ML20211F282

Forwards Slides Used During Presentation at 970924 Meeting at Millstone Plant as Result of Oversight Activities

ML20211F282
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/25/1997
From:	Beck J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Goebel D NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO.
References
ITPOP-97-0035, ITPOP-97-35, NUDOCS 9710010002
Download: ML20211F282 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ -.

Little Harbor Consultants Inc.

i Milletone - ITPOP Project Omce i

P.O. Box 0630 Niantic, Connecticut 06357-0630 Telephone N60-4471791, est 5966 Faz 860-444 5758 r

September 25,1997 ITPOP 97 0035 l

David M. Goebel

]

Vice President - Nuclear Oversight Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385-0128 3

SUBJECT:

September 24,1997 Little Harbor Consultants Presentation Little 11 arbor Consultants, Inc. (LHC) presented fmdings and recommendations, developed as a result ofits oversight activities, to Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at a meeting on September 24,1997. The meeting was held in the Millstone simulator building and was open for observation by the public. This letter forwards the slides used during the presentation.

Very truly yours, t' t _ M.

John W. Beck President, LilC

/

Team Leader, ITPOP Attachment f

cc: Distribution 4

9710010002 970925 PDR ADOCK 05000245-l llllllll,l lll lj P

PDR SC0200

.,.,_...y. _....,

m,,

David M, Goebel Page 2, ITPOP 97-0035 Distribution:

P. Lofhis, NNECo Charles Brinkman, hianager as ngton Wclear Operadons K. hi. hicBrien, NNECo ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power W. J. Temple, NNEco 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy, Suite 330 c

e, MD 20852 S. Baranski, NNECo hi. Quinn, ECOP hit. John Buckingham Departinent of Public Utility Control U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Unit Attn: Document Control Desk 10 Liberty Square Washington, DC 20555 New Britain, CT 06051 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Citizens Regulatory Commission Attn: W.D. Travers A1TN: his. Susan Perry Luxton hiail Stop: 014D4 180 Great Neck Road Washington, DC 20$M4KKil Waterford, CT 06385 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Citizens Awareness Network Attn: P.F. hicKee

$4 Old Turnpike Road j

hiail Stop: 014D4 Iladdam, CT 06438 Washington, DC 20iS54K)01 The lionorable Tem Concannon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Energy advisory Council Attn: 11 N. Pastis Legislative Omec Building hiail Stop: 014D4 llanford, CT 06106 Washington, DC 2055541001 hit. Evan W. Woollacott htr. Wayne D. Lanning Co-Chair Deputy Director ofInspections Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Special Projects Omcc 128 Terry's Plain Road 475 Allendale Road Simsbury, CT 06070 King of Prussia, PA 19406 1415 Ernest C. Iladley, Esquire Kesin T, A. hicCarthy, Director 1040 B hiain Street hionitoring and Radiation Division P.O. Box $49 Depr.rtment of Emironmental Protection West Wareham, htA 02576 79 Elm Street flattford, CT 06106 5127 hit. Paul Choiniere "The Day" Allan Johanson, Assistant Director 47 Eugene O'Neill Drive Ofnce of Policy and hianagement New London, CT 06320 Policy Development and Planning Division

,50 Capitol Avenue-hts 52ERN Bob DeFayette P.O. Box 341441 100 Kings Street Hartford, CT 061341441 Gettysburg. PA 17325 First Selectmen Don Beckman Town of Waterford 1071 State, Route 136 11all of Records Belle Vernon, PA 15012 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, CT 06385 W

l ROLES FOR SITE'S CORRECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF MILLSTONE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP)

CORRECTIVE ACTION

. pe,nie Reso,ui,o,o,,esnnasiang PROGRAM ProerammatN issues Araine from Empioyee Concerne Little Haftsof Consultants

• R*Pretores one Cornerstone of a Safety Consc60ue Work Environment I

NRC&NNECO safety.conoclous environment. [the CAP) vdll September 24.1997 be used to capture and track to successful rcoolution the veet mejority of concerns..."

-.--.u.

l l

l LHC ASSESSED EFFECTIVENESS LHC'S EXPECTATIONS FOR OF MILLSTONE'S CAP MILLSTONE'S CAP

• Reviewed Program Definition Documents

• Progtam Meets Regulatory Requuemente and Incorporates industry Emperience and Deet C boerved Program Activales Practicee a

Assested Program tmp6ementation by implementing Proceduro{s) Are " User 4rlendly" e

Rev6 ewing Samplee of Condition Reports Managementis Aware of and Adequately Evaluated ENectivenese of CAP in Resolving involved in CAP identWied Problems identifled Problems Are Processed to Closure Aseested Effectiveness of Nuclear oversight Effectively. in a Timely Manner, and Result in Assesaments and SeN4ssessments of CAP No Recurrence of Significant Conditions

..,-u.

ACTIVITIES COMPLETED DURING ACTIVITIES COMPLETED DURING LHC REVIEW OF CAP LHC REVIEW OF CAP. Cont'd

• Reviewed Procedure RP4 Reviewed Selected CRs for investigat6on of

• Observed Units' Mutti 06scipline Review Teams Condit6on and Development of Corrective and Daily Management Review of CRs Actions Revtewed Limited Set of CR4 for interviewed Key Personnelinvolved in CAP e

implementation implementation of Correctut Actions Reviewed Nuclear Oversight and Unit 3 Self.

Rev6ewed Selected Condet6on Reports (CRs) for Classif6ci+6on of Significance Assesament Reports Reviewed Quarterly Tiending Reports

. = > -

.--.w.

e CONCLUSIONS:

CONCLUSIONS: MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEFINITION INVOLVEMENT IN CAP Procedure RP4,* Corrective Action Program"

' Management Has Adequate involvement in CAP Meets Regdatory Requirements and Prom inM6ation Through the Definition of incorporates industry Esperience and Best Corrective Attlon Phase Practices

, UnN Corrective Action Department Management RP4 le Clearly Written and Understandab6e is Motivated, Underetends the Needs of the but Short on Esemples and *How to" Detall Program, and is Working Hard to Provide Strong RP4 Can be Effectively implemented by Progtam Leadersh6p Personnel with Reasonaise Esperience

= =.

CONCLUSIONS: MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS:

INVOLVEMENT IN CAP PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The Program Doea Not Provide Tools to Suppon Conclusions Renardina Prontam Timely and Effective Management of Correceve Ifnolementation Focus on Four Phases Action implementation

. CR Initiation and Classifice00n Line Menagement Ownershipin Achieving

, inveettgat6on and Cause Evaluation Closure of Corrective Actions is not Evident

• Corrective Act6on DefinMion

• Corrective Actionimplemerdat6on

.w

.---u.

.-=

m..-..u.

CONCLUSlONS:

CONCLUSIONS:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, Cont'd CR initiation er d Classification investination and Cause Evaluation Sits Personnel Are Awere of the CAP and Are investigations to Determ6ne Nature of Condition e

a Generally initiatirg CRs When Appropriate and Surtoundleg Facte Are Adequate Classincation As Ettle Level t or 2 is Solng

• Most Root Cause Evaluations Are Adequate Performed to Program Requirements

• Justification for the Walver of Root Cause interfaces WRh Other Problem Reporting Evaluations for Laval1 CRs is Not Always e

Evident Processes Are Not Fully Defined or ControHed

• Root Caust Evaluations Vary in Quatety, Level of Detail av 4 Poport Format

.aw

.vu = wn.

u

.=w

..u m mu.

n 2

c CONCLUSIONS:

CONCLUSIONS:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, cont'd PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, cont'd Corrective Action Definition investlantion and Cause Evaluation Requirement to Address Each Cause Code for a

Observed Cause Evaluation Weaknesses include:

Level 2 CRs can Lead to Too Many Actions Stopp Cause Evaluation at Too High a Level Tendencyto Addieas AllContributoryCausea for Leveli CRs Sometimes Dilutes Pocus on

• Root Causes Too Generally Worded to Lead to Root Cause Focused Corrective Act6ons Requirement to Complete CA Definition in 80 a

Reluctance to Addre es individual Performance Days Can Se Too Restrictive for Broad e

As a Cause Progta_mmatic Problems

.m.-

n-.....

CONCLUSIONS:

CONCLUO!ONS:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, Cont'd PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, cont'd Overall Conclusion Renard6na C AP Corfective Action Definition i

n au n r ud CwecWe implementation of Corrective Actions is Not Action Definition Phase e

Being Priorttlaed Effectively s

Millstone's CAP is Being implemented e

Corrective Action Astl9nments Are Distributed suffielently Wellto Assure That Adverse Without a copy of the CR That Would Provide Conditions Are identified, Associated Causal Conteat for implementation Factors Are Determined, and Reasonable Corrective Actions Are identified That,if implemented, Would Mitigate the Condition seeme.m ner b

e enec as enst.

at e,imes., se n m,u we mesu u

CONCLUSIONS:

CONCLUSIONS:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, Cont'd PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, cont'd Corrective Act6on implementation Corrective Action Implementation

• Lack of AccountabilityforindividualCRs

• There Has Been insufficient Progress in Impedes Effective Corrective Action implementation of Corrective Actionsto implementation Permit Measurement of the Effectivenese of the CAP

• Significant Problems Recur because Prior Corrective Actions Have Not Yet Deen implemented

• Numerous Due Datea for Corrective Action Jmplemer *.ation Have Been Estended This Year 8,===mee www w naar.

n n

.,w,

.c, 3

e r

s CONCLUSIONS:

CONCLUSIONS:

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Cont'd OVERSIGHT AND SELF. ASSESSMENT Nuclear Oversight Assessments and sew.

• Querf erty Trend Reports Are improving in asussments Are 96 coming Effective in ident fying SignW6cs.it Trends and Generating identifying Relevant CAP Performance issues i

Several Buch Aseesaments Have Been

• Correcllve Act6on Department Managementis Performed Recently; Corrective Actions Prom Becoming Assertive in Using Trend Reports to These Assessments Are StillSelng Defined Gain 14anagement Artention

• It is NM Yet Ev6 dent That Review of Level 2 CRs R eutts in the identrication of Trends 3

.mim n

..w w esc.

. m i,

.,, w m,,

LHC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LHC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM Provide increased Management Attent6on to Establish Pilorlties for Level 1 CR Actions implementation of Corrective Actions for Level That Reflect the Urgency of Avoiding 1 CRs; improve Monitoring of fmplementation Recurrence and Ensure Adequate Interim Efforts and of Corrective Action Effectiveness Act6one Coord6nate Actions on CRs That Have Common Provide en Accountable "CR Owner" for the Causes (And Prov6de improved Analytical implementation Phase of Each Leveli CR; Capability for identifying Such Causes)

Establish and Communicate Espectations for

• CR Owners" e.

.mse n

.wu w me.

m a i, n

.nu

..c.

LHC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LHC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM

• Modify Program Guidance To:

Increase Management Attention to Resolution

-Limit the Number of Corrective Actions for of Overs 6ght and Self assesament Find 6ngs Level 2 CRs (Avoid a "Fla" for Every cause)

Prov6de Adequate CR Content information to

.LimM the Number of Corrective Actions for PersonnelWho Are Given Corrective Action Level 1 CRs to Significant Causal Factors Ass 6gnments

.Justry Walvers of Root Cause Evaluations

- Do Not Permit 80 Day investigation Requirement to impact the Quality of Signihcant is.vestigatlons e.

.mie p

.su unac.

m e,

mie

.sw w.se.

m 1

4 4

4

d e

LHC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLEGATIONS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM RETAllATION AND POTENTIAL Provide improved Root Cause inve stigeison CHILLING EFFECT WITHIN THE

.nd Presentation ouidance MILLSTONE MOV DEPARTMENT

. Ensure Root Cause(s) Are Stated With Adequate Spectncity Little Harbor consultants

. Push Cause Determination to the Presentation to Appropriate Level NRC & NNECO

. Addres s indiv6 dual Performanc e is sues September 24,1997

.-.. -.s c.

p

-..w.

LHC REPORTS CHILLING EFFECT INVESilGATION LHC Determined That There Was a Invest 6gation into Potential *Chillmg Eff ecta with6n the MoV Department. August 25.1997 Bubstantial" Chilling Effect"Within the Report on Alleged Retahat6on in the MoV MOV Department As a Result of the Program - September 12.1997 Terminations of Two contract Asseesment of NNECo's Response to Employees Allegations of Retal6ation and Potential

" Chilling Effect" Within the MOV Department -

September 22,1997 s,

.. ie n

.m m use.

e

.. m em

.m m mic.

=

ASSESSMENT OF NNECo RETAllATION REPORT

RESPONSE

LHC Concluded That the Terminat6ons of the

• NNEco Took Appeopriate and Timely Action in Two contractore Asaigned to the MOV Response to the Allegations Department and the Demotion of a NU

• Senior NNEco Management D64 Not identify Engineer Wore Motivated by Retattation for Management Problems in the MOV Engaging in Legally Protected Activitaes Department in Time to Prevent the Demotions The LHC Report Conclusions Were the Same and Terminations a

As the Conclusions of the investigation

• Senior NNEco Management Was Slow in Performed by the ECP Recogniz6ng and Respond 6ng to ind6 cations of Retaliat6on and

• Chilling Effect" s,

. m seri n

.= man.

y a,-. m se m

.m w wee.

m i

5

e ASSESSMENT OF NNECo ASSESSMENT

RESPONSE

RECOMMENDATIONS 1,

nine rse au s.pwv e,. suna... end s.una

• The Performance of the ECP nonseement Uw Mov twent *' La**ne Leemed f ro'ame Organlaation During the Entire Event Wes Very Good Awe' ens Duner.'a ' 0'Pa**a

• Provide 8***6 *h E"P'b

• NNEco Actions Have Been Effective in contan w tne Asiens w an we Mov o, up Mitigating the " Chilling Effect" Within

• • • • • " Ca**ams A**ua 0

'******"**"**"8 the MOV Department 8"*"e*nsm'en's'a**re"n'de the Prowstion a'necipai.d on e

to. Aeoens w anovre we temos or tamannen ser a

coves toute see vie twe centromer.

........t.

~.. - - - -.

=

l EMPLOYEE CONCERNS BASED ON VERY LIMITED REVIEW, PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON UPDATE ECP PROGRAM AND CASE FILE Little Hartior Consultants REVIEW ARE OPTIMISTIC Presentauon to NftC & NNECo september 24. un

....u.

=

ECP PROGRAM ECP PROGRAM, CONT.

treintng f Qaidcouen Requirements Have Deen

. gCP Recoentred and Responded Approp8tately to MoV e

Developed incident Morale is improvmg ECP Derector Mae PoortvWy Responded to Contractof

. ECP Derectet is More Avettabie Ouedance and Support and in Secomms.Aare Proaceve AddmonW Resources Preytded en Employu Concern issues

%ce President of ovws'0 tit Connnues to Demonstrae e

Manual Adherence Waproving Less than twed vianup and Support W ECP ECP Montney Report Has improved Program ECP and HR Have Devotoped D6alogue

= - -

ab.. te,'

esBM eustce 6,.e.e.18M

^

to SBC.m. Eftc.

M 6

=-

.o

o 4

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CASE FILE REVIEW 4

EFFECT VENESS LHC Pretaminary Review of Closed Action

• 06d* P6te Action Plan Appeare Adequate hems Does Not Demonstrate Adequate New P46es Comply With Program Manuar ENecWeess Measures New Piles Appear To Address Generic

]

No Scheduled SeN4ssessment on Deficiencies

• Comprehensive Plan Effectiveness l

l e voyt.m m..

l

...a

_..a.

t i

1 d

l

.i VERIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT-l ACTIVITIES PLANNED i

. menee.merd s+pwt ene aemw.en ano.i..ie cumne ennr ew oman.ii n aneensne a

. c.m n.

. neme se.a.e-cit esn atw sca c ncenen ens.w. te,se,we me nave u e tcp prestem

n. view acuen tan.n in anoenu i. As anu. n.sw l

Retemmetidel no cancia. naanmien me ww inw.usmiens n m.enuevenne se ser seusuisme.s tweecen astlant n m.c.ners.csin pianimes.memmion ene goneunen

... m i.c d-

..w

=u.

4 4

3 1

4 k

4 4

)

i i

a I

1 4

i 7

1 I

4 e

.,~,...-,-,

_v,.__.,

_-,_._m._.,__.m,.,,,

_.. _., _ _. _, _.., - ~ __ _ m

.,_...~m