ML20247G240
| ML20247G240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1988 |
| From: | Segrest A DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247G237 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909190004 | |
| Download: ML20247G240 (61) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _.
4
=
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT DUKEENGINEERING
& SERVICES, INC.
pa"1888e Ba88)}g7
i
,y i
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INDEPENDENT NUCLEAR ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT l
PROJECT MANAGER A. M. Segrest
' / du6e'3pf 1988 DUKEENGINEERING
& SERVICES INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE
- 1. 0 INTRODMCT108 1-1 2.0 EXECUIIVE
SUMMARY
2-1 2.1 PURPOSE 2-1 2.2 OBSERVATIONS 2-1 2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-2 3.0
)LANT AND PROJECT ENGIb EE RING SECTION -
3-1 QBSERVATI0ld AN)R ECOMN E 4]ATIONS 3.1 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING UNITS 3-1 3.2 PROJECT ENGINEERING UNIT 3-4 3.3 COMPONENT ENGINEERING UNIT 3-8 4.0 DESIGN ENGINEERING SECTIO 4 -
4-1 4
03SE RVATIONS A4D RECOMMEN)ATIONS 4.1 FUNCTIONS 4-1 4.2 INTERFACES 4-4 4.3 EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING 4-6 4.4 WORKFORCE AND WORKLOAD 4-7 4.5 SCHEDULE 4-8 4.6 PRIORITIES 4-9 4.7 WORK LOCATION 4-10 5.0 TECHNICAL SERVICES ENGINEERING SECTION -
5-1
)
0 35ERVAT ONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 FUEL CYCLE MANAGEMENT UNIT 5-1 5.2 LICENSING UNIT 5-2 l
- 5. 3 ANALYTICAL SUPPORT UNIT 5-4
)
5.4 PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING UNIT 5-5 l
9 s..
i SECTION PAGE
- 6. 0 4JC EAR E diTNE E tI di SEP/I:ES
)EPARTMENT -
6-1 i] 35 ERVATI'3 45 A d.) l ECOMb EN)ATII3 tS 15. 1 CAREER PATH 6-1 6.2
. PROCUREMENT 6-2 SCH'DULE 6.3 E
6-2 6.4 PRIORITIES 6-3 6.5 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTRATION 6 6.6
- INTERFACES 6-4 6.7 MEETINGS 6-5 6.8 CORPORATE GOALS 6-6 7.0 ACTION PLANS 7-1 7.1 SHORT-TERM ITEMS 7-1
- 7. 2 LONG-TERM ITEMS 7-2 ATTACHMENT 1 PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED 1A ATTACHMENT 2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 2A ATTACHMENT 3 NESD'dRGANIZATIONALCHARTS 3A
--_m-___-_m-__m___a_.-m_o__-
1.0 23@ETl2i Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E), the _ owner and operator of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, has consolidated its nuclear plant operations and engineering organizations and located them at the plant.
BG&E contracted with Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
(Duke) to conduct an assessment of the Nuclear Engineering Services Department (NESD).
The objective of the assess-ment was to observe and evaluate the responsibilities, organizational struc-ture, staffing, work processes, and current practices of NESD.
The ensuing recommendations will help the engineering organizations achieve their full potential.
The scope of work included assigning a team of Duke engineers to conduct personnel interviews and gather necessary information at the Calvert Cliffs Plant.
The personnel interviews began on March 7,1988, and were concluded on March 24, 1988.
Approximately 62 interviews were conducted, including personnel from Plant and Project Engineering, Design Engineering, Technical Services Engineering, and several individuals from major interfacing groups outside of NESD.
A list of the personnel interviewed is provided in.
During the assessment process, the following areas of the NESD operations were studied:
Functional Responsibilities review of perceived and actual responsibilities Organizational Structure review of structure as related to work and responsibility processes Staffing - analysis of incumbent and projected complement of personnel Work Processes - review of work responsibilities and account-abilities including plant modifications, new design, work scheduling, licensing activities, etc.
Current Practices of NESD, including:
Handling of high priority and unplanned work Management of Architect / Engineers Interfaces both within and outside of NESD Computer applications and needs Training Career paths 1-1
q j
\\
This. assessment. report includes observations and recommendations along with a short term action plan (less-than 6 months) ar.d a long-term action plan (more than 6 months).
The recommendations provided have been discussed-. in detail l
within the assessment team and! have been reviewea by the management of Duke Engineering and Services, Inc, j
l I.
