ML20203G549

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Seventh Millstone Assessment Panel 921214 Meeting. Item List Encl
ML20203G549
Person / Time
Site: Millstone  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 12/18/1992
From: Wiggins J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20203G108 List:
References
FOIA-97-469 NUDOCS 9803030013
Download: ML20203G549 (15)
v • d • e


Text

. _ _ _ _ . .

l r

MAP Minutes #6 3 compliance (ahhough 33% said they had seen improvement and 43% at Millstone thought that procedure compliance was overemphasized); 3) the majority of individuals at Millstone felt that industrial safety had improved; 4) the general viewpoint was that plant safety has been emphasized over productivity or cost containment in the recent past; and 5) the overwhelming I majority felt that a good working relationship existed in their work groups. Finally, the team found that NU's actions regarding the MAP issues remaining from the previous week had been satisfactorily addressed.

RecenLSC Activith Larry Doerficin presented to the team the results of the requalification examination which recently occurred at Unit I as well as the NRC's proposed oversight activities to ensure that NU's requalification program is being remedied as committed to by NU In light of the requalification failures and the determination that the program is unsatisfactory, DRS plans an extensive series of inspections and meetings with NU over the next six months in this area.

O Eutttre MAP Activities:

Mr. Wiggins stated that the MAP needs a Unit 2 restart checklist as well as a MAP action

% item list in the near future; DRP was tasked with developing these lists (see enclosure for the 2

latter). Also, Mr. Wiggins wants to meet with Tim Martin to discuss the activities and findings of the MAP prior to his planned visit to Millstone on November 19, 1992.

Public Meetine on PEP:

Following the MAP meeting, a meeting to receive public comment on the PEP was held at the East Lyme Community Center from 7:30 - 9:30 p.m. The meeting was transcribed and the transcript will be mailed to the libraries in the local area in which the PF.P was placed for public access About 35 people attended the meeting, representing the public, the State of Connecticut, local towns and NU interested employees. At the meeting, the NRC received a number of comments applicable to the PEP. The comments generally centered around NU's need to improve management practices, particularly worker concerns with management trust and improving employee morale. Several comments implied that most elements of the PEP were unnecessary; only those efforts directed at improving morale, management trust, and possibly reducing the adminisuative or work control process burdan on the workers were necessary. A number of comments were directed at the performance of the NRC, particularly the handling of employee concerns and "whistleblower" protection.

The transcript of the meeting will be reviewed in detail upon receipt and the NRC will determine the proper handling of each of the comments received (i.e., followJup inspection.

OlG referral, etc.). Overall, the meeting was a valuable input to the evaluation of the PEP, 9803030013 PDR FOIA 980226 O'NEALI97-469 PDR

/,

MAP Minutes #6 4 was reasonably well attended (although attendance was possibly limited due to the inclement weather), and was conducted in an orderly mancy.

l

] Schedale for Next MAP Meeting: l Mr. Wiggins wants the next MAP meeting to be conducted in Region I on December 14, 1992, at 11:00 a.m. Headquarters and resident office personnel may participate by phone, i

Ja es T. \Y g) gins

Enclosure:

MAP Action item List cc w/ enclosure:

T. Murley, NRR T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA W. Russell, NRR F. Miraglia, NRR J. Partlow, NRR J. Calvo, NRR G. Zech, NRR M. Davis, NRR B.11oger, NRR S. Varga, NRR W. Hodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS C. Hehl, DRP V. McCree, DEDR MAP Members and Other Meeting Attendees

Peee M. 1 l 12/11/92 (nclosure 1

  • MILLSTONE AS$ES$ MENT PANEL ACil0N litM Li$f item # #esponsible MAP Action item $wsmary (Reference) Status Panet Mentier at Wiggins MAP to determine acceptability of P(P Open (May 19,1992, letter from Murley to tills) 2 asynond Develop a list of MAP concerns with Closed Mlltstone Station performanca (MAP Minutes #1) 3 Barkley MAP to Peview P(P in detalt to determine Open whetSer it addresses MAP r *praanc e concerns and is a reas le way of ethieving the perfirmance leprovements desired (MAP chafter)

+4 Wiggins MAP to hold a pubtle meeting requesting I Closed ptAdic input on the PEP (MAP Minutes

  1. 2)
  • $ Barkley MAP to review the casuments from the Open pubtle aseting and determine what actions to *.ekt with the comments received (MAP Minutes #3) 6 Doerfteln MAP 4 develop e ilst of safety issues Open which require resolution prior to the restart of Mittstone Unit 2 (MAP Minutes #6)
  • T Wiggins Brief the Commission on PEP Open I glementation status January 1993 ,

