ML20138D701
| ML20138D701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1993 |
| From: | Wiggins J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Opeka J NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302230042 | |
| Download: ML20138D701 (61) | |
Text
> _.._
y 4
IED 0 8 "23 l
i Docket Nos. 50-213, 50-245, 50-336, 50-423 Mr. John P. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Northeast Utilities P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 13,1993, NORTIIEAST UTILITIES MEETING WITH -
TIIE MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL REGARDING TIIE PERFORMANCE ENIIANCEMENT PROGRAM (PEP)
The NRC Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) met with you and your' staff on January 13, 1993, from 10:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. in the lee F. Sillin Training Center at the Millstone site to discuss the Perfor. nance Enhancement Program. The meeting'was open for public observation. During the n ating,'you presented: 1) your progress to date on implementing-
- the PEP; 2) your work since October 1992 in the areas of developing validation criteria and communicating the PEP to your work force; and 3) your evaluation and response to the comments provided to the NRC by attendees at the public meeting held on the' PEP on-November 5,1992, in East Lyme, CT. A copy of the slides %m your presentation'is enclosed, in addition, the MAP discussed with you: 1) the fndings to date of the NRC-review of the PEP; 2) the preliminary findings of the NRC tean, that observed the restart of Millstone' Unit 2; and 3) future activities planned by the MAP.
The MAP found that your progress thus far at implementing the PEP is near the schedule
.you originally provided in your June 1992 PEP submittal. However, while you have made-additional progress with the verification and validation (V&V) effort since the NRC looked at the program in October 1992, the V&V effort still remains at a preliminary stage.
To date, the MAP has not yet drawn a definitive conclusion regarding the adequacy of the validation effort due to the changes you have made recently and the infancy of the program;.The M_AP; will need to maintain a continuing dialogue with your staff on these program changes and progress.
T 9302230042 930208
^
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
$0i jDR nADOCK 0500 3
e
e D
Mr. John P. Opeka 2
With regard to the public comments received on the PEP, we found that your efforts to date appear responsive to the concerns raised at the public meeting. In particular, your initiatives to address the concerns in the emergency planning area were comprehensive and responsive to the concern raised. However, the remaining comments on the PEP ate significantly more difficult to address than the EP concern and will therefore require continued attention.
The MAP informed you that our review of the PEP has not yet been fully completed due to our outstanding questions with the adequacy of the PEP validation program. However, to date we have determined that Phase I (the evaluation of the underlying causes of your_
performance deficiencies) and Phase II (the PEP Action Plans intended to address the causes of these denciencies and improve performance) are sufficiently comprehensive to address the performance deficiencies both you and the NRC have noted. In addition, the verification process you have established in PEP Phase ill appears adequate with sufficient management oversight and independence of the verification group to ensure its effectiveness. However, given the changes you have made to the validation process of PEP Phase Ill, the preliminary nature of the process and the lack of any sample validation criteria available to us for review,-
the MAP has not yet been able to determine the adequacy of the effort.
With regard to the restart of Millstone Unit 2, the NRC Operational Safety Team inspection (OSTI) conducted during the period from December 28,1992 - January 14, 1993, observed your preparations for the heat-up of the plant from the Cycle 11/12 refueling and steam generator replacement outage. Overall, the team found that the restart operations were conducted in a safe and conservative manner. Your performance during the outage demonstrated the Unit 2 organization's ability to manage a number of signifiant work activities concurrently and to satisfactorily return the plant to safe power operations.
However, the team did note several problems with the closcout of Plant Design Change Records (PDCR) prior to the return of plant systems to operability as well as concerns with the approval process for changes to PDCRs. These findings will be further developed and presented to you at the exit meeting and documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-336/92-36.
We appreciate your efforts in preparing for this meeting. We found the meeting informative and appropriately focused toward our concerns. If you have any questions regarding this meeting or luture activities of the MAP, please contact Larry DoerDein of my staff at (215) 337-5378.
Sincerely, Od%f r8ned14 James T. Wiggins, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects OFFICIAL RECORD COPY.