1-2
- 2. 0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 PURPOSE Under contract to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, a team of eight experienced engineers from Duke Engineering and Services, Inc. and Duke Power Company's Design Engineering, Nuclear Production, and Construction and Maintenance Departments performed a review and evaluation of the Nuclear Engineering. Services Department (NESD).
The assessment at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant NESD offices included a review of the organizational structure, functional responsibilities, and current practices within NESD.
Personnel interviews were ccnducted within NESD and interface groups as appropriate to gather information for the assessment.
Excellent cooperation and support were provided by all personnel of the NESD organization.
Pro-cedures, organizational charts, job descriptions, purpose and function state-ments, and other pertinent documents were provided for background information prior to the on-site review.
- 2. 2 OBSERVATIONS NESD has recently experienced some adversities that are typical to any young organization.
Overall, experience at the working level is low to moderate.
At the supervisory level and above, the experience level is good to excellent and provides a solid foundation for further improvement.
The career path for the working level engineers does not appear to allow for adequate anticipated advancement in the technical areas.
Technical training was frequently men-tioned as being inadequate.
This previous shortage of technical and orien-tation training, combined with the lower experience level of the working engi-neers, fosters the impression by the Operations and Maintenance Departments that NESD is inexperienced and unresponsive.
Weaknesses in training have been recognized hv management, and development of a 3-month training program for
@ tem Engineers is underway.
This will be the basis for developing other training programs for engineering and plant technical groups.
Scheduling and meeting those schedules has been a major concern within NESD, particularly in Design Engineering.
In some instances priorities are not well understood by all individuals and groups; therefore, accountabilities for scheduled items are not always accepted.
Unscheduled work (such as " fly-up")
is generally handled quite satisfactorily; however, this work prevents the nor-mal activities from being completed on time and interferes with meeting sche-dules.
Schedules and priorities can be changed by many individuals without full consideration of the impact the change will have on others.
The tools for a completely integrated schedule process are missing.
These tools and methods, which are now 'being developed, include an Engineering Planning Unit and classroom training for all key Nuclear Engineering Division (NED) individuals involved in the modification process.
The workforce and workload concerns within NESD vary from work unit to work unit.
Some are adequately staffed for the workload presently assigned to them while others require excessive overtime to keep up with only the high priority items.
An evaluation of the amount of work retained in-house or contracted to architect-engineers (A/Es) is necessary and is in progress.
l l
2-1
J l
The work responsibilities within NESD are r;ot equally balanced with the avail-able workforce of each unit.
System Engineers are responsible for more work than they can manage.
With the Facility Change Request (FCR) process assigned i
to the System Engineers, they are prevented from spending the time necessary to become familiar with the systems and build important interfaces with Opera-tions and Maintenance personnel.
Staffing the Plant and Project Engineering Section to the approved complement and transferring many modifications to the Project - Engineering Unit will balance the workload.
In Design Engineering,
" fly-up" work responsibilities are not consistently assigned to particular individual contacts; therefore, it tends to disrupt some units.
However, this
{
situation is being improved by directing requests for assistance through super-vision for screening and assignment to specific individuals.
The lack of consistent interfacing within NESD, within BG&E, and with A/Es has caused problems for all units of NESD.
The perception that some groups within NESD are too busy or lack the necessary knowledge has frequently pre-vented the interface that could have been very helpful from taking place.
I Participating in quality meetings goes hand-in-hand with interfacing.
Many senior individuals stated that much of the typical day is spent in. meetings, some of which are routine and not necessarily productive.
Additionally, this time spent in meetings reduces the time available to provide guidance to the less experienced personnel.
A proper work location enhances good interfacing and team building, while being a key factor to productivity.
When the System Engineers were moved outside of the protected area, Operations and Maintenance personnel perceived thi's as a tremendous loss in their working relationship.
However, a detailed plan to move all System and Project Engineers inside the fence is being developed.
This should improve and reestablish the interface between the groups.
2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The success of any organization is highly dependent upon having capable, moti-vated personnel working together with clear direction and understanding of a common purpose.
The personnel of NESD demonstrate a high dcgree of dedication and put forth an extra effort to accomplish assigned tasks.
More technical and job-specific training should be provided to build the confidence of many in this young organization.
System Engineers without prior power plant experience should participate in a field training program that introduces them to the systems and the plant personnel.
The more experienced senior personnel l
should be available as much as possible to provide guidance to the inexperi-l enced personnel.
Experience can only be built with time; therefore, considera-i tion should be given to adding more steps of progression to the engineer level i
to encourage personnel to stay at the working level longer.
