-Jun 20-J un 27-J un 4-Jul 1

-c-Critical (Corrective Maintenance) AWO Backlog I Critical Backlog Goa! < 500 l

l l AWO Backlog Distribution by Age

< 2yr > 2yr 5.95% 1.41% Age Distribution of AWO Backlog

< tyr 6 00 %

< 3 months...... ...... ...... .. . .. ... . 1062

.............................................67.99%

i

> 3 monts <6 months ..... ..... . ...... 260

<6m

.............................................I6.65%

l 16.65 %

l > 6 months , <1 year..... ..... ...... ... ... 125 l

i ................... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . 8.00%

l <3m > 1 year, < 2 years .. .. . . ....... ........ 93 67.99 %

.........................................5.95%

> years. ...................................22

...........................................l.41%

i f

a J

4 l

t

i Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OEO 1:

Materiel Condition INSTALLED BYPASS JUMPERS Installed Bypass Jumpers 60 50 4  % ,

Installed B/J...... . ... . ... .............. .. ........ .. . 4 3 40 N .

30 20 -

10 0

30-May 6-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul

-+-Installed B/J Goal <= 30 OLD BYPASS JUMPERS l (2 cycles old -Installed before 1/1/94) 25 Old Bypass Jumpers .

20 ~

Installed B/Pjumpers older than 2 cycles.. .13

^ ^ ^

15 ^

-- v. -

g , ,

v . -

10 -

5 0

30-M ay 6-Jun 13-J un 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-J ul

-+- Old bypass jumpers Goal <= 11 l 5

l

l Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OEO 1:

Materiel Condition HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS 15 12 9

6 -

5' 4 4 3 3 3 .2 2 2 2 0

30-M ay 6-J u n 13-J u n 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul Mods complete Number of Planned Hardware Mods MATERIEL CONDITION UPGRADES 6

5 4

I 3

2 1

0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0

30-May 6-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul Materiel condition upgrade completed Number of Planned Areas for Materiel condition upgrade 6

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OEO1:

Materiel Condition OPERATOR BURDEN 14 REDUCTION 12 . .

10 8

6 -

4 2

0 30-May 6 Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul

--+-Current Operator Burden Total Goal <= 5 Burdens Remaining l

1 l

l 7

l l

I Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness 1

OEO 1:

Management Effectiveness 1

MEPL COMPONENTS VALIDATED l 100%

l 90 %

i 80 %

1 70 %

l 60%

I 50%

40% 32YoMYo 28 %

30 /o 21 %

20%

10 %

0%

i 30-May 6-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-J ul 5% Components with MEPL Approved and in PMMS ENGINEERING BACKLOG 100%

4

. =. ,..

Ennineerine Backloe

,  ; g j  :

80% -

1 .

.  ; i i f' i i R *'

g , 3 t i ljl

% of E & DCRs reviewed . . ....... ... ... . 100 %

~ < . 4 1  ; j t , p .

s 60%  !.  ; sj -

j )

. ). l' I  :! i  % of PMRs reviewed ..... .. ..... . . . . .. 97%

? !!

j l<;

l l Wi !

g e t l ii j j 40% . >;

e

% of S&W recommendations reviewed... 100%

3

i j.

d h .

$] l { { .

! i l .

f' p : r o l ! ! j s

~

20% j t i I i d l

l1 1 E s b

! l; j

') f.j

4

, t g 1 , -

q p 0% ' # ' '

6-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul DE & DCR Percent Complete DPMR Percent Complete

! DS&W Recommendations % Complete l

l 8

1 Nuclear Kev Performance Indicators for Onerational Readiness  ;

1

)

OEO1:  !

Management Effectiveness i

TOTAL OPEN NCRs Starting count of 381 (includes 1996) 300 Total Onen NCRs 250 *

)

200 Total Open NCRs.......... ..... . . ...... . .... .. 209 150 100 50 0

30-May 6 Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul l

--+--Current Open NCRs Open NCR Goal NCRs > 60 DAYS Goal: None > 60 Days 100

• 90 85 81 80 m > @ Days l 80 l 70 67 Number ofNCR > 60 days old without l gg 59, dispositions........ . .. . ...... .. ..... .... .. . . .. . 49 50 s s 49 Tech Services .. . ............ ..................4 40 Design Engineering.... . .. ... . . ..... .. .. ...... .. 31 30 20 B ac klog . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 0 ' --

30-M ay 6-Jun 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-J ul DTech Services EDesign Engr DBacklog 9

i I i

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness

! OE01:

! Management Effectiveness l DBDP DISPOSITIONED j 140 l 120 100 82 82 82 82 82 86.86 80

. 60 l

i 40 l 20 O

j 30 May 6-Ju n 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul ,

! l

! M Descrepencies dispositioned  ;

! Total DBDP Discrepancies identified l  :

i i

! OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEWS

! 40 35 33 28 l 30 _

25 22 j 20 17 19 14

! 15 11 11 10 6

. 0 '

1 i 30-M ay 6-Jun 13-J un 20-J un 27-J un 4-Jul l

1 MORRs Completed Total Reviews identified to Date i

l i

)

I i;

j 10 i

e

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OE01:

Management Effectiveness UIR TOTALS 600 no 700 78 600 573 548 87 0

500 468 -

-385 438 36 -

400 -

3&t ;4 NI: ?0 300 9 y -a .

a 7  :< .

200 195 E Y. -[ 35 100 -

~ '

O 6-Jun 13-Jun 20-J un 27-Jun 4-Jul CClosed UlRs + Total UIRs Generated STARTUP RELATED UIRs Goal: No open UIRs 300 280 274 260 4 -

240 220 200 183 180 -

160 140 15 113 a 120 91 103 I-100 78 '

R 80 52

60 55 / 2; 40 73-- JA- 7 24- $ k 2 p g, '

6 Jun 13-Jun 20-J un 27-J un 4-Jul Closed Startup UIRs

+ Total Startup UlRs Generated 11

l 1

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OE01:

l Management Effectiveness j

j OPERABILITY DETERMINATIONS

} 60 e

! 50 j 40 4

30 -

1 20 -

15 U 13 10 10~

10 7 4

! O E 6-J u n 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-J u n 4-Jul i

{ Operability Determinations issues Resolved j Total Number of OD to be Resolved i

4

?

j JUSTIFICATIONS FOR CONTINUED OPS j Goal: None Remaining k

r .

3 4

1

} 2 1

! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _1 1

0 30-May 6-Ju n 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul EJCOs Needed to be Resolved 12

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness OE0 2:

Corrective Action Program Effectiveness l

Shutdown Risk l Goal: No Pl.nned Orange or Red Entries to i

, Shutdown Risk i

, - .- Tot.: uns nn.o or.no. i R.o Number of Planned Orange or Red l

$" **i.nn.4 or.no. i R.o Entres Evo lutions . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . !

j

, Number of Unplanned Orange or Red 5 Evolutio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 l l

= =

3 2 -

= _

Outace Related LERs

'; =

, = , , ;, ,, 3, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Total Outage LERs.. .................. ..... ... 9

""8 ' "'Y Outage Personnel Error LERs. ... .. .... 0 Non-Personnel Error LERs

1. Shutdown required by tech spec for AFW containment isolation valves  ;

Outage Related LERs Go !: No Out.ge Personnel Error LERs

2. Containment Recire & Quench spray l gg g

3. Reactor Protection System lead / lag -

u -.-Tot.i out a. LER. time constants set non-conservatively 12 -+- Personn.1 Error LERs

4. Potential failure of Rod Control Power

',[ Supplies could create unanalyzed

, condition

5. Inoperable shutdown margin monitors 7

due to inadequate design control

6. Control Room Envelope Pressurization System inoperable 3 7. Containment leakage in excess of 2 technical specification due to valve leakage o

=

7 i L i. is k 1. k k 7 k L ,, 8. Misinterpretation and program Ouu e o.y weakness involving EDG tech spec surveillances.

9. RHR design deficiency due to nonconservative original design assumption.

13

Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness  !

l OEO 2:

Corrective Action Program  ;

Effectiveness

'A' & 'B' ACR REVIEWS 30 'A' & 'B' ACR Reviews 25 Number of ACRs to be Reviewed...... 26

/

Number of ACRs Reviewed......... ..... 0 20 -

l 15 -

10 I

i 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  ;

6-J un 13-Jun 20-Jun 27-Jun 4-Jul ACRs reviewed Number of A & B ACRs to be Reviewed Outage Related Medical Events Goal: No Loss Time Accidents

$5 Outage Related Medical Events ,

-.- too inn. Accid.nu Loss of Time Accidents ....... .. ... ..... . 0

--o--Recordable Medcal Events Recordable Medical Events... ........ ..... 0

+ '"'" C'"'

9 First Aid Cases . ... ..... .................... . 9 I

.. As of 6/1/96, Unit 3 has gone 29 months l

_ and 3,154,542 workhours will a lost time l

accident  !

3 C :: :  :  : : _ =  :  :  :  :  :  :

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 46 63 70 77 64 91 98 Outage Day l

14

Nuclear Key Perforniance Indicators for Operational Readiness OEO 2:

Corrective Action Program Effectiveness Outage Rad Exposure e.um.t. a n.m Outage Rad Exposure ao Total Exposure ......... ...... ..... . 15.59 rem

-*- Outag. exposur. Total 25

-out.s. expo.u,. c.iim.i. Outage Exposure Estimate.. ....... 25 rem so The forced outage exposure estimate is

,, being increased for 15 rem to 25 rem based on three factors:

io

1. Repair and repack ofleaking valves identified during this outage

2. Modification required to safety injection system supports identified

. 7 i. 2, 2. u n .. se .3 ro n ei se during this outage.

outes.o y

3. Extended outage duration to complete implementation of emergent work 15

1 Nuclear Key Performance Indicators for Operational Readiness  ;

t l

I OE0 5:

l Work Control l Outage Rework l Goal: Less than 1% of Completed Work Orders so Outane Rework

+ Number of Rework Work Orders 3 ***************************

-is of commeted work order.

Rework AWOs ....... .... .. . ... .... .... ..... ... . 6 30 Percent Rework .... .................. ...... 0.2%

1 20 l

10 -

0.  :  :-

0 7 14 21 28 36 42 49 56 63 70 77 64 91 98 Outage Day '

l l

i 16

Operational Readiness Performance Indicators i

Forced Outage Exposure Summarv-6/27/96 SnecificWork Activity Exposure (rem) 50.54F & NRC Walkdowns 1.055 Replace Damaged Insulation 1.364 LLRT 1.274 Pressure Locking Modifications 0.495 Containment Initial Entry Surveys 0.197 Preparation of the Valve Database (HP) 0.276 Filter Changeout 0.141 Loop Stop Valve Stretch Measurement 0.533 Inspect Reactor Cavity 0.057 Ctmt Sump & Transmitters 0.048 Repair 3CHS*RV8117 0.033 Sigma / Refuel Mast 0.032 Aux Feedwater Repairs 0.048 RSS/QSS Support Modifications 0.222 Votes Testing 0.345 SI Support Modification 1.163 CRDM Fan Replacement 0.015 RWP Blankets IIealth Physics Containment 0.917 RCA 0.627 Decontamination Containment 0.849 RCA 0.506 ,

Maintenance Containment (includes I&C) 2.224 RCA 1.933 Operations Containment 0.579 RCA 0.609 I&C 0.643 Engineering 0.441 Security 0.108 RCA General Access 0.105 Chemistry 0.044 Other Work Activities (L245 Forced Outage Total 17.128 Forced Outage Estimate 25 rem 17

2u 4.e --2Jea4d.A 4 su*e s e .- -=h4 mA1ee' 5 s 4m44 +.---.K--J-d e -ae-,4A-wuJed-- J14'd< ad-A-A4d--4.- J4 =uA4M.-ee. .la. M.-AaLa eAe _ a J e m.

m..... \"' r

- ---[- .2J ', ,)

1 I AI'1 r. b , ,

9

i ATTACHMENT 9 Attached is a sample form (and two completed long-term KPl forms) which provides format and guidance for measuring long-term KPl progress towards nuclear excellence. The sample KPl sheet includes:

• A status bar across the top of the graph which indicates how the indicator has trended to the goal for the previous three periods, the current status of the indicator, and the projected year end status. Red =not achieving the goal; yellow = marginally achieving the goal by .s. 5%; green = achieving the goal by 5% or more; white = goal N/A.

A graph which shows some or all of the following: '

previous year (s) information quarterly or monthly actual data cumulative actual data NU goals industry information projected year-end data an arrow indicating the good trend direction A data table below the graph which displays the current year data e

A definition of the KPI being measured A section stating industry benchmarking data (if available) and NU goals A comments section that lists any key assumptions / comments

• An analysis / action section which includes:

the conclusion / message indicated by the graph the cause of a negative trend, if applicable (past, current, future) corrective actions being taken to correct the negative trend, and an estimate when the indicator will become positive The data source, the indicator owner, the person who did the analysis, the indicator category and OEO alignment I

1 Unit Name (i.e., Millstone 1)

Name of KPI 50 l Chart Specifications 1 G,,d 45 i i 40 j

Background:

Pale yellow Quarterly or Monthly Actuals - blue bar ll l

.e 35  ! Data: J A 30  : Cumulative Actuals - black line  !. I ,

E 25 Goals - black line, star h l

f y l NU comparison,5 units - fuchsia line, triangle Industry comparison green line, square g

5  ! Projections - gray dotted bar .,

o E.! Legend: Display on bottom d Aug Display arrow on left side of graph to indicate good trend direction.

j M AUlUAL - UV A% l Jan Feb l Mar l Apr l May l Jun l Jul l Aug l Sep Oct Nov Dec ACRs 10 Data Table Significance A Display current year information Display component data if applicable l eC 2 Display projection information in italics.

Significance D 8 Definition Personnel error Adverse Conditions Reports (ACRs) meet the INPO Human Performance Enhancement System l definition: The mental and physical actions, either observable or nonobservable. taken to perform a task that transform normal performano Provide concise definition of KPI measured. Include definition 1 Omission - failure to perform 4 of components if applicable. If using an established Extraneous act - an action no definition, note reference. (i.e., INPO, NRC, NU procedure, Untimely act - an action perfoe tc.)

Transposition - correct action Ouantitative deficiency - too much or too li*tle of the intended act Out of sequence - performance of correct actions in the wrong order Industry Benchmark /NU Goal Comments Based on industry data , establish an industry How Discovered: (April Data) benchmark and NU goal. Sel 24 e.g.: sq List any key assumptions / comments 3 j Benchmark: 1995 Industry Top Quartile = X ind 3 NU Goal: 1996 >= Top Quartile Event. Self-revealing o AnalysisfAction

1. Briefly state the most telling conclusion / message indicated by the plot & data. This statement should address past trends as well as projections compared to the goal.

2. Briefly explain why the negative trend has occurred, or why the projected negative trend will not meet goal.

3. If the trend or projection is negative, briefly describe the corrective action being taken. State when the indicator will become positive.

Data Source: AITTS Analysis by: K. Gosselin x 2124 MP Owner: W. Riffer x 4301 MP Indicator Category: ExceIIence In Operations OEO Alignrnent: QE0 91 Date: 6/1G96 Page #

Nuclear Cultural Survey Index (FPI) 3 l 2 l 1 l Current l Year End l

l 20 Good  !

16 l f 12 8

$8 u

l l

0 2nd Otr 3rd Otr 4th Otr 1st Otr 2nd Otr 3rd Ott 4th Otr l ACTUAL --M--GOAL i 1996 1997 1998 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Operations Tech. Services l Work Services Sfty & Ovrsght Total Definition NU Nuclear has contracted with Failure Prevention & Investigation (FPI) to assist in the assessment and improvement of nuclear organization at all three stations. One of the tools that FPI uses to assess safety culture is a " Culture Survey." The survey quantifies responses on five critical factors that FPI has determined to have a high statistical correlation to future safety l performance. The five critical areas are: High Management Expectations, High Knowledge Level, Strong Teamwork, Simple Work Processes and Strong Self-Improvement Culture & Program. The results of the survey are used to construct the FPI " Culture Index." This Culture index has been demonstrated to have a strong correlation to future SALP ratings.

Industry Benchmstt/NU Gos! Commente FPI has determined that a Culture Index above Current plans are to give the FPl Culture l 14 is required to have a high probability (90%) of Survey every three to four months. Statistically improvement. Plants with SALP 1.0-1.5 had Cls valid sample groups may be used in future of 11 to 17. surveys. j AnalysisfAction The first or baseline FPI Culture Survey is being performed on Tuesday, June 25. This initial survey is being administered to NU employees within the nuclear organization. The completed surveys will j be delivered to FPI by the end of June and the FPI Culture index and Report will be available in l July. In addition, initial manager training by FPI is scheduled to start in early July. The investigation i and training provided by FPI is being integrated into the Nuclear Group's Leadership &

Development training, Operations & Technical training, Employee Concerns Action Plan and the Nuclear Excellence Plan.

Data Source: S. Eisenhart Analysis by: S. Eisenhart Owner: D. Miller x- MP Indicator Category: Human Performance l0E0 Aligninent: Strategic Goafs lDate: 6/21M6 Page D1 l

1 Millstone 3 l Industrial Safety Accident Rate (INPO) l m .

l 3.0  ;

Good l

l

• j 2.0  ! I l l 1 Y

{

a:

a I < '

l

. I

, 1.0 l t

I E 0.0 g

]- - - - - - ' l 94 95 . Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i 1996 I

YTD ACTUAL ISA i YTD PROJ. ISA 12 MO. ROLLING ACT. ISA ! l 12 MO. ROLLING PROJ. ISA ---]If--NU Goal I j 1996 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD Act. 1.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 1 YTD Prol. 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 1996 Goal 0.6 Q.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 l

12 Mo. Roll. Act. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 12 Mo. Roll. Proj. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 Definition Industrial Safety Accident Rate (ISA)is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for all ut:lity personnel permanently assigned to the station that result in any of the following: one or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of the accident), one or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident), or fatalities. Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator. The data elements correspond to the following columns on OSHA Form 200: Column 1 (fatalities); Column 3 (lost-time accidents); Column 2 - Column 3 (restncted-duty accidents).

Calculation: (restricted-dutv + Inst-time + fatahties) x 200.000 number of station man-hours worked (Ref.: INPO 94 009 Rev.1)

IndustryPerformance/NU Gos! Comments ISA NU Ind. ISA projections assume one incidence of lost. time or Bate Goal Median restricted duty during the year.

1994 120 1.5 0.50 1995 0.30 0.73 0.43 f 996 projected 0.32 0.64 0.50 AnalysisfAction The Millstone 31996 ISA rate through April is 0.5. A lost-time accident occurred in January. Assurning there are no additional incidences of lost-time or restricted-duty during the remainder of 1996, the projected year end ISA will be 0.20.

l l

l l

Data Source: OSHA 200 Log Analysis by: G. Alix x-2200MP Owner: P. DeAngelis x-5946MP Indicator Category: Nuclear Safety Pedormance OE0 Alignment: 0lDate: st26196 Page A15-c

g- . . - w__. . -.--...+__a4. A A- - & _.sA4 ;. Aea m. 4_. .ae_ _ . _4--.4aa _._u_. 4

- _ A _ ,

u,. _

l LONG-TERM KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR LIST l

4

Nuclear Excellence Plan - Key Performance Indicators OEO KPI Category /KPI AP Manager /Init.

O Strategic Goals A Nuclear Safety Performance 1 SALP Rating 2 INPO Rating 3 INPO Performance Indicator Index Kacich 1.3 4 Unit Capability Factor (INPO) Kacich 1.3 5 Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (INPO) Kacich 1.3 6 High Pressure injection / Heat Removal (BWR), High Pressure Safety injection (PWR) (INPO) Kacich 1.3 7 Residual Heat Removal (BWR), Auxiliary Feedwater (PWR)(INPO) Kacich 1.3 8 Emergency AC Power (INPO) Kacich 1.3 9 Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical (INPO) Kacich 1.3 10 Cc!!ective Radiation Exposure (INPO) Kacich 1.3 11 FuelReliabilityIndex(INPO) Kacich 1.3 12 Thermal Performance Indicator (INPO) Kacich 1.3 13 ChemistryIndicator(INPO) Kacich 1.3 14 Low-level Radioactive Waste Volume (INPO) Kacich 1.3 15 Industrial Safety Accident Rate (INPO) Kacich 1.3 B Plant Performance 1 Capacity Factor 2 Refueling Outage Duration C Business Performance 1 Production Cost 2 OAM Budget vs. Actual D Human Performance 1 Cultural Survey Index (FPI) 1 Recognized Industry Leader E Management Effectiveness 1 Management Development <ritical positions have one backup Haynes 1.4 2 Management Development-Incumbent managers fully trained Haynes 1.4 3 Engineering Backlog - Design Basis Discrepancies Vargas 2.4 4 Engineenng Backlog - Design Change Notices Vargas 2.4 5 INgineering Backlog - Material Equipment Parts List Discrepancies Vargas 2.4 6 Engneering Backlog - Nonconformance Report (NCR) Vargas 2.4 7 Engineering Backlog - Plant Design Change Request Vargas 2.4 8 Engineering Backlog - Automated Work Orders on Engr. hold Vargas 2.4 9 Engineering Backlog - Engineering Work Requests / Request for Engineering Senices Vargas 2.4 10 DCA Attendance Level Winters 1.1 F Materiel Condition 1 Contammated Area-RCA Stroup 2.2 2 Inop Auto functions Stroup 2.2 3 Maintenance Rule Systems Stroup 2.2 4 Main Control Board Deficiencies Stroup 2.2 5 Online Corrective Maintenance Backlog (Includes non-repetitive PM's) Stroup 2.2 DC4 ApprovedW2896 Page 1

, __. _m . _ .. . , _ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ .. . _ . _ _

OEO KPI Category /KPI AP Manager /Init.

6 Operator Burdens Stroup 2.2 7 Overdue / Rescheduled PMs Stroup 2.2 8 Temp Mods or Bypass Jumpers Stroup 2.2 G Oversight 1 knprovements in who identifies potential conditions adverse to quality Desmarais 1.2 2 Audit Findings of Programatic issues Desmarais 1.2 2 Rebuild Regulatory Confidence -

H Corrective Action Program 1 Adverse Condition Report Backlog - Age Gram 2.1 2 Adverse Condition Report Backlog - Number of Open A's & B's Gram 2.1 3 Adverse Condition Report Backlog - Overdue Gram 2.1 4 Adverse Condition Reports-Initiated vs Significance Level Gram 2.1 -

5 Adverse Condition Reports - Evaluations Rejected by the Management Review Team Gram 2.1 i 6 Adverse Condition Reports -Issued for Repetitive Occurences Gram 2.1  !

7 Adverse Condition Reports Industrial Safety Vargas 2.4 8 Adverse Condition Reports - Personnel Errors Vargas 2.4 ,

9 Adverse Condition Reports - Procedure Noncompliance Vargas 2.4 I Commitment Management 1 Adverse Condition Reports - Corrective Action Extensicns by CMP Category Gram 2.1 2 Action item Tracking & Trending System Backlog - No overdue external agency commitments Kann 2.3 3 Action item Tracking & Trending System Backlog - No overdue programatic commitments Kann 2.3 J Regulatory Communication Program 1 All Contacts on Schedule Harpster 2.6 K Configuration Management 1 Adverse Condition Reports - Related to Licensing Basis and Design Basis Documentation Vargas 2.4 2 Adverse Condition Reports - Related to Configuration Control of Facility Operations and Maintenance Vargas 2.4 3 Adverse Condition Reports - Related to Configuration Management Programs, Processes, and Procedures Vargas 2.4 4 Adverse Condition Reports - Related to Physical Plant Configuration Control Vargas 2.4 L Safety Evaluations 1 Safety Evaluation Quality (NSAB Monthly Rating of Safety Evaluations) Kai 2.5 3 Improve Communications / Morale M Employee Concerns 1 Employee Concerns Program Backlog Chatfield 3.2 2 Nuclear Safety Concems Issues Closed / Documentation Required Chatfield 3.2 3 Nuclear Safety Concerns Open > 120 Days From Receipt Chatfield 3.2 4 Number of NRC and NU Received Concerns Chatfield 3.2 5 Culture Survey index (FPI)-Employee Concerns Chatfield 3.2 O General Communications 1 Random Poll Survey Measuring the Effectiveness and Understanding of the Excellence Plan Winn 3.3 2 Receipt of and Response to employee feedback to Excellence Plan Winn 33 P . Public Communications 1 Favorable trends in Public Opinion Castagno 3.4 i 4 'screase Teamwork - All 5 Units 1

J Procedural Compliance 1 Adverse Condition Reports with procedure inadequacies-Upgraded & Not Upgraded Kirkpatrick 4.2 DCA Approved 628 V6 Page 2 l

l l

J

l l

l l OEO KPI Category /KPI AP Manager /Init.  !

l 1 l

l 2 Status of PUP Implementation Kirkpatrick 4.2 l l R Resource Sharing l 1 Contracter Usage vs Sharing between units Carr 4.3 l S Number of Common Administrative Programs  !

1 Number implemented at five units Kirkpatrick 4.2 T Good Practices 1 Number of Common (Technical) Procedures among Five Units Nevelos 4.1 5 Improve Employees' Ability to Conduct Work Successfully U Work Control #

1 Missed Surveillance Kacich 3.1 2 Rework Kacich 3.1 l 3 Schedule Adherence Kacich 3.1 4 Tagging, valve, breaker and damper mispositioning events Kacich 3.1 5 Unplanned Limiting Condition for Operations entries Kacich 3.1 6 Work Packages ReturnM with Errors Kacich 3.1 V Key Support Functions 1 Jobs rescheduled because of parts delays Pollock 5.4 ,

2 Time to fill vacancies from Posting to Ofter Letters Romer 5.2 ,

3 Information Technology (To be Detennined) Proulx 5.3 W Ineffective Work Practices 1 Number of Reduction in Worker Productivity Barriers Measured at each of the three Sites Nevelos 5.1 2 Days between Parts Expedited vs. Parts Installed Pollock 5.4 i

i l

l I

l DCA Approved 62896 Page 3

I 1

i l

l l

l f

i

.yg.... .q 4 l 4

._ _ C v .. .J m

l

F e

PLANNING FRAMEWORK Values for .- .- .

Itxcellence hiin Safety integrity Trust Teamwerk . Quality Rec.pect Armuntalhlity Hinciencyy Couneendtseen management Model Planning & Prioritization . Expectations & Onership Monitoring Results & Folkm-Through Objectives j OE01 OE0 2 OE0 3 OE0 4 OE0 5 na.nelsed lede=sry tender seb.iad n ,. , serpe er imm neTamewk laye.w E , ,J thiEgy \

rear.de.re se.cade 45 Rw Ia:in a reeduct W art

• swe= dusty Strategies NaMish a tw am msnsamt FanNah a farm on safe opnsm Wild nnpine av m imW nonsewns % w the implemns wwk pnn m n==lel that adl pnwnic the dwmsth nurlest group swir mennemes le lud&ng mensers 35 implemem the pnew<dhe imenarmes ihm will dm1!r lendreship menred in ahww prmmesihm azure safe opershan, minuntable fw the perinment strzecay hw she em6nt 6w met suppnn the EnvHemv FIsn Pnmde nutIrar envarmy in operaten is muervene dernwe makine. results sperfiniis the Favilrmt mmpain approat for managemrra. insnagemrm vrhales an recene eveniere drammr amt hmdsmrmal cmd wmsmv wah regnisiery Man. le drmonarstmg imrgrav m problem sninna,resawtv sharmr, ergsmzsunns!Imfhsch en bemers chsner in the oss we mensac the mpnremens and prnmee em maicd gosh and le madrbng the and capitatinns ne nnergies in nerfamism, and take appenprimir swirar pengram at %rehrse corrwrunnstmas. requied behsemrs and valurs. reqteredin m tune and sefam stimet t tiburs nuclesr epershons! cm cBew e Measures of meirnal enmhunn

• rerret1m k1ma Prngram

• Bst king 4 anresnhed empinwe

• Prwedirst Camphamy

• TwkContralIndicatars esentaWe th1mnew cemvres (ege, number vaerduel

, , , , , , ,

• Branung sharne

• Ery W Furssima indicews M as M s egeteenew

• Commismns mneymem

• Ratm 4 cemens in Nt wesus Mtt ,c_ _

, g.,,,g gg,,y y,,,,,,

• Omipletina ed mensament

• hwlopmria and emplemrmsunn

• riditral Imtru Surwr drwinpmem and hdership ed the reguisenre e .._.w,-

trunmg erngr:m

• Bem hnerk ed ems m other SAtP I and IW I plants

• IW rerintammt imiramrs NUCLEAR EXCELLENCE PLAN Cenmfunatre R JGwich objectives OE01 OE0 2 OE0 3 OEO 4 OE0 5 aw.,and e.d e I,. der neb.ad neguiss=y t adrwe impe., r 1.A som e ram.wt au n= s.n. inw m.,i.wer than,se r d e swe som.d.sy r me A-r r=r.+o r rs.4, e n w n w+. rw n.w n.e tv % e w mm ,

Imptoving us.sgemem .,

a termteve Acmen sapanyee seemes Task Flen mandardw Technical Eshamre Empiapre Prodenevow a Station ladre hip --

7] ummiemanre a ,_ sampsity work reer.

Performance iniuauves . . , , . . -

s or ., r ., m _

JI , <h P'=8""

,r-.

M ..,,.=,~n h

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - . . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -m-Pm-------*_-

. _ . _ _ _ . - - _ .. s o .;, . _ __.__._-

e ,c ,_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ,,

J, v ezz s e;n e w Additional **"'8 " * "al'80 '"'"*"*"=e=* o r '== **='=r='-l te==== bar'==** T== u sigen-mac=e=

Initiatives to **"*"*"*8"" " * #)i Achieve i

}!

i <

!J

'!)

Cl Nyqlggy ytes t #was h W*/J Mw'M#amm W rir # mafAm=* V7se t # wir F nc 4 r wress # war swr gg Ellectise teef,geraten wasspement Esopinyee amisserarmas acacertes sharing a San 5 Mige lainenstsom Terbaningy

%erlent Safres & Oversight =, .; } t tais.nsene Q fyg

.. -) ,

eori erema v, . nru o av,an, een aw;us v n i aea <x e,, awas n ac.chmarkma a imraw.w i=rie'=estanne P.Hw tenimumcsaiaan u.a. m.nerini. 4.nagemen H Prertues ,y 3 j gj) 1  :

1 J! -j w ar.t s winna,..A wrus v e.aw w trr st , s m;r e oe i.v.=

. ores + vuea4 me negatam.cgonne wim 1

lI

)L vru4 y e;rrse.r*,

I-Phue1 2-rhuel rw ra ksix s 3 -Intertentiort NEAR-TERM ACTIONS Connecticut Yankee Millstone Station Seabrook Mgs -

'U D g

3W (I) (1) 22 3 U 'O Q

O C' ' i'G

@ (t ) (wkmuric operatumal Plansin tie ihnnt from hirst Ewelkere Plan E6 * . I *m#

Q. e O d ((3

$ (MILLSTONEiUNITi3 OPERATIONAL 4 READINESS? ACTIONS m

O g o om n mon mo3w om ow.w ow,i

• ame prodrae M teamma amesuudena . gar.are, tese . teore.es .r . mee numme 7 Independent -

,2 b_- ,

mm..gme Q . - -

. airs a.mtamme Owrsight _

=O ,

r a

i-=.- 0"*H'T (cenntittet

~

1 O

. i, e

.,s.,,,e,,

r**'"

n-. .e

. e'"ssunus ,'*"" Comunittec New luees __

!N . ,-, .i-,

g 1

t

~. t s.me m_ _ __ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ - , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ._____m. _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _.____.__m. _ . _ .-