(MAP Minutes 86) b Doerfteln NU to enplain why Its assessment Open functions fatted to identify and offactively resolve their performance dscline (April 15, 1992, letter from kttis to laylor) 9 Sartley Evaluate NU's responsive.ess tcward open prowtly resolving eglovee concerns (Allegation File Al 91 A 0239) 10 Wiggins Nec to conduct pubtle meetings with Nu open discussing PEP igtementation status (MAP Minutes #2)

  • 11 Wiggins WRC to conduct future special inspections to confirm PEP Open isptementation and effectiveness (MAP Minutes #2)

( yskSNe f cq[0, UNITED ST ATES

{

ti 48 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ft[GION 1 0, [ 47b ALLENDAJ ftOAD KING of PitVS$1A PINNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 g ' " *

  • j

DEC 181992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Millstone Assessment Panel Members FROM: James T. Wiggins, MAP Chairman

SUBJECT:

SEVENTH MAP MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 1992 The seventh Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) meeting was held in the DRP conference room fron.11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.. The attendees at the meeting were:

l Panel Mendgni:

Randolph Blough, Chief, DRP Branch 4 Lawrence Doerflein, Chief, DRP Section 4A Jacque Durr, Chief, Engineering Branch David Jaffe, Senior Project Manager, NRR John Stolz, Project Director, NRR Paut Swetland, Senior Resident inspector, Millstone (by phone)

James Wiggins, Deputy Director, DRP -

Other Attendecs:

Andra Asars, Resident inspector, Millstore

' Richard Barkley, Project Engineer, DRP Section 4A Victor McCree, Regional Coordinator, EDO Plintilitti!!S:

The meeting started with a discussion by Paul Swetland of the status of each of the Millstone Units. Currently, Unit 1 is operating at 100% power with no major operational concerns.

Unii 2 is scheduled to remain shutdown until late December for refueling and steam generator repitcement; requalitication examinations are being conducted this week at the unit. DRS will be conducting an exit meeting this week regarding their review of the July 6,1992, Loss of Normal Power Event at Unit 2, an event which identified a design deficiency and performance wealaiesses which the NRC has been reviewing since its occurrence. Finally, Unit 3 is operating -

at 100% power with no major operational problems.

t Y

e MAP Minutes #7 2 RECFNr MAP ACTIVITIES:

PEP Review Team Findings and Conclusions / Preparations for the February 9,1993 Commission Meeting:

The MAP reccid a presentation from Rich Barkley regarding the findings of the Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) Review Team, specifically their follow-up interviews with NU managers and supervisors during the week of November 30 - December 2,1992, regarding their commitment to and support for the PEP. The NU cmployees interviewed were from tne NU corporate office and from the Millstone site and ranged from John Opeka down through the organization to first-level supervisors. The 29 employees interviewed were selected entirely at random by the NRC. in addition, five managers and supervisors at Haddam Neck were interviewed by Randy Blough during a site visit on November 18, 1992.

The team found evidence of management support and buy-in to this program at all levels of NU management and supervision, although support and buy-in is most sketchy with the first-level supervisors, particularly at Haddam Neck. The overwhelming majority of those interviewed felt that the PEP was needed. However, several individuals did question whether the PEP was the complete answer since some did not feel that all elements of the program were needed and that success was very dependent on changes to individual management styles and the culture of the orgraization. The majority of those interviewec stated that the most critical element to the success of the PEP is the successful implementation of PEP Action Plan Series 1 on Management Practices. Other positive comments received regarded the benefits of additional resources and procedure improvements. Finally, while those interviewed were knowledgeable of the PEP, many of those interviewed indicated that communication of the need for and the status of the PEP program through the organization needs to improve.

On February 9,1993, the Commission is scheduled to meet with NU and the staff to discuss NU's performance since the Seabrook acquisition hearing before the Commission in June 1992.

NRR will arrange a conference call with NU in early January to discuss the agenda. We need to determine the topics NU intends to discuss at the meeting so as to avoid duplication by the NRC staff. In order to support the February 9 meeting as well as the need to support providing a package of slides to the EDO by January 30,1993, the NRC's presentation at the meeting must be completed by January 22. 1993.

[ Action Items: 1) Develop draft NRC agenda and outline for Commission meeting after conference call with NU (Stolz 1/8/93)

2) Develop and finalize NRC presentation slides (Doerflein 1/20/93)]
i i t ,

4-MAP fdiputes #7 3 Recommended Response to Comments Received at the November 5,1992 Public Meeting on the PEP / Schedule for issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the PEP:

The MAP was presented with an excerpt of the transcribed comments received from the public on the PEP during the November 5,1992, public meeting in East Lyme, CT. The recommended actions to be taken on these comments by the MAP were accepted and will be acted upon in the near future.

