ML20134K083

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pse&G/Nuclear Business Unit Organizational Effectiveness Assessment Plan,
ML20134K083
Person / Time
Site: Salem, Hope Creek  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 02/27/1995
From: Jamie Benjamin, Eliason L
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML20134J860 List:
References
FOIA-96-351 PROC-950227, NUDOCS 9702130113
Download: ML20134K083 (5)


Text

.

I I

I i

i i

i 1

e f

4 l

PSE&G/ NUCLEAR BUSINESS UNIT i

}

l i

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT PLAN 1

i j

i

\\

1 l

l i

l 1,

l February 27,1995 97021301";:J 970207 PDR FOIA O'NEILL96-351 PDR

=

u..

i I

l ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTP/ENESS ASSESSMENT l

CHARTER:

1 Perform a management-level assessment to determine:

1 1.

Why corrective actionspreviously defined to correctperformance weaknesses and deficiencies have not been effective in achieving sustainedperformance imprcrements,

and,
2. Identify organizational andpersonnel weaknesses that will hinder current performance improvement efforts.

L.. -

This self assessment will evaluate the Salem organization's ability to effect a prompt improvement in operational performance, followed by continued long term improvement, such that NBU goals to reach top quartile performance can be realized. Substantial effort has been previously expended to identify performance weaknesses and implement corrective actions. Many of these problem areas will be reviewed during the course of this assessms to evaluate corrective action effectiveness and gain a better understanding as to why sustainu! performance improvement is not being achieved.

The conduct of the assessment will include observation of activities and interviews with personnel that represent a cross section of responsibilities and levels. A briefing of PSE&G management will be hdd to convey findings and recommendations. Updates will also be provided to NRC management. A final report of the Team's findings and conclusions will complete this assessment.

i Yk

=

(J/

amin, Digr-QA/NSR A

Leon R' Eliason, Chief Nuclear Officer i

.. = - - _ _ _ _

~_ - -...-

l BACKGROUND I

i A self assessment of the NBU's organizational effectiveness was initiated by the CNO because the current improvement actions at Salem were not yielding the expected results. The actions resulting from previous assessments were aimed at achieving a high level of operational safety and reliability at Salem. Since problems have persisted, the question arises as to whether current actions are adequate, and if they are, why haven't we achieved the desired improvements in plant performance and what else should be done to achieve performance goals? The assessment is focusing on organizational effectiveness and personnel perfonnance.

i i

TEAM COMPOSITION This assessment will be performed by a team of highly-qualified, independent persons with

' demonstrated skills in managing quality operations and performing critical assessments. The team i

will report the results to the CNO. The following is a listing of team members, their affiliations

and associated areas of responsibility

Ken Harris (formerly FP&L): Operations (Team Leader) c__

JayDoering(PECO): Corrective Actions Carl Andognini(formerly APS): Maintenance / Surveillance Gerard Goering (NSP): Engineeringfrechnical Support Bill McLane (PG&E): Outage Performance FUNCTIONAL AREAS AND PRINCIPALISSUES FOR ASSESSMENT:

Operations

- Operations " ownership" of the plant

- Effectiveness ofinterfaces and communications

- Effectiveness of operation's control of activities in progress t

- Practices relative to work around and procedural adequacy Maintenance

- Control of maintenance activities, including planning

- Conduct and scheduling of maintenance

- Support ofmaintenance activities

~'

Engineering / Technical Support e

. - Effecti ". mess of system engineers in support of operations

- Adequacy of engineering prioritization to support plant needs

- Effective use of design engineering in support of plant operations

- Effectiveness of communications and interfaces between engineering, operations, and maintenance Corrective Action e

- Management involvement / ownership of corrective action program

- Effectiveness of root cause determinations and follow through to problem resolution, including operations / engineering involvement o

l l

Outage Performance e

- Milestone planning and scope control

- Communications

- Outage management controls

- Outage planning / scheduling controls The following are typical questions which may be asked during interviews with NBU personnel:

How effective is the organization in dealing with known problems by finding root and e

contributing causes and instituting effective e.nd lasting corrective action?

Have clear expectations and standards been communicated from the next higher e

management /supervisorlevel?

How do standards / expectations and planned actions at Salem correspond to those current in e

the industry? How effectively are they conveyed, accepted and implemented?

Have managers / supervisors accepted these standards / expectations and have they rolled them e

down into the organization such that they are accepted?

Do support groups place adequate priority on operations and are interdepartmental

[

e communications effective to resolve emergent work?

Have managers / supervisors adequately self-assessed their own performance and identified e

needed improvement?

w Have manat Vsupervisors defined and planned their work in accordance with prioritized work activities consistent with available resources? Have managers / supervisors identified appropriate results and performance indicators?

Have managers / supervisors reached agreement on their plans and priorities with the next level e

of management? Are managers and supervisors held accountable for performance relative to plans?

Have managers / supervisors identified needs for additional resources and taken action to e

acquire more; and has management supported this action?

What is the overall assessment of the situation and trend in each functional area and across organizationalinterfaces?

What short/long term actions are appropriate to put Salem on a well-defined path to top e

quartile performance?

I e

O SCHEDULE The following is an overall schedule for the conduct of this assessment:

2/27 - 2/29 On site 3/6 - 3/10 On-site 3/20 - 3/24 On-site (Management Debrief-3/24) 3/27 - 3/31 Finalize report Completion: March 31,1995 DELIVERABLE:

The organizational Effectiveness Assessment will be documented by a report in the following format with Sections III through VII each having an Overview, Findings, Observations and Recommendations:

I.

INDEX II.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

III.

OPERATIONS IV.

MAINTENANCE V.

ENGINEERING /fECHNICAL SUPPORT VI.

CORRECTIVE ACTION VII.

OUTAGE PERFORMANCE 1

j 9

6 l