ML20203G272

Provides Outline of Tentative Plan for Reviewing Northeast Utils Pep as Requested by Panel

ML20203G272
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	08/27/1992
From:	Barkley R NRC
To:	Wiggins J NRC
Shared Package
ML20203G108	List: ML20203G102 ML20203G137 ML20203G151 ML20203G160 ML20203G184 ML20203G197 ML20203G215 ML20203G231 ML20203G241 ML20203G255 ML20203G272 ML20203G493 ML20203G500 ML20203G538 ML20203G549 ML20203G577 ML20203G598 ML20203G625 ML20203G643 ML20203G659 ML20203G717 ML20203G778 ML20203G811 ML20203G849 ML20203G902 ML20203G945 ML20203H005
References
FOIA-97-469 NUDOCS 9803020264
Download: ML20203G272 (3)

Text

.

.. Att u.kuid3

, MEMO FOR: James T. Wiggins, MAP Chairman

';dROUGH: A. Randolph Blough, Chief, DRP Branch 4 Larry T. Doerflein, Chief, DRP Section 4A 1 FROM: Richard Barkley, Project Engineer, DRP Section 4A DATE: August 27,1992

SUBJECT:

PLAN FOR REVIEWING NORTHEAST UTILITIES' PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (PEP)

As requested, I have outlined a tentative plan for myiewing NU's PEP as requested by the MAP:

OBJECTIVES 1 N objectives of this review are to:

g

1) Review the PEP in detail and understand NU's plans for implementation;

2) Determine whether the PEP appears to appropriately characterize and address the root causes for the performance decline at Millstone;

3) Determine whether the PEP addresses all of the issues and concerns noted by the MAP;

4) Determine whether the PEP action plans appear to be reasonable ways of obatining the performance improvements desired. Determine if there are acceptable plans for sustaining improvements realized through the PEP by institutionalizing the improvements into long-term or permanent programs;

5) Evaluate NU's initial progress in implementing the PEP as an indicator of the potential for achieving performance imprav-ment at NU's planned rate; and,

6) Determine whether NU's approach is reasonable for providing management oversight and ongoing evaluations of PEP implementation as well as verifying and validating that the actions plans have berm successfully implemented and that performance improvements are obtained and sustained. Determine if aQuate provisions exist for appropriate attention to day-to-day plant safety concurrent with the performance improvement effort.

9803020264 980226 PDR FOIA O'MEALI97-469 PDR

1 l

PEP Inspection Plan 2 APPROACH: l De review will be conducted by a team of about five people (4 individuals plus a team leader) at NU's Berlin corporate uffice, the Millstone site and (if =*my) a brief visit to HaMam Neck as well as in the Region I office. Onsite portions will be conducted in two one-week i segments to facilitate the case of review as well as allow NU time to continue to refine their verification and validation effort and allow the NRC time to reflect on and refine their evolving )

quesdons and review efforts, ne review will begin with a review of the PEP and the verification and validation effort. Interviews will be ccaducted with the PEP program manager responsible for its implementation, the Atlas and Hayes consultants responsible for helping formulating the PEP and a selected group of the action plan managers. The interviews will be oriented toward understanding how the PEP was prepared, how management is communicating the need for this effort and how implementation of this effort will be encouraged and verified.

Finally, technical and programmatic reviews will also conducted to measure the progress made in specific licensee performance areas addressed by the PEP (i.e. maintenance procedures, procedure compliance, employee allegation resolution, self-assessment program activities).

The product from this effort will be input to a formal evaluation of the PEP, along the lines of the. format proposed by NRR, which will be presentrd to the MAP in support of their decision on the acceptability of this program. Formal presentations to NRC and NU management regarding the findings of the team will be made as necessary or as requested.

TEAM COMPOSITION AND SCHEDULE: ,

ne proposed composition of this team will be as follows:

Tean.12ader - Richard Barkley DRP Representative - Pete Habighorst (Alternate: Andra Asars)

DRS Representative - Suresh Chaudary NRR Representatives - Dave Jaffe Catherine Dompson (Human Factors Specialist)

De in field portions of the review will be tentatively conducted during the weeks of September 21-25,1992 and October 26-30,1992. During the first in-field review period, the emphasis of the review will be or. review of the PEP preparation as well as how the root cauws of their

-_*T-_. - -= _____ __ - - - - -

sa PEP Inspection Plan 3 performance decline were identified and how the action plans were developed. Initial inspection of specific programmatic improvement efforts will also be conducted. During the second in field review period, emphasis will be placed on a review of the ve 3fication and validation effort as l well as the completion of inspections of specific performance areas. Dming the two weeks between the two reviews, any additional information requests from NU will be prepared as well as the findings to date documented and the review of progran natic improvement programs completed. .

He team members will be assigned to review those areas of the PEP most directly apolicable to their area of expertise. More detailed personnel assignments will occur during the period of preparation prior to the conduct of each of the reviews.

If you have furth:r questions or suggestions in this matter, please see myself or Randy.

Rich

Enclosures:

(1) Proposed PEP Review Sequence (2) MAP Issues List Approved /Di yywvoo:

0- war. wiggins cc:

A. Asars, Millstone S. Chaudary P. Habighorst, Haddam Neck D. Jaffe, NRR W. Swenson, NRR MAP Members

_. - _ _ _