[ Action: Complete memos and letti- to initiate all recommended actions (Barkley 12/23/92)}

In addition, based upon the public comments received and the fm' dings of the PEP Review Team, the MAP will begin drafting the Safety Evaluation Report on the PEP in the near future. The SER should be in a draft stage at the time of the Commission meeting and completed shortly thereafter provided no significant concerns with the program are identified by then. The draft report of the PEP Review Team was also provided to the MAP members for their review and comment. That report will largely form the basis for the draft SER.

[ Action: Provide comments on draft PEP review to Rich Barkley (ALL 12/22/92)]

l 1 MAP Action : Item List / Unit 2 Restart Checklist and Start-up Coverage / Unit I kequalification Prograr" Miure:

The MAP reviewed and accepted the MAP Action item List (Enclosure 1) which was prepared following the last MAP meeting. Specific action items of interest to the MAP include the technical and performance issues which require resolution by Unit 2 prior to restart and the actions being taken by DRS to follow-up on the requalification program failures experienced at Unit 1. With regard to Unit 2, DRS'recently issued report 50-336/92-26 covering the technical' issues related to the replacement of the steam generators, in addition, NRR is continuing to

< review the work being conducted by NU to resolve concerns with stress on the reactor coolant system piping identified during the steam generator replacement. Resolution of this concern as well as NU's preliminary corrective actions in response to two Level 5 violations in the NT>E F area in the noted DRS report will be conducted prior to plant start-up. Two licensing issues also require resolution prior to Unit 2 start-up; both are on-track to be issued by that time. Also, DRS needs to affirm their satisfaction with Unit 2 MOV operability for start-up [ Action: Durr 12/23/92)]. With regard to NRC inspection coverage of that start-up, DRP has developed a plan for extensive coverage of the start-up activities with support from resident inspectors from other Region I plants, in addition, DRP requested comments on the Unit 2 restart checklist to ensure that the NRC planned review activities address all performance issues of concern at that unit.

[ Action: Review Unit 2 Restart Checklist for completeness and notify Larry Doerflein (Stolz, Durr, Pasciak 12/18/92]

t j

i

. - - - . , , ,m .

t r .

MAP Minutes #7 4 Regarding the requalification program failure at Unit I last month, DRS has an extensive review plan for reevaluating the Unit I requalification program over the next several months. Early this I month, NU presented to' the NRC their plans for correcting the deficiencies noted in this I program.

&chedule for Next MAP Meeting:

Mr. Wiggins wants the next MAP meeting to be conducted at the Millstone site with NU during the week of January 11,1993. The specific date of the meeting will be determined in the near future. Enclosure 2 provides a list of planned PEP review milestones.

f ,

l 2 ja :s T. Wigg' [

Enclosures:

1) MAP Action item List
2) PEP Review Miles, tones cc w/ enclosures:

T. Murley, NRR T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA W. Russell, NRR J. Partlow, NRR J. Calvo, NRR G. 7xch, NRR M. Davis, NRR

11. Iloger, NRR S. Varga, NRR W. Ilodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS C. Hehl, DRP V. McCree, DEDR MAP Members i

.64 Page No._ -1

.12/16/92 l

6 Enclosure 1 - Mll.LSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEt. ACTION ITEM LIST Litem # Responsible MAP Action item S e ry (Reference) Status Panel Mend)er 1 Wiggins. MAP to determine acceptability-of PEP Open (May 19, 1992, letter from Murley to Ellis) 2 Raymond Develop a list of MAP concerns with Closed Millstone Station performance (MAP Minutes #1) 3 Barkley -MAP to Review PEP in detail to determine Open whether it addresses MAP performance concerns and is a reasonable way of achieving the performance improvements desired (MAP charter)

Wiggins MAP to hold a p 4 tic meeting requesting Closed tle input on the PEP (MAP Minutes

-5 Barkley MAP to review the comments from the Closed public meeting and determine what actions to take with the coments ,

received (MAP Minutes #3) 6 Doerflein MAP to develap a list of safety issues Closed-which require resolution prior to the restart of Mittstone Unit 2 (MAP Minutes #6)

+7. Wiggins Brief.the Comission on PEP Open implementation status - February 1993 (MAP Minutes #6) 8 Doerflein NU to explain why its assessment Open functions failed to identify and

-effeetively resolve their performance decline. ( ril 15, 1992, letter from Ellis to Ta tor)

-9 Barkley Evaluate NU's responsiveness toward Open-

, promptly resolving enployee concerns (Allegation File RI-91-A-0239)