The NESD workforce is dependent on the amount of work upper management decides to perform in-house.
Even at the present workload level, additional personnel are needed to alle-viate the overtime situation, l
2-2 1
A single integrated schedule is necessary to eliminate conflicting schedules and priorities for NESD units.
The proposed Engineering Planning Unit in the i
Plant and Project Engineering Section appears to be the most logical organi-zation for performing this task.
Schedules should be agreed upon and developed by all parties with the requirement that all changes must pass through the Engineering Planning Unit.
These schedules and priorities should be monitored I
and should produce individual and departmental accountabilities that directly relate to the corporate goals.
For unscheduled items such as " fly-up" work, a list of initial contacts should be generated and distributed to all necessary plant personnel to reduce the frequent interruptions of personnel working on scheduled items.
The work responsibilities of each unit must be clearly defined and equally J
distributed throughout the department.
It is recommended that the System Engineers turn all responsibilities for the FCR process over to the Projects Engineering Unit.
The transfer appears to already be in progress.
This action will alleviate some concerns related to the workload of System Engi-neers while assigning the FCR process to a group with experience at managing multifunction work.
Design Engineering should develop a procedure for over-seeing work sent.to A/Es which should insure that the A/E will receive all pertinent information needed and that the deliverables returned are as requested.
The importance of good interfacing should be emphasized, along with training of personnel in participation in effective meetings.
Interface meetings should be held as necessary to build and maintain strong relationships between the depart-ments.
All meetings, including those. that are routine, should have a clearly defined purpose, agenda and schedule, and only include the necessary personnel.
The present plan to return the Plant and Project Engineering Section to offices inside the protected area for a closer interface with Operations and Mainte-nance should be implemented as soon as possible.
Other work locations, includ-ing Design Engineering at Calvert Cliffs, appear to be appropriate.
2-3 l
-3.0 3.1 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING UNITS 3.1.1 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES l
Restructuring the Calvert Cliffs engineering organization and establishing the
]
System Engineer concept have been well received througt.out the Nuclear j
Engineering Services Department (NESD).
Even though the job description of the System Engineer is well defined, it does not fully reflect all the actual daily activities of these individuals.
The System Engineers see themselves primarily as a response organization, one designed to provide engineering assistance in resolving maintenance and operational problems.
This is also how other groups within NESD perceive them.
System Engineers set their own priorities and respond to problems which appear to be the most important at the time.
Con-sequently, there is little time remaining for the System Engineers to be involved in other duties which are assigned to them.
There is insufficient time' for systems familiarization or for monitoring system performance charac-teristics and changes.
While System Engineers like the idea that they "own" a particular set of systems, they feel that they are too involved with daily
" fire fighting" to devote the time that is necessary to be a true System Engineer.
Administration of the Facility Change Request (FCR) program is a responsibility of the System Engineers that is greatly misunderstood.
Some of the. more
-experienced personnel have prepared FCRs for the implementation of modifica-tions, while some other engineers are not familiar with the program, and few know the complete flow path that an FCR must follow after origination.
Since there is no engineering support group within the Maintenance Department, personnel from the Systems Engineering Unit must provide this function.
Engineering support of maintenance and operational problems within the plant should be recognized as a substantial and vital part of the System Engineer concept; however, other responsibilities such as FCR preparation and Licensee Event Report (LER) response could be reduced to provide the System Engineers an opportunity to become intimately familiar with their assigned systems.
Recommendations:
~
Remove responsibility for coordinating the design, planning and construction phases of FCRs from the Systems Engineering Units and assign these responsibilities,to the Projects Engineering Unit.
This transfer of responsibilities is already in progress.
The System Engineers should continue to be the primary contact for problems or questions concerning the operation of assigned systems, and should provide assistance to the Project Engineers coordinating FCRs in determining outage, isolation, and retest and functional requirements to assure that modifications perform as designed.
Establish a program or timetable for transfer of responsibili-ties.
The current plan for this transfer should be implemented as soon as adequate staffing is available within Projects Engineering to support the additional workload.
3-1 4
__m_
_____mm_______
Assure that all FCRs requiring physical-modification of the plant be sponsored by the System Engineer responsible for the affected system.
Doing so will eliminate redundant or un-necessary FCRs from being placed into an already overloaded FCR program, and also will enable the System Engineer to prioritize each FCR relative to other modifications requested or in process on the specific system.
3.1.2 EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING The experience level of System Engineers assigned to plant systems is low.
