ML20134E914
| ML20134E914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1996 |
| From: | Rossbach L NRC |
| To: | Skay D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134E767 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-4 NUDOCS 9702070153 | |
| Download: ML20134E914 (28) | |
Text
-
O s
4 From:
Lawrence Rossbaci)
To:
dms6,dbe.Ad,e Date:
12/18/96 II:10am
Subject:
hilite Donna, Any word on the PN yet? I'd better get this into Vicky soon.
LASALLE. UNITS 1 AND 2 Independent Self Assessment Exit Meeting The results of the Independent Self Assessment (ISA) for the LaSalle Station were presented at an exit meeting held at the LaSalle Station on December 13, 1996.
The ISA is an IPAP type assessment performed for Commonwealth Edison by a high level team of industry peers and consultants.
The ISA scope included performance in Management and the four functional areas of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support.
The ISA assessment was very critical of Comed performance in all areas.
Overriding themes included: performance standards missing or not followed, ineffective field supervision, lack of team work, high management turnover rate and poor change management, union / management issues, inadequate or misapplied resources, inadequate performance indicators, poor individual performance and work quality, inadequate training, staff not keeping up with improvements in the industry and unaware of poor performance, significant problems in work control and control of the licensing and design basis, a weak safety culture.
The licensee's assessment is consistent with the recently issued SALP ratings which rated performance to be Category 3 in Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering and Category 2 in Plant Support.
Approximately 200 perscm ncluding station management and a cross section of s
staff from all departmens were present for the exit which was video taped with the expectation that all station personnel will see it.
Commonwealth Edison management is reviewing the results of the ISA and is developing a restart plan considering the issues raised by the ISA. A revised startup schedule will follow development of the restart plan.
Unit 2 began a refueling outage on September 20, 1996 and Unit I shutdown on September 22, 1996 to repair a turbine control valve.
Both units have remained down due to I
additional issues being identified since the shutdowns.
Contact:
Larry Rossbach
' 415-2863 3
a l
9702070153 970205 PDR FOIA KENDALL97-4 PDR
~.l LASALLE. UNITS 1 AND 2 Independent Self Assessment Exit Meeting The results of the Independent Self Assessment (ISA) for the LaSalle Station were presented at an exit meeting held at the LaSalle Station on December 13, 1996. The ISA is an IPAP type assessment performed for Commonwealth Edison by a high level team of industry peers and consultants.
The ISA scope included performance in Management and the four functional areas of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support.
The ISA assessment was very critical of Comed performance in all areas.
Overriding themes included: performance standards missing or not followed, ineffective field supervision, lack of, team work, high management turnover rate and poor change management, union / management issues, inadequate or misapplied resources, inadequate performance indicators, poor individual performance and work quality, inadequate training,. staff not keeping up with improvements in the industry and unaware of poor performance, significant problems in work control and control of the licensing and design basis, a weak safety culture.
The licensee's assessment is consistent with the recently issued SALP ratings which rated p_erformance to be. Category 3'in Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering and Category 2 in Plant Support..
Approximately 200 persons' including st'ation management and a cross section of staff from all departments were present for the exit which was video taped with the expectation.that.a11: station personnel will see it. Commonwealth Edison management is reviewing the results of the ISA and is developing a restart plan considering-the issues raised by the ISA. A revised startup schedule will follow development'of the restart plan.
Unit 2 began a refueling outage on September 20, 1996 and Unit I shutdown on September 22, 1996 to repair a turbine control valve.
Both units have remained down due to additional issues being' identified since the shutdowns.
Contact:
Larry Rossbach 415-2863 i
i
j DIRECTOR'S HIGHLIGHT PROJECT DIRECTORATE IR-Z J
DECEMBER 18. 1996 DRESDEN. UNITS 2 AND 3 i
Dresden Unit 2 Status
]
+
Dresden Unit 2 continues operation at 100% power. The u' nit has been in power operation for approximately 113 days. There 'are no major:LCOs or equipment problems existing on Unit 2.
Dresden Unit 3 Shutdown Updato x
On 10/26/96, Dresden Unit 3 experienced a trip of the.3B Rebircul"ation MG Set.
1 Subsequent to the MG Set trip, the licensee shut down' unit 3 and commenced an investigation into the cause of the equipment failure.