4 s
Mr. John F. Opeka 3
Enclosure:
Presentation to the Millstone Assessment Panel by Northeast Utilities on January 13,1993 cc w/ enclosure:
W. D. Romberg, Vice President - Nuclear, Operations Services S. E. Scace, Vice President, Millstone Station H. F. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director J. S. Keenar:, Nuclear Unit Director C. H. Clement, Nuclear Unit Director R. M. Kacich, Director, Nuclear Licensing D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services Gerald Garfield, Esquire Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire K. Abraham, PAO Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Connecticut SLO i
L I~
l l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i S
Mr. John F. Opeka 4
bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
T. Murley, NRR T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA W. Russell, NRR J. Partlow, NRR J. Calvo, NRR G. Zech, NRT M. Davis, NRR B. Boger, NRR S. Varga, NRR W. Hodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS C. Hehl, DRP J. Wiggins, DRP V. McCree, DEDR J. Joyner, DRSS R. Blough, DRP J. Durr, DRS L. Doerflein, DRP W. Pasciak, DRSS W. Raymond, SRI, Haddam Neck P. Swetland, SRI, Millstone V. McCree, OEDO J. Stolz, PD I-4, NRR D. Jaffe, PD I-4, NRR G. Vissing, PM, NRR V. Rooney, PM, NRR R. Barkley, DRP Concurrence:
l l.
I rklhy D 'rflein Blough Wiggins d
)
9 4
l fy 2/'l/93 2/i/93
/$/93 93 i
S:MAPNU13.YRB i
CFFICIAL RECORD COPY
[
Enclosure i.
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM i
c PRESENTATION TO MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL i
c i
i JANUARY 13,1993 j
NORTHEAST UTILITIES i
r 1
t 4
.:. s
+
I NU PRESENTERS 4
I J. F. OPEKA EXECUTIVE VICE PRES: DENT-NUCLEAR l
I S. E. SCACE VICE PRESIDENT-MILLSTONE STATION I
l E. A. DE.BARBA VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR, ENGINEERING l
SERVICES i
W. D. ROMBERG VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR, OPERATIONS SERVICES D. O. NORDQUIST DIRECTOR-QUALITY SERVICES
]
D. G. DIEDRICK DnRECTOR-NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS PROGRAM i
R. T. L'AUDENAT MANAGER-PEP A. J. CASTAGNO MANAGER-CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS q
{
i 2
l
t l
AGENDA l
BACKGROUND l
PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS L
L SELECTED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES VALIDATION PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON. PEP
SUMMARY
~
t
.3 e
O O
)
D N
U AK O
E P
R O
G 4
F K
J CAB X
4
BACKGROUND 1991 Millstone Station SALP Report 1991 Self Assessment PEP Established in January,1992 Phase I of PEP Completed in March,1992 - Critical Areas of Concern Management Practices Programs & Processes Performance Assessment
_ BACKGROUND (cont)
- - Phase ll.of PEP Completed on June 4,1992 (4 Series of Action Plans?
Title No. of Plans Series 1-Management Practices 10 Series 2 Programs and Processes 13 Series 3 Performance Assessments 9
Series 4 Functional Programs 10 Phase Ill (Action Plan implementation) Ongoing 4
4 6
3 a.