Some System Engineers are new engineering graduates, and only a ' few have nuclear-related outside experience.
Due to the lack of experience and plant-specific knowledge, as a
group they are considered " rookies" by Operations and Maintenance personnel and must work to earn the respect of the craft personnel they support.
Historically, engineers have gained two or three years experience and have been promoted to lead positions, creating vacancies to be filled by new engineering graduates.
Senior Engineers and Principal Engineers have experience on plant systems, but are not seen on a daily basis by plant personnel.
Consequently, the maintenance craft personnel generally see only new engineers in problem-solving roles and thus perceive the entire engineering staff as being inexperienced.
The primary technical training most System Engineers receive is acquired by day-to-day job performance.
New System Engineers are assigned system responsi-bilities immediately without formal systems, components and technical skills training.
Without this training, they do not have the skills required to support maintenance activities, nor do they have the background to give immediate responses to plant personnel.
This lack of training compounds the perception that the overall engineering staff is inexperienced.
Due to the important role of System Engineers in daily operation of the plant, it is important to invest in necessary training for these individuals.
It is evi-dent that management recognizes these benefits and positive steps have been taken to ensure that additional and adequate training is providea.
Recommendations:
Maintain an experienced staff at the working level.
This is the key to the success of the system engineering function.
Current personnel are enthusiastic and will gain experience in two to I
three years.
Ensure that Senior Engineers stay involved with systems assigned to new engineers and provide guidance on a daily basis.
Visi-i bility when interfacing with Operations and Maintenance per-sonnel is required and necessary to maintain the confidence of these groups.
Continue implementation of the formal systems training course for System Engineers on plant systems and components.
This course should include interpersonal skills training for inter-facing with Operations and Maintenance personnel.
Provide an indoctrination period for new engineers.
This period should be a minimum of two to three months and should include 3-2 l
1 rotation through all plant and engineering departments. This would allow the new engineer to become acquainted with other groups and develop an understanding of the roles and functions of various plant departments.
3.1.3 WORKFORCE AND WORKLOAD Most of the System Engineers at the Associate and Engineer levels appear to be overloaded.
The large amounts of " fly-up" work and problem backlogs prohibit them from giving quick responses to new problems.
Some engineers have large problem backlogs and must work 15-25% overtime. Due to the nature of the job, large backlogs are considered to be the standard practice.
Plant outages further increase the number of tasks to be performed and contribute tc backlogs and overtime.
The Systems Engineering Units in the Plant and Project Engineering Section are presently staffed below the approved levels, requiring that engineers and technicians work 15-25% overtime to keep up with the higher priority problems.
More time is needed for system walkdowns, system familiarization, and to reduce the backlog of maintenance prcblems.
Recommendations:
Fill the open positions to bring the Systems Engineering Units up to the approved staffing level.
Upon completion of this increase, each System Engineer would be responsible for fewer systems and the workload / resource ratio would decrease.
Decrease work backlog levels.
This may be accomplished by centralizing the coordination of FCRs in the Projects Engineering Unit, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.
Increasing the experience levels of the System Engineers, as detailed in Section 3.1. 2 will aid in backlog reduction by allowing for faster problem resolution.
3.1.4 PRIORITIES AND SCHEDULES Concerns about priorities exist in two areas:
- 1) priority assignment and
- 2) " fly-up" work.
It appears to the System Engineers that FCR priorities change without adequate explanation or reasons.
This is true, although there is at least fair understanding of the responsibilities of the Schedule Review Group and the Work Management Committee.
There are several priority listings, each differing in order, and confusion exists as to which list is correct.
As a result, System Engineers try to promote the priorities of FCRs on their assigned systems and - Design Engineering bears t.he burden of shifting priorities.
l To further aggravate the changing priority difficulty, " fly-up" work must be l
prioritized and completed.
Although the System Engineer or Principal Engineer assigns the priorities for this work, there may be conflicts with the order of importance placed on th.em by Operations or Maintenance.
This fosters the impression that System Engineers are not solving maintenance problems.
Priority reassignment can necessitate shifts in FCR schedules.
Constant schedule readjustments result in missed completion dates, and have thus 3-3 1
.______-__a
g.
6.
underuined the credibility of the FCR schedule.
Although the outage schedules are reliable, they present return-to-service dates on an individual system basis only.
" Fly-up" work is vanted immediately by Maintenance personnel and is generally net included in the published schedule.
When this short duration urgent modification work is scheduled, the schedule is often unrealistic or is ignored.