Testing identified that a ground existed on the "C" phase of the'3B Reactor Recirculation Pump Motor. The motor disassembly, lifting of'the stator, and inspection were completed on 12/06/96. The licensee discovered a foreign wire 1
in the pump motor windings which is the potential cause of the ground. The licensee is currently repairing and reassembling the pump motor. Scheduled restart of the unit is 12/30/96.
Site Engineering Manager Replacement On 12/13/96 Russell Freeman replaced Raj Kundalkar as the Dresden Site Engineering Manager. Mr. Freeman has previously held the position as the Plant Engineering Superintendent at Dresden, in change of the plant system engineering staff.
Raj Kundalkar will return to Florida Power and Light in the position of Engineering Vice President.
ISI Inspection Team Public Exit Meeting On 12/12/96 the ISI team lead by Sam Collins and Art Howell held a public exit meeting with Commonwealth Edison (Comed) Company at Dresden. At the meeting the team presented the findings of the ISI inspection efforts. The ISI team stated that there was an overall performance improvement observed at Dresden and the area of Plant Operations was where the most improvement was observed.
Site Engineering and Work Control continue to be areas of concern and the areas in which the majority of the negative inspection finding were found.
The final inspection report is scheduled to be issued on 12/23/96.
Contact:
John F. Stang 415-1345 N1
Project Directorate III LASALLE. UNITS 1 AND 2
)
Independent Self Assessment Exit Meeting The results of the Independent Self Assessment (ISA) for the LaSalle Station were presented at an exit meeting held at the LaSalle Station on 12/13/96.
The ISA is an IPAP type assessment performed for Commonwealth Edison by a high level team of industry peers and consultants.
The ISA scope. included assessment of the performance in Management and the functional areas of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, and Plant Support.
~
The ISA assessment was very critical of Comed performance in 'all areas. Major themes included: performance standards missing or not followed, / neffective i
field supervision, lack of teamwork, high management turnover rate and poor change management, union / management issues, inadequate.or misapplied resources, inadequate performance indicators, poor in'dividual performance and work quality, inadequate training, staff not keeping up with= improvements in the industry and unaware of their own poor performance, significant problems in work control and control of the licensing and design basis,cand a weak safety culture. The ISA's assessment is consistent with the recently issued SALP ratings which rated performance to be Category 3 in. Operations",
Maintenance, and Engineering, and Category 2 in Plant Support.-
Approximately 200 people including station management and a cross,section of staff from all departments were present for the exit which was video. taped with the expectation that it will be shown 'to allistation personnel.
Commonwealth Edison management is reviewing the results of the.ISA and'is developing a restart plan considering the -issues' raised by the ISA. A revised startup schedule will follow development of the restart plan. Unit 2 began a refueling outage on September 20, 1996 and Unit I shutdownion September 22, 1996. to repair a turbine control valve.
Both units-have remained down due to additional issues being identified since the shutdowns'.
Contact:
Larry Rossbach 415-2863 ZION. UNITS 1 AND 2 Unitization Process Moves Forward As stated in a previous highlight, Steve Lacey has accepted the position of acting Plant General Manager, Terry Patterson has been named Unit 1 Plant Manager, and Rob Starkey, has been named Unit 2 Plant Manager. The following personnel have been appointed to positions at Zion Station as direct reports to the Unit Plant Managers. The Unit 1 Operations Manager is Ken Hansing and the Unit 2 Operations Manager is George Vanderheyden, both from Zion Station.
Maintenance Managers will be Dave Bump of Zion and Mark Schimmel from Dresden.
t v
t 3
~
,e w.
1 s
Project Directorate III-2.
V The Work Control Managers are Tom Kirwin and Frank Higgins, both from Hope Creek. The Maintenance and Work Control Manager specific unit assignments will be announced next week.
Until actual implementation of the unitized organization structure, Steve Lacey will continue as the leader of the Transition Team on a full-time basis.
The newly reporting managers will serve as members of the Transition Team, reporting to Mr. Lacey.
Keith Schwartz and the current management team will continue to maintain responsibility for both units until the actual implementation date.