BACKGROUND (cont)
Ju y 20,1992 Meeting with MAP MAP Performance issues (23 Listed)
Fall 1992 MAP Team Inspections of PEP November 5,1992 NRC Public Meeting on PEP l
)
7-
.~
PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
(
Deliverable / Milestone (D/M) Performance L
a 1321992 D/Ms Estab isiec in June,1992 Two D/Ms were Consolidated in One Action Plan, Resulting in 130 D/Ms at Year End 128 D/Ms Completed on or Before The Target Completion Dates The 2 Late D/Ms Completed Within 10 Working Days After the Target Completion Dates Action: Plan Schedules for 1993 Were Revised to:
Reflect Integration of Several Action Plans Acknowlecge More Efficient and Desirable End Results 8-
PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Budget Performance S19.2 Million Budgeted in 1992 (S16.4 Million for PEP +
S2.8 Million for October 1991 "200")
At Year End,812.2 Million Expended Against the Budget 9
i' PEP' IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Action Plan Performance A Number of Action Plans are on Schedule but Under Budget Due to Less-than-Anticipated use of Consultants and Contractors. The Key Plans in This Category.are:
Engineering Backlog Reduction Assessment Philosophy Trend Analysis Design Consolidation l
Corrective Action Execution Shutdown Risk Management Engineering Programs Plant System Engineering Millstone Station Organization CY Station Organization Nuclear Training Enhancement Cultural Analysis Chemical / Hazardous Material Control These 13 Action Plans Account for Approximately $4.4 of the $7.0 Million Under Expenditure in 1992 10
PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Action Plan Performance (cont)
Procedure Upgrade Project is Behinc Schedule anc Under Budget Due to Delays in Deve oament of the Writer's Guic:e Which Accounts for 82.6 of the 87.0 Million Uncer Expenditure for 1992 Under Spent Budgets will Not be Automatically Carried into 1993. Justification for Ac c.itional Funcs Will be Considered, l
Based on Identified Needs in 1993
- Quantification o' t7e Im aact of ntegration has not Yet Been Determined i
11
~
PEP IMPLEME NTATION PROGRESS Staffing Status Staffing Goa s for Each Action Plan for 1992 Were Met 226 Additional 3ersonnel On-Boarc for PEP and October 1991 "200" Positions,45 Acce atances Not Yet On-Board 12
==
e g
' 4 1992 DELIVERABLE / MILESTONES PERFORMANCE 130
/
120
-- - t 100 O
F
- 82 80 75 M
5 g
80 M
5 48 37 l-g 40 l4 f
27
- g illf M IG sa nu I
~
TOTAL PIAN E TCTAL ACTUAL. CUMM PLAN
-A
. ' CUMM ACTUAL
..:13 -
ACTION PLAN STATUS i
Completed Except forVerification and Validation 7
Schedu.ed for Completion in 1993
.17 Schedu'ec.for Completion in 1994L 8
Schedulec for Completion in 1995-97 10 Total 42
~
14 v
w
+-
a a
'1 - -
ACTION PLAN STATUS COMPLETED IN 1992 Action Plan Completion Date 2.1.1 Strategic Planning October 16,1992 l
2.3.8 IRG/HRG December 31,1992 3.1.1 Reporting Relationships July 6,1992 3.2.1 Communications November 13,1992 3.4.3 Integration of Assessment Results November 30,1992 4.4.2 Measures of Performance December 8,1992 4.4.3 Employee Concerns Program July 10,1992 l
h 15
N.\\'x
/
/
7 n
z
, y 4
8 $,
- q. 4 g, g e
~
q A
O 0 4 *[ g
~
N N
ll!l O
k'
)
(
LE AK D
E P
O O
7 M
1 F
Y J
CNETEP M
OC t
1 i
I s
L COMPETENCY MODEL 1
Competency:Model Process Based on Development Work Performed By Dr. David C. Mc Clelland at the Harvard Business School j
Nuclear Grou d Competency Model.Being implemented for-L the Manager; Director, and Officer Levels l
L
. The C'ompetency Model: Process l
Interviews and Surveys Performed by Consultants Experienced in Use of the:Model to:
4 l
Determine Behavioral Characteristics of Performance L
in the! Nuclear Group-Determine Current Level of Management 1
L-Effectiveness-TAid PaneltFocus Groups to Define: Skills: Required at' 1
rious Position Levels L
18.-
l
COMPETENCY MODEL (cont) 1 3
Review and Adoption of the Nuclear Group Model by NU Management The implementation of the Model has Begun with Evaluation of V.P.s and Directors
. Using This Information as.One input, Focused Training, l
Rotational Assignments, and/or Other Appropriate-s l
ManagementlActions Will be implemented as Necessary:
l Process.Will. Subsequently beJApplied to;the: Manager-Level' Positions in the Nuclear Group l
i i
l 4
i19-
~..
4 I'
~
SELECTED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES v
PROCESS MAPPING ACTIVITIES l
S. E. SCACE i
l 4
20
PROCESS MAPPING ACTIVITIES
^
Process improvement Initial Task was to Rewrite Procec ures Process 3roalems Encountered Decided to Use Proven GE Process Hired a Consultant Familiar with GE Process l
Process Mapping - Areas of Application Work Control i
Tacging Control Design Co'ntrol Material Control 21
[
.L WORK CONTROL - PROCESS IMPROVEMENT METHOD TIMELINE PROCESS OJ00R OPPORTUNTITES ROOl' -
NEWPROCESS DEVEIDP NEWPROCESS I
I I CAUSE l DEVEIDPMENTl NEW MAP l PRESENTATIO MAP OIE FOR IMPROVEMENT m
m l
I I
I I
I Detailed Identify Individual and Group Determine Develop a Depiction of p
Problem '
!dentification of.
the Base Mission Statement the Process of k h Depiction of Actual Areas
_ Opportunities for Reasons for for the Process.
as we want p,
,, g.
Process and Improvernent.
the Key Develop process it to be.
Se orting Handoffs Group Discussion and Selected based on Root Compare Structure by-Steps Consolidation into improvement Causes ' and against Ma g Te n Concise Statements.
Opportunities Customers handoffs and 7/6 - 7/21 Developed from the Served.
Root Causes, color coded map Validate New 9/22 - = 10/14 8/4 - 8/13 Process.
7/23 - 7/30 8/17
.8/25
-8/25 - 9/10 -
NEW PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION I
r v.
1New Work Control' Organizatit.a New Proccas implementation - details Process is marketed.
' Procedures written.
Personnel trained in New Process.
Process phase-in 22
. h..-
PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
^
Methodology Uses Iridividuals Most Familiar With Task
- LRequires Littlel Formal Training for Participants t-
' Task Mapped:for Maximum Efficiency Procedure Written From New Map
- - Advantages.
f
" Keep it Simple" Philosophy.
- Procedure Based on Way Task islPerformed-
- Demonstrates " Management's". Willingness to Listen-Fosters Team Work; Attitude:
1
.23
&H~-
g
+--
y g
4 s
n w
w M
'rvrr w
J
's=--
n Y; *
~
PROCESS MAPPING { cont >
4 Experience With WorkiControl More than 60 Individuals: Participated More;than 19010pportunities For Improvement Compiled LManagement Accepted Recommendations-N t
PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
Recommended an Integrated Team Concept i
L Provide' Independent Planning and Work Control i
Provide Performance Groups with Completed Work:
Packages This Results in:
Reduced Interfaces Between Departments Reducec Returns of Work Packages for Revisions 3
Minimized Handoffs Streamlined anc Simplified Process 1
Clearer Lines of Accountability and Responsibility i
+
s.
- 25
PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
FUTURE ACTION Work Control
)
- Write Procedures Manpower Allocation Integrate Tagging Process Mapping Results with Work Control Implementation Schedule Initial Implementation in April 1993 Full lmplementation Prior to Year End i
26..
6 PROGRAMS AND PROCESSES (Series 2)
PEP Engineering Initiatives E. A. DE BARBA l
l 27.
~
l
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS (EPs) l Engineering Programs Being Upgraded Uncer PEP Action Plan 2.3.3 l
l 3rogram Examples incluce: MOVs, E/C, HELB, etc.
Program Goals:
i High Quality, Living & Integrated Programmatic, Engineering - Based Procedurally Controlled Key Deliverables:
A Corporate'- Wide (NEO 2.32) Procedure Governing EPsL[ issued: 11/1/92]
i
' Program Specific-Manuals
- 28-
i
~
MOV PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES
. Directec Toward Meeting Provisions of GL 89-10.(" Ensure MOVs are Operable)
i Became Focal Point.in Early 1992 Because " Progress Less than Expected" 1
I Realigned MOV Program in April,1992 (Organization, Staffing, etc.)
Independently: Evaluated by CUAT in June,1992 An Upgraded Program Plan Completed.in July,1992 Process: Mapped Using METAVISION in September,J1992:
1 MOV Program: Manual-Issued in December,1992:
291
SUMMARY
OF KEY MOV PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES 1
Dedicated MOV Engineering Team (7 Fui-Time NU Plus i
L Support Staff and Contractors)
Program is Fully Funded Increased: Plant Participation and Interface l
l Program Simplified A High QualityLProgram Manual Issued s
i j.
. 30 1
e m
. m
MOV PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIO AT MILLSTONE 2 1
MiIstone 2 Refueling; June,1992 - January,1993 54 Valves Governed by Program:
- Engineering Calculations for All 54 i
VOTES StaticTesting for All 54 7:DynamicTests to Date Operabiity and Part 2' Issues Resolved Draft MOV Program Manual Used as a " Guide" b
131
l 6
8 b
e
~
E C }3 NA S I
M E I
R R T
O E S
I F S UQ R (T D
E R
P N O
23 N
E N
M O
O S D
E S T E A S D S P A U_
/[
l i!
lll ll, l
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT i
Focus l
Improve Our Practices to Assess, Monitor land Report Performance Process - Performance Assessments are. Conducted
..Through.the Following Activities Line Self Assessment In-Line Reviews-Internal Independent ' Assessments.
External Assessments ManagementtOversight 33-
..y
~
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Result-s to Date More Visible QSD Reporting Relationship Improved Report Formats Improved Root Cause Training Initiated (INPO).
Established;QSD Personnel Qualification Matrix Establishing Pilot Program on Finding Significance Measures 34 4
L
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Additional Activities Established improved Trend Analysis Plan Overall Assessment Philosophy in Review Integrated Tracking System Under Development Pilot Peer Inspection Program Under Development 4
35
c.
..c s.
I SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (Series 4)
W..D. ROMBERG
.36
- =
~ -
..u 3 SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU OVERVIEW
- NU Implemented a Shutdown Risk Management Program at Millstone and Haddam Neck in 1.992 as'Part of. PEP Action Plans Program is responsive to NUMARC 91-06 l
- Developed in Cooperation With:
EPRI Seabroo t INPO LYankee Rowe
' Maine Yankee-Calvert Cliffs 37:
a,.
~
~
,c SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENTAT NU (cont)
. Program-in its interimLPhase was:Used for:
JMillstone? Unit:2 Refueling / Steam Generator. Outage Millstone Unit 3:SLCRS Outage Millstone Unit:1 1.991.. Refueling Outage Haddam Neck?199192 Refueling Outage
..g
- 38 i
1
,_m x.
SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT A
)
NU (cont)
Typical Interim Actions Taken AC Power Tech Saecs Plus One Portable D/G Availab e Minimized Mid-Loop Oaeration Designated S7utdown Ris< Coordinator ServiceTNater Outage Oatimization Time to Core Boiling Ca culated
\\
39
SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (cont)
Program Implementation Detailed Shutdown Ris< Sel" Assessment Performed Using NUMARC 91-06 NE&O Policy Statement 36 " Management of Shutdown Ris <" issued Station Procedures in Place at Both Sites implementing Shutcown Ris< Management 5
1
_ SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (cont)
Program implementation: Hardware Modifications Fenced in or Modified Fencing as Rec uired for Transformer Yards at Millstone Unit 1 and Millstone Unit 2 Installing Station Blackout Diese in 1993 Refueling Outage at MilIstone Unit 3 Evaluating Simulator Mods to Address More Scenarios l
Descriaed in NUMARC 91-06 Other Hardware Modifications are Being Considered on a Unit-By-Unit Basis 41
~
HANDLING NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS { Series 4) l D. G. DIEDRIC4 l
42
l SNR s
E n
r C
ecn N
m o
O a
C rg y
C t
o e
r f
P a
Y e
S T
v ra s
i E
a e
e t
v t
F n
c l
i r
t e
e u
a A
N s
t i
r t
e a
S in rp h 5
I e
C1 g
R R
2 n
P i
A eCOi r
n E
eS E
a r
P N
N T
L CUN l
i 9
6 e
N
~
-A O
N I
E T
D A
UA 4
D L
4 I
L T
A R
V
!ll llll1
VALIDATION PLAN Validation Will Focus on "Intendec Effect" - The Performance Improvement Achieved by Imolementation of the Action Plan Standard Validation Plan Format Established Validation Per ormed by Independent Validation Team Validation Team Leader Responsi' ale for Developing Final Validation Plan Dra't Validation Plans or Completed Action Plans Under Deve oament Validation Will ae Schecu ed for Remaining Action 3lans Management Review Process Esta3Iislec to Ensure I
E=ectiveness 45
L f
~
PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN k
A. J. CASTAGNO i
I l
l' 1
1 i
i 46
PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Issuec in 1992 Crosses All Action Plans Major Elements:
Verbal (one-on-one; smal, groups, personal)
Executives Directors / Managers /Line Supervisors Communications Training l
47
[
[
PEP COMMUNICATION PLAN (cont)
Written (Sup 3 orts Verbal, Emp oyee-to-Employee)
Newsle+ters L
" Nuclear News" (8-aage monthly)
" Nuclear News PEP Saecial" (2-4-Page Mont11y, Mid-Cycle)
\\.
l "TieLine" (1-Page. Daily)
NULEmployee Publications: NUsLine, Upc ate l
Video (Employee-to-Employee)
" Nuclear Newsreel" s
48
PEP COMMUNICATION PLAN (cont)
Communications Review Committee Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees From Millstone, Haddam Neck, Corporate, Seabrook Role: Liaison with Workforce Evaluate Ef"ectiveness o" Communications Focus Groups Survey Anecdotal PEP Brocnure 49 0
l, I((
i f
!I rI
~
PEP N
O S
T AK N
E E
P O
M 05 F
M J
OC C
IL B
UP 1Il
I '.'
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP Comment Key to improve Performance is to improve Employee r
i Morale and Trust in Management i
c
Response
PEP Series 1
- First Line Supervisor Buy-in Communication Efforts I
l t
Comment l
L Portions of PEP are Unnecessary l
l
Response
Phase ll.Develo ament Process l
Ongoing;lntegration Efforts i
51 l
l
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP (cont)
Comment Reduce Paperwor< Burden on t7e Worker
Response
Process Mapaing Comments Routine Radiation Releases; Public Address System /
Response
Releases are Carefully Controllec anc Monitorec Public Address System is Not Part of Emergency Notification System; it is For Use By Pu alic Officials During Non-Nuclear Emergency Events 52 t
3 4
8 i
9
\\
e CC in 4
~
2 O
~m u_-
a
--f U)
, _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _. - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~
e e
EVIDENCE OF PERFORMANCE l
IMPROVEMENT Complex and involvec Uncerta<ing Validation Process Designec to Accomalish This Other General Indications of Performance Improvement i
54
W RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS l
Millstone Unit 11992 ALARA 3er"ormance 81 Man-Rem - Believed to be Second Lowest BWR in World Mil' stone Unit 31990-1992 ALARA Performance 3 Year Average of 66 IVan-Rem, Believed to be Lowest in U.S.
Millstone Unit 2 - First Plant to Permanently Dispose of Replacec Steam Generators l
i Millstone Unit 2 - One of Only Three Plants in the U.S. with Zero Recualification Examination Failures Since inceation of 1987 Process "InSituForm" Lining of Millstone Unit 2 Service Water Piping 55
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS EPRI Recognition Millstone Unit 1 Zinc njection Millstone Unit 2 Steam Generator Channel Head Electro Polishing Millstone Unit 3 Lithium Ph Control IN?O Casualty Control Drill at Millstone Unit '
"One o" the Best They Have Seen"
_m.
~
SUMMARY
NU Will O aerate Our Nuclear Plants Su aeraly, i.e. Sa ely and Efficiently, and Cost Ef"ectively Committed to Secure NRC Acceptance of PEP -
Responsive to Feedbac< From MAP P; ase ill o" the PEP is on Sclec ule with Limited Changes-1 PEP is a Living NU Program Whica Will be Responsive to Emerging issues within the Nuclear Organization 9
57
,