Recommendations:
Require that the Project Engineering Unit, with Engineering Planning Unit support, establish and monitor the FCR schedule for NESD.
The System Engineer should provide input based on plant priorities, but would be' relieved of schedule coordination duties.
Short-term " fly-up" work could be scheduled, but the commitments would always De near term.
Require that the System Engineering Unit's Principal Engineers prioritize all " fly-up" and backlog work.
This would ensure that work priorities assigned meet the needs of Operations and Maintenance, and would do much to improve the organization's appearance of responsiveness.
The Principal Engineer in each unit would review each System Engineers' list of activities to check for agreement with the Maintenance schedule.
3.1.5 WORK LOCATION The System Engineers are primarily involved with maintenance work in the plant.
Their main interfaces are with the Maintenance craft or Operations personnel concerning problems with plant systems.
System Engineers who spend much of their time in the plant seem to have a more successful interface with Main-tenance personnel.
At the present time, System Engineers are located in a warehouse outside the fence.
The perception of Maintenance craft personnel that they " lost" their engineers during the reorganization is fostered by the System Engineers present location being outside the plant.
Recommendation:
Execute the present plan to move System Engineers inside the fence.
Locating them closer to the plant operating systems and the Maintenance crafts personnel will increase the time spent inside the plant as well as improve the interface between System Engineers and plant personnel.
The feeling of system ownership should increase as more time can be spent in the plant.
3.2 PROJECT ENGINEERING UNIT 3.2.1 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES The experience level of personnel in the Project Engineering Unit is high compared to personnel in the other units within Plant and Project Engineering.
The group has a clear understanding of the complete FCR process, but appears to handle only large modifications.
This group is viewed as the appropriate place for all FCR coordination.
3-4
4.
- Currently, there is no single schedule for the design and implementation of a particular modification.
Each group pursues its own set of priorities based on
- the information available at a particular time.
There is no clear cut Project Manager within NESD to resolve scheduling difficulties and conflicts.
Recommendations:
Consolidate coordination of the FCR Program into the Project Engineering Unit.
The Project Engineering Unit would:
Assume project lead on all assigned modifications.
)
Answer questions concerning scheduling, planning and implementation of assigned modifications and inter-face with the Engineering Planning Unit.
Assign an FCR number and Project Engineer to each FCR before routing to the Work Management Committee.
Implementation of this recommendation would provide a central means of tracking all FCRs, and would identify an individual to assist in the cost / benefit analysis and to identify a situation requiring early Design Engineering involvement.
Assign responsibility to Project Engineering to establish and maintain an NESD schedule for all approved FCRs.
Schedule input would be obtained from the Lead Engineer in Design Engineering and from other affected groups.
Major points to be considered are:
New FCRs submitted to Project Engineering must be scheduled and the schedule agreed upon by Operations, Maintenance, Plant and Project Engineering, and Design Engineering.
Schedule commitments, once agreed upon by all parties, would not be changed without the concurrence and direction of the Projects Unit.
Schedule conflicts and work postponement would be resolved with the Projects Unit serving in a coordi-nating role.
Require that the Project Engineer prepare the Work Control Package and follow the implementation of the modification to resolve any conflicts er concerns.
This process would begin upon release of the Design Package and would end upon closure of the FCR Package.
The Project Engineer would be responsible for assuring that all affected procedures were revised and all applicable drawings were revised and issued.
3-5
4 3.2.2 MINOR MODIFICATIONS Minor modifications follow the same FCR flow path as major modifications.
Since this path is perceived as being overly difficult, System Engineers often are tempted to circumvent the FCR program.
Within the System Engineering Units, there appearc, to be a lack of complete understanding of the full design process aid the appreciation of the need for that process when implementing even a srcall modification.
Possible results of this approach are improper documentation of design processes, such as reviews per 10CFR50.59 Environ-mental Equipment Qualifications, Appendix R, and effects on design bases.
Recommendations:
Establish a minor modift:ation program.
The scope of the modification would be used as the criteria for inclusion in the program.
Modifications such as component replacement, minor wiring changes with no operational impact, heat exchanger tube plugging, additions of lifting lugs, set point changes, and other similar small scope modifications do not need to go through the same level of cost / benefit analysis or management approvals as a major modification.
Appropriate budget resources and restrictions should also be addressed to implement the program.
Coordinate these modifications through the Project Engineering Unit.
The same level of scheduling should not be required, and a much faster turnaround from Design Engineering should be expected.
As always, adequate technical review and approval is imperative and documentation that the review did occur should be generated.