--10 Wiggins NRC to conduct public meetings with NU Open discussing PEP implementation status (MAP Minutes #2)

-11 . Wiggins WRC to conduct future special Open inspections te confirm PEP implementation and effectiveness (MAP -

Minutes #2)

-12 Stolz NRR to arrar.ge and coordinate the Open presentation of the NRC staff and NU before the Comission in February 1993

-13 Doerflein incorporate MAP members coments on the Open Unit 2 restart checklist

-14 Barktcy Draf t the SER on the PEP in coordination open with the Dave Jaffe

  • P PEP REVIEW MILESTONES - December 18, 1992 e Preliminary meeting between the PEP review team leader (Barkley) ' and NU PEP manager (Laudenat) -

August 6, 1992

  • PEP Review. Team plan issued -

August 26, 1992 l e Request comments from the state and local communities on-the PEP - September 17, 1992

  • Initial on-site review of PEP root cause assessment and completeness as well as comparison to the MAP issues list -

September 21-25, 1992 e Completion of PEP review effort onsite (i.e. review of verification and validation effort) - October 26-30, 1992 e Public meeting to receive comments on the PEP -

November 5, 1992

  • Follow-up PEP review interviews regarding management commitment to PEP - November 30 -

December 2, 1992 e Draft FEP review report in concurrence - December 14, 1992 e Response to public meeting comments - December 18, 1992 e Final PEP review report issuance; Formal recommendation by PEP review team to MAP to accept /not'. accept the PEP effort -

January 14, 1992 Public meeting with NU to discuss the MAP's findings on the PEP -

January 14, 1993 g e c Commission meeting on the PEP -

February 9, 1993 j e

February 26, 1993 7 b' e Safety Evaluation Report on PEP issued - -

r e Follow-up inspections of PEP implementation -

J'uly 1993 e Public meeting with NU 'regarding MAP' activities and findings to date - September 1993 e Complet. ion of MAP activities -

December 1993 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0 n

o NRC Review of NU Performance at Millstone Indicated a Performance Decline in 1990-1991:

~

e Numerous Enforcement Actions h, 1990-1992

  • SALP 89-99 and 90-99

. t.

  • Northeast Utilities Conducted Four Self-Assessments in 1991:

?,

I

  • Nuclear Division Performance
  • Allegations Root Cause

_ _* _ _ _ Operability, Reportability and Communications

  • Procedure Compliance E

Y

  • NU Developed a Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) in the Spring of 1992 Based on:
  • Recommendations of the Four Task Forces i
  • Recommendations from NU Management
  • Other Information Derived from their Managers / Employees by NU Consultants 2

J11

  • PEP Submitted to the NRC in June 1992

!.9 a

r. - ,.
  • NRC Regional Administrator, in Consultation with EDO and NRR, Established the Millstone Ament Panel (MAP) in May 1992 to:

Ly; Y

  • Review the PEP and Assure it Addresses Problems / Weaknesses Identified by NRC Program

~

Activities

~

  • Maintain an Ongoing Overview of NU Performance During PEP Implementation Activities

~

  • Condsrci Feriodic~' Meetings with--NU to Discuss -P. egress -on -Implementing the -PEP-and Addressing NRC Concerns j
  • Provide Oversight of the NRC's PEP Follow-up Activities and Recommend Additional

' Inspections as Necessary

[

id

$s

-

  • Periodically Provide Relevant MAP Assessment of NU Performance Trends to NRC Management l;
  • The MAP is Composed of Representatives of all Three Technical Divisions of Region I NRR Projects and the Millstone Senior Resident inspector lit 9

2

- e

o MAP Membership:

  • Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects - Chairman 2
e. Director, NRR Projects Directorate I-4 - Vice Chairman L6
  • Chief, DRP Branch 4 y
  • Chief, Engineering Branch, Division of Reactor Safety

( Chief, Facilities Radiation' Protection Section, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

  • Chief, DRP Section 4A
  • Millstone Senior Project Manager J-
  • Millstone Senior Resident Inspector g

%

  • Initial Activities:

l

  • Meetings Conducted Approximately Once/ Month (Met with NU in a Public Forum on July 20, a 1992, at the Millstone Site) - Meeting Minutes Widely Distributed 12 II
  • Conducted a Public Meeting Near the Millstone Site on November 5,1992 g
  • Designated an NRC Team to Systematically Review the PEP H.,

- ~ - - - .- -

y l

  • The AIAP Designated a Team of Five NMC Technical Persor.nel to Review the PEP in Detail during September - November 1992 to:
  • Understand NU's Plans for PEP Implementation
  • Determine Whether the PEP Appears to Characterize the Underlying Causes for the .

Performane Decline at Millstone

(

  • Determine if the PEP Addresses the 23 Performance Issues Formally Identified by the MAP
  • Determine Whether the PEP Action Plans Appear to be Reasonable Ways of Obtaining the Performance Improvements Desired A

2

  • Evaluate NIPS Initial Progress in Implementing the PEP G

'.a:

I

  • Evaluate NU's Approach is for Providing Management Oversight of PEP Implementation as well y as Verifying and Validating the PEP Actions Plans have been Successfully Implemented and Performance Improvement is Obtained A

l

  • The Team.was Composed of Resident and Specialist Inspectors from Region I and the NRR Project Manager and led by a Region I Project Engineer Assigned to Oserseeing NU's Nuclear Facilities Ti d -

a The Team's Review Found:

j

  • PEP Addresses the Known Underlying Performance Deficiencies at NU J
  • PEP Addresses many of the 23 Specific Performance Concerns Identified by the MAP
  • Those MAP Concerns not Addressed in the PEP are Appropriately IIandled Through Alternate

_ Existing Corrective Action Programs

  • PEP Appears Well Supported (i.e. Money, StalTing, Management Support), and "rogressing at Nearly the Rate Planned, Although the Team Noted that the PEP is a Long-Term Program (i.e.

j 3-5 years)

Ta S

  • I'EP Action Plans Appear to be Plausible Ways of Achiev:ng the Performance Enhancements 1 Desired. Although Evidence of Performance Irrprovement did not Exist and Will Probably not

.g- be Visible Before the Summer of 1993

$

  • NU's Plans- for Verifying and Validating how the t'.ction Plans were Implemented is Comprehensive; flowever, the Validation Process for the PEP Remains Unused to Date and the Development of Validation Criteria is not Well Understood 3

x 2

EUMBM e The Team Found Through Interviews and Surveys that:

4

  • Additional Communication to the Work Force and First-Level Supervisers Regarding the Need 2

for and Activities and Successes of the PEP Needs to be Undertaken

=

  • Skepticism Regarding the E!Tectiveness of the PEP Exists with many in the Work Force and some First-Level Supervisors, Particularly with the Ability of NU Management to Change Management Practices and Cuganizational Culture . _ _ _ __. __ ._
  • Full Effectivenesr. of the PEP Remains Dependent Upon the Ability of NU Management to y Encourage and Effect Many of the Perforrnance Improvements Desired Versus Just Committing Additional Resources to their Nuclear Division 4

0

!d I

b i

  • The MAP Provided Oversight of the Team snd Revi wed and Endorsed the Team's Findings

_1 it

-l

  • The MAP Conducted a Public Meeting on 11/5 near the Millstone site to Receive Comments on the

. PEP 3

  • The Comrnents Received Regarding the PEP (Received Mostly From Current and Former NU Employees'. Can be Categorized as Follows:-

1

  • The Key to Performance Improvement was for NU Management to Improve Employee

_ _ __. Morale as well as _ Restore Trust in Management

  • Most Elements of the PEP were Unnecessary and Represented an Enormous Paper 3 Exercise ,

1 2

5

  • Management Needed to Take EITorts to Reduce the Paperwork Burden on the Worker l/

h l

-!

  • The NRC is Taking Actions to Address Each of These Comments. Although Some of These Performance Concerns are Already Addressed in the PEP b
  • Summary of Sta: " MAP Evaluation of the PEP

~

  • MAP Review of the PEP Program is Complete Y
  • MAP Finds the Program Acceptable 4

'?

  • MAP Will Continue to Look far Continued Evidence of Suong Management Commitment to the Program
  • MAP Notes That NU Manngement Needs to Better Communicate the Need for ar.d Benefits of This Program to its Work Force and First-I2 vel Supervisors 3v 2
  • MAP Remains Concerned About the Lack of Progress on Validation Criteria, Altiw> ugh j Progress is Expected With Time i=

I T C.. m the PEP by the End of February MAP Expects to Issue a Safety Evaluation Repor

~

h

  • MAP Plans to Continue to Monitor NU Performance and Recommend Additional NRC j Inspections, as Warranted, Through Most of 1993 7;

2

i 4

1

< TRANSACTION REPORT >

12-21-1992(t10tJ) 13154 L RtHC t21 Yt3 3 P JO , DATE T ltit DESTIfJATICtJ STATIOt4 PO. DURATIOrd t10DE RESULT 6666 12-21 13142 215 337 536B 9 0'11'12" tJORt1Al. OK 9 0'11'12'

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203G549&oldid=3331520"