Contact:
Clyde Shiraki 415-3101 i
a i
o b
=
4
F 8 0 t(t COMED LicENs!HG DEPT FAX Ho.:
6306637155 01-03-97 08:00 P.02 i
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, JAN. 2,1997, PAGE 1 Edison plant fails to passits own test I 4
l By Peter KandaR Tnnat Etmnoroetur WRnER much of their operations.
"We know and we have admit-been$
Commonwealth Edison Co. has m
report, th i pe nt mus tt r it plenty of experience getting ysis of the LaSalle reactors "was the past." Allen said. "Part of that rapped by federal regulators for critical of Comed performance in is looking critically at [ourselves)."
its problem-plagued Dresden au areas."
Regulators have long considered nuclear power plant. But in recent The summary was made by LaSalle to be only adequate in a weeks, it has been ripped for yet NRC staffers who attended a Dec.
number of its operations.
another plant-end b{e feds: itssomebody 13 meeting between Edison and its In October, the NRC gave even toughet than i consultants..
own consultanta.
The repott, which la being writ-ig"cQ "s mes
"~
s2 A group of consultants hired by ten, will be presented to Edison at the utility to look over its LaSalle a meeting next week.
g,g.q cadenen Nuclear Station criticized Edison the independent analysis found "a fMM
- W., k,
Accon!ing to the NRC summary, Nm -
q across the board, suggesting that weak safety culture," a catchall di
- j r
p[g:p:
the nation's largest nuclear utility phrase that encompasses the way,
,,g Otta.
continues to struggle with the fun, employees and management f
-h',{f"7/usaae damentals of running a nuclear embrace safety practices.
F[~ 35.gd power plant.
The analysis also found ineffec.
pg From safety to manasie' ment tive supervision. inadequate train-6,.
Mg y2 m g - gt M.
l -- ; y,
lasues, from individual workers to ing, lack of teamwork and Door teamwork, the consultants found work quality, the summary said.
~
pmblems at LaSalle, according to The consultants discovered 4
l ls a ederal summary of their find-LaSalle the lowest possible passing t
k u
Because of what the consultants whh impmwmenu in the indus-Fas m h w h a h tound. Edison has decided to try and were " unaware of their inspected.
own poor performance," acconiing In June, federal regulators got a to the NRC summary.
wakeup call when Edison bollixed delay restarting the twin reactor The lead consultant on the proj.
a routine maintenance operation gnt 70 miles southwest of the ect, Warren Fujimoto-a respected at LaSalle, forcing it to shut down p, which has been switched off retind executive with a California its nacton.
since September for maintenance nuclear utility-did not reply to a In a letter to Edison, NRC and n M ag.
aquest for an interview.
Regional Administrator Bill Beach The consultants, report is cer.
In the last year, Edison has con.
said that federal inspectors had to tain to keep federal regulators ducted simnar independent inspec.
show the plant's personnel how to focused on Edlaon's spotty perfor.
tions at its Quad Cities plant near do their jobs correctly during the mance at its nuclear plants.
the Mississippi River and its Dres.
event.
Nuclear Regulatory Commluton den plant. about 60 miles south.
The event,, began when a con-Chairwoman Shirley Jackson has west of the Loop, tractor was nuva to sem1 cracks in been vocal in her trustration with According to Edison spokes.
concrete at the plant. The contrac-the utility's Dresden plant in Mor-woman Sandra Allen, the consult, tor used a machine that injected ris, which has been on the federal ants were hired to act pre emp.
grout into the cracks under high watch list six out of the last nine tively before the NRC suggests a pressu m, years-longer than any other broad inspection.
As it happened, the cracks were "The purpose of it is to give us above a tunnel that carried water plant in the country.
a realtime, current understanding into the plant. The sealant flowed A recent federal review of that '
station found that while it was!
of what we need to do to through the cracks into the water, improving. a number of trouble!
impmve," Allen said of the analy.
clogging filters.
some issues Mmained, sis.
Edison personnel were unable to Though they had significan't Edison has been trying to turn diagnose the water. flow problem, problems and were shut down around its problem plagued and after many days, the plant temporarily a decade ago by the nuclear division over the last year, was shut down in an emcruency.
NRC, LaSalle's twin reactors in making wholesale changes in man-recent years have squeaked by agement at headquarters and at g,
the plants.
with the lowest passing grades for
C F R 04: COMED LICEH51HG DEPT FAX H0.8 6306637155 01-03-97 08:01 P.03 y-eb In an Octooer tetter to the utti-ity, Beach said: "That event showed that work controls had broken down, tevealed previously unidentified material condition problems and disclosed sigruticant engineering weaknesses in support to plant operations.
"... (P]1 ant management and staK focus on operational safety through this event was unsatisfac-tory, resulting in considerable NRC intervention to assure proper actions were implemented."
After that event, the Edison vice president in charge of rah 11a was replaced.
Beach could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
In 1986, the NRC shut down the Lasalle plant because or "signitt.
cant failure" in the emergency shutdown systems.
Just before that. the plant was rated by the NRC as one of the poorest in the Midwest.
A
.~.--
. ~. -.. -
~-.. -. -. - -..
j i
$$b??b5$k?b$b {$?$bbbhbb In the News roday...
January 7, 1997 b
f/
j Connecticut's attorney general ar,0 the chairman of the Department of Puulic Utility Control have asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission not to permit Northeast Utilities to charge ratepayers the full cost of shutting down the HaddrAm
)
Neck plant.
The Hartford Courant, 1/7.
t In an editorial, The New York Times calls on Russian governmental leaders to " clear the bureaucratic obstacles" and take highly enriched uranium and spent fuel from the independent state of Georgia.
(p. A16), 1/7.
DETROIT - Chrysler Corp. has unveiled a car designed to be l
powered by electric fuel cells that use hydrogen extracte.d from gasoline.
The Washinaton Post, (p. Cl), 1/7.
}
Reporter Jack Minch writes that NRC's new regional administrator in Atlanta, Luis Reyes, promises to be the same kind of " tough as-nails" leader as his predecessor, Stewart Ebneter, who has retired.
The Port St. Lucie (Fla.) Tribune, 1/6.
An editorial says Commonwealth Edison has made a start on understanding its problems by bringing in a group of consultants j
who have candidly evaluated problems at the company's nuclear power plants.
It says the auditors' report on the LaSalle units j
" described the facility's problems in plain English - something i
j the NRC reports rarely do."
The Chicano Sun-Times, 1/6.
ii 4/?
- f, l
PROPOSED REVIEW PLAN FOR COMPARING AND CONTRASTING NRC ISIS AND LICENSEE ISAs Ob.iective i
To determine the benefit of reviewing the Independent Self Assessments performed for licensees. An estimate of staff resources to accomplish this task is also to be assessed.
Problem Definition Should the staff commit resources to review ISAs prepared for licensees and then compare and contrast the ISA findings with those findings determined by the staff either in its normal SALP process or through Independent Safety Inspections such as that recently concluded at Dresden.
Backaround Comed has demonstrated a long-standing inability to operate all 12 of its units at uniformly high standards of safety, reliability and efficiency.
Comed will shortly receive two ISA reports (i.e., Zion and LaSalle) which are quite thorough, in-depth, highly critical and reasonably objective. The ISA review areas parallel those the staff uses in its SALP evaluations (i.e.,
operations, maintenance, engineering, plant support and management). Though these review areas are similar to those of the staff's SALP process, the ISA team effort is far more intensive than that allowed by the resources the staff can commit to a SALP review.
Allocation of Resources It is estimated that about two person-weeks of review time will be required to conduct an in-depth review of a single ISA and then compare the ISA findings l
with those of a recent SALP. A proposed plan of action is provided below.
Recommendation It is recommended that the staff conduct an in-depth review of the forthcoming ISA reports on Zion and LaSalle for the following reasons:
1.
It is imperative that the staff be knowledgeable of any factors that may impact safety but which may not be otherwise found through its existing oversight procedures. This is especially important in light of the highly critical tone of the forthcoming Zion and LaSalle ISA reports.
O
Y '
i 2.
The ISA teams are drawn from an industry-wide b'ase, including other nuclear utilities and from INPO, and are therefore able to review a plant's performance from a very broad perspective.
3.
The ISA teams potentially are better able than the staff to determine certain factors affecting plant performance such as morale, safety culture, teamwork, quality of leadership and the element of trust between management and a plant's workers as well as between functional areas of responsibility (e.g., engineering and operations). While the resident and regional inspectors can also assess these subjective i,
factors, their status as regulators inhibit their capabilities in these areas as a practical matter.
4.
A staff review of ISAs will serve as a complement to its ongoing i
oversight and does not decrease or eliminate this regulatory responsibility.
5.
A staff review of ISAs should require far less resources than the present SALP process but could provide an early warning of emerging or continuing problems as discussed in Item 3 above.
6.
This review can be instituted on a pilot basis on one or two plants (e.g., Zion and/or LaSalle) to determine the actual cost / benefit of such an effort.
7.
Finally, a precedent has been set in the informal staff review of INP0 reports.
Proposed Plan 1.
Assign a Senior PM, preferably not one associated with the subject plant, to conduct the review of the ISA and then compare and contrast the ISA findings with those of contemporaneous staff reviews (i.e., SALP or ISI reports).
2.
Allow about two weeks for this effort.
3.
Require a concise summary of this effort in a memorandum with emphasis on those ISA findings not otherwise found in the SALP or ISI review.
4.
Make a Division Director evaluation of the efficacy of this effort.
Contact:
M. David Lynch (301) 415-3023 01/07/97
o.
l IXDEPESDENT SELF ASSESSMESTS 1
AGESDA Purpose of Assessments Organization Staffing Process Proposed Schedule - Milestones l
I i
DRAFT
IXDEPENDEST SELF ASSESSME:STS PURPOS3 OF ASSESSME:STS Independent Assessment to:
Revalidate performance weaknesses Identify new issues Identify why past efforts to improve have been ineffective Post Assessment Steps Recommend actions Develop action plans 1
2 DRAFT
IXDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSMENTS ORGANIZATION Core Team for Phases 1,2, & 3 (7 members)
Site Visit Team for Phase 2 (Core Team plus 8 - 12 additional utility peers and INPO assessors)
Separate Teams of utility peers and INPO assessors for both Zion and LaSalle 3
DRAFT
W ISDEPENDEST SELF ASSESSMENTS ASSESSMENT TEAM STRUCTURE Comed Executive l
Team Leader I
I Assistant Team Comed Support Leader Administrator I
I I
I Engineering &
Management &
Operations Maintenance & Testing Technical Support Plant Support Organization Assessment Management Expectations Management Expectations Management Expectations Management Expectations Management Structure Performance Management Presence /
Management Presence /
Management Presence /
Management Presence /
Management Expectation Elements Communication Communication Communication Communication Communication Safety Focus Safety Focus Training Training Safety Focus Training Training Self Assessment Self Assessment Self Assessment Staffing Self Assessment Safety Focus Safety Focus Training Conduct of Operations Corrective Action Conduct of Engineering Corrective Action Corrective Action Work Arounds Conduct of Maintenance Corrective Action Conduct of Support Human issues Testing Material Condition of Plant UFSAR/ Design Basis Trending Material Condition of Plant Fire Protection and Equipment Configuration Interfaces Budgets Long Standing Problems System Performance /
Testing Maintenance Rule Interfaces Engineering Programs 4
DRAFT interfaces
IXDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSMENTS CORE TEAM STAFFING Team Leader / Assistant Team Leader:
Warren Fujimoto
- Former Site Vice President and 28 years experience in nuclear power Jack Sieber
- Former Chief Nuclear Officer - 30 years experience in nuclear power 5
DRAFT t
INDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSMENTS CORE TEAM STAFFING (Cont'd)
Core Team Members:
Fred Dacimo
- Former Vice President of Nuclear Operations and 20 years experience in nuclear power Harry Kister
- Executive consultant with 40 years experience in nuclear power John Durham i
- Engineering / Management consultant with 22 years of nuclear utility experience i
6 DRAFT
INDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSMENTS CORE TEAM STAFFING (Cont'd)
Core Team Members:
Benjamin Dow
- Engineering / Management consultant with 23 years of experience including NSSS and Utility Management responsibilities Skip Hendrix
- Maintenance / Maintenance Engineering with 25 years of utility experience Site Visit Team:
- Utility Peers
-INPO assessors 7
DRAFT
?
I:SDEPE:SDE:ST SELF ASSESSMEST ZION TEAM Team leader /
Assistant Team Leader Warren Fujimoto Jack Sieber I
I I
I Management &
Organization Operations Engineering Maintenance Plant Support Warren Fujimoto Fred Dacimo Benjamin Dow C. W. Hendrix Jack Sieber Jack Sieber Harry Kister -
George Northcutt (INPO)
John Durham Vince Poppel (INPO)
Ludwig 'Ihibalt (INPO)
Bob Gillespie (DC Cook)
Mike Ballard (INPO)
Jim Vandergrift (ANO)
Jose Ritter (Angra) f%# John Hesser (Palo Verde)ppMyf Joe Waid (ANO)
Bob Azzarello (Waterford) 8 DRAFT
t IXDEPENDE:ST SELF ASSESSME:ST LASALLE TEAM Team 1.cader/
Assistant Team Leader Warren Fujimoto Jack Sieber I
l l
Management &
Engineering Maintenance Plant Suppo.t Organization Operations Benjamin Dow C. W. Hendrix Jack Sieber Warren Fujimoto Fred Dacimo
(
}
(
}
et a s (INPO)
Paul D t 1 PO yg si PO)
Jim Fisicaro (Waterford) William Garrett (Palo Verde)
Dan Bost (Grand Gulf)
John Petrilla (Susquehanna) 9 DRAFF
ISDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSME:STS PROCESS 4
Phase 1
- Detail review of past evaluations, inspections, assessments, performance indicators, and initial identification of strengths & weaknesses Phase 2
- Site visits to validate initial strengths & weaknesses Phase 3
- Analysis, major conclusions and recommendations m
DRAFT
INDEPENDENT SELF ASSESSMENTS SCHEDULE - MILESTONE 10-11-96 Core Team Selected 10-15-96 Team Leader Selected 10-22-96 Start Phase 1 Document Reviews I l-08-96 Complete Phase 1 11-11-96 Begin Phase 2 Onsite Review and Validation at Zion 11-22-96 Complete Phase 2 at Zion 11-22-96 Zion Status Meeting 12-03-96 Begin Phase 2 Onsite Review and Validation at LaSalle 12-13-96 Complete Phase 2 at LaSalle 12-13-96 LaSalle Status Meeting 01-06-97 Begin Phase 3 Final Analysis and Report 01-17-97 Complete Report r
11 DRAFT
s
- Jack, Attached are the summaries of the Independent Self Assessments (ISAs) that the Zion and LaSalle Site VPs sent to their station employees.
I have highlighted the phrases that were repeated in both summaries and hence could be construed as applicable to both sites. Jim Caldwell cautioned us about trying to draw a conclusion that one site is worse than the other based on the respective ISAs because he does not feel we have sufficient information to draw such a conclusion. However, given the similarities between the ISA results at the two sites, it is striking to me that LaSalle has elected to keep both units shutdown, while Zion is keeping one operating and about to start up the other.
I wonder if it might have something to do with Zion being isolated at the northern most end of the Comed grid, while LaSalle is farther down south, in the heart of Comed, and surrounded by Braidwood (both units operating), and Dresden (1 unit 40% and I unit shutdown).
2' Clyde Shiraki cc:
R. Capra D. Skay hhk
G
y/ gg
/
'"""/Q gf /
/\\
N
/
/
"f'
/
/
F\\
To: All Station Employees
/
I/
I
[
7
/
,p.
.pf y epy.
Sublect: Indeoendent Self A****= ment This moming the independent Self Assessment of Zion concluded with a j
presentation by team members to about 180 of us. Because all of you could not be present to hear the insights from the team of industry peers, I want to provide j
my perspective to you on the message I heard.
i Although the assessment results were divided into such traditional areas as i
operations, maintenance and engineering, I was struck by common themes throughout the team's presentation. These themes should give us serious insight to the consequences of our oerformance. I was impressed by the commitment of the people who delivered tr.e message today - they truly delivered a no-holds-I barred message. That message is:
We are not helping each other succeed. We are not learning from each j
other or the industry - we are more interested in blamina each other -
management, union, other work groups and also people outside of Zion than i
j we are in operating Zion successfully. The way we treat each other is
}
unprofessional and does not promote r**aect for each other or our jobs.
i j
We do not approach our jobs as though we are accountable for the success i
of what we are doing - we have no performance measures to determine if j
we can even succeed. We are not willina to define hiah standards for i
performance and then hold ourselves accountable for meeting those i
standards. Instead we focus on our own problems, stay in our individual j
silos and do not contribute to our overall success.
Our work control processes inhibit performence and our er.gineering programs are ineffective. Our operating and maintenance standards for
)
equipment reliability, cleanliness and radiation protection are far below what other plants view as acceptable. Plant equipment is suffering from our
)
inability to operate and maintain if to meet minimal industry standards.
i l
l (over) i J
1
' DEC-27-1996 07:15 tRC RIII DRP 630 515 1102 P.04/11
- .a
,s
The closing message was particularly important - in the future competitive bur,iness world, Zion can only auoceed by ooeratina safely. There is clear industry evidence that the only way plants can be competitive is to operate safebr Zion is not ready for that future. It is a matter of survival-nobody on the outside cares about our inability to work together, our broken wo'rk processes or our low standards. Zion is at a crossroad % itis up to us to determine if we will succeed.
Although some of us may believe that the message was directed to managers, and much of it was, it was also strongly delivered to senior and mid-level managers, '
supervisors, workers - the entire workforce. The team was clear that all levels at j
Zion exhibit a lack of leadership and' accountability. We must get serious about ownership, accountablity and performance improvement.
f,/ /f J. H. Mueller Site Vice President Zion Station
)
JHM/ tis em l
l
l t
.Dec-lC-CG 10:03A NRC LcSollo G15-357-G324 P.01 1
I
..I o,rou romu n cr s >
l FAX TRANSMITTAL e"
2 l
'b SK4/
- M-LL OM 2 i
December 13,1996
" ' " ' ~ '
l To: All Station Employees 7
.... m. rm.
oe,.
. <u rmo,.
1 I
SuiE8Ct.
t i
C%% two weeks on site, the IndWt Self Assessment team presented its detailed findings to 200 Iisate employees this morning. The following is a summary of what they, as peers, had to say about l4Salle Station.
l There were several common themes in the areas of operations, maintenance and engineering. Giving immediate attention to these items is essential to the success of
}
LaSalle. The main themes are:
t l
Key attributes of a successful plant that are missing at IaSalle include:
accountability. teamwork, open communications, tmst between all levels, and a generally healthy working relationship.
We are not p.L.ag as a team. We are not learnina either from each other or from the rest of the nuclear industry. Placina blame is prevalent throughout the j
facility and is hindering our progress toward successful operation. We are not
_.tr_eqitina one another with the proper professionalism or respect We are not acceptina accountability for the results of our work, and we are.no.t
. even measurina.whether or not we are successful. We tend to work within silos and isolate ourselves with our own problems. We do not set hiah standards for our work and hold ourselves accountable for meeting those standards.
Our work control processes preclude productivity. People not working as a team contributes to the system not working effectively. There are high project backlogs, scheduling is ineffective and work packages are inadequate.
i Our operations department lacks a clear understanding of operating excellence and teamwork. Signi5 cant weaknesses were also noted in shift manager performance and training These deficiencies are magnified by the lack of acceptance of accountability for performance.
There are major problems in engineering. Deficiencies are evident in the areas of configuration management, work quality, system engineering and work management.
I The need for a miag team effort extends beyond senior and mid-level management. The
]
ISA team emphasized that the key problems of accountability, teamwork, communicat on i
n
. Deb-10-CG 10:03A NRC LcSollo 015-357-0024 P.02
\\
~
e 4
-l I
and trust exist at all levels. Every LaSalle employee must be willing to address these critical issues if we are to achieve the potential that LaSalle Station is capable of.
l In conclusion, the team's rnessage was bleak but clear: LaSalle has a long way to go, and can only succeed in the future competitive business world by working together to achieve 4
excellence in performance. The industry evidence is clear that the only way to excellent 4
performance is by focusing on operatina safely LaSalle must decide now whether it will take on these issues and follow the road to a Free 41 future, or be leR behind.
l S
W. T. Subalu 4
Site Vice President
.