Design data, drawings' or lists should be revised or generated to keep the plant record up to date.
3.2.3 EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING To facilitate the Project Manager function on large scale projects, the Project Engineering Unit has been staffed with senior, experienced engineers who know and understand the FCR process and can apply the process to large FCRs at the plant.
The Project Engineers understand Design Engineering as well as plant problems and appear to have the interpersonal skills necessary to be the main interface between the two groups.
The Project Engineering concept is new to NESD.
Although the group is current-ly staffed with experienced power plant engineers, individual experience is specialized in one discipline or another.
Cross-discipline training, plant systems training and FCR-procedural training are needed by Project Engineers to enable tnem to assemble FCR packages for various types of modifications.
Recommendations:
i Maintain the current experience base and build on the capa-I bilities and skills of the senior personnel in this unit.
l i
l l
l 3-6 I
i
(
l
Provide a training course for Project Engineers.
This course is currently being developed and implemented and should cover FCR procedures, plant system functions, and cross-discipline subjects.
3.2.4 WORKFORCE AND WORKLOAD The Project Engineering Unit supported fifteen to eighteen projects in 1987, and appears to be adequately staffed with engineers and contractors to meet that workload satisfactorily.
The workload will increase if more FCRs are assigned to the unit in 1988 and additional scheduling duties are accepted.
Project Engineering should continue to support major work of forts, such as commercial fasteners and environmental qualifications, until these tasks are assigned to other units.
Recommendation:
Increase workforce to match the resources to the anticipated workload as additional FCRs are acquired from the Systems Engineering Units.
3.2.5 PRIORITIES AND SCHEDULES Prioritization and scheduling of FCR packages in NESD is a concern.
The Operations and Maintenance Departments perceive these areas to be the worst aspects of NESD performance.
Conflicting priority lists have been issued by different departments which result in confusion at the working engineer level.
Schedules are developed by the Schedule Review Group without responsible and achievable inputs from the affected sections of NESD.
A scheduled due date is a' signed to a FCR when it is forwarded to Design Engineering; however, if Desyn Engineering has not fully agreed to the due date, the FCR is just added to the backlog.
The number of FCRs in the backlog overwhelms Design Engineer-ing and kris to excuses for late work and lack of responsibility.
Recommendations:
Have the priority list for FCRs published by Project Engineering for NESD.
This list should be approved by the Manager of NESD and coordinated with the Work Management Committee and the Schedule Review Group.
This should clear up confusion and give direction to the working level engineers of Plant and Project Engineering and Design Engineering.
l Assume responsibilities for FCR scheduling as given in the I
recommendation. for Section 3.2.1.
This would necessitate the establishment of a formalized scheduling system, which would require the following:
Project Engineering should not overload Design Engi-l neering.
Should a new FCR require immediate atten-l tion from Design Engineering, Project Engineering I
should interface with Operations, Maintenance, and Design Engineering to agree on the impact and conse-quences of shifting previously approved schedules.
3-7 L__-__-__-_-____-__
[.
l h
An outage list of FCRs must be assembled by Project i
Engineering twenty-four months prior to an outage.
l Twelve months prior to the outage, the list should be frozen to allow Design Er.gineering time to complete design and procure materials.
1 A monthly status report detailing all FCRs in progress should be issued.
This report should include a statement as to whether the commitment date will be met on each FCR package.
Project Engineering can use this report to update Operations, Maintenance, and the Schedule Review Group on the status of FCRs.
All of the FCRs presently in Design Engineering should be reviewed for priority and schedule duration.
The top priority FCRs would be used to establish a twelve i
to eighteen month schedule.
The remaining FCRs would be retained within the Project Engineering Unit.
Project Engineering should review the remaining FCRs with the Work Management Committee to establish a ranking list for the backlog; low ranking or old FCRs not yet designed could be cancelled.
In this manner, Design Engineering would have only twelve to eighteen months of FCR work to monitor, and Operations and Maintenance would have input to the order in which FCRs would be designed.
New FCRs from the Work Management Committee should be evaluated against the ranked backlog list in Project Engineering for priority establishment purposes.
3.2.6 WORK LOCATION Project Engineering is presently located within the building shared with Design Engineering.
With an increased FCR workload, interfacing with the Lead Engi-neers and Principal Engineers in Design Engineering will become increasingly important.
The Project Engineering Unit should be located to facilitate significant interfaces required by Loth the System Engineers and Design Engineering.
3.3 COMPONENT ENGINEERING UNIT 3.3.1 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES Component Engineers are. assigned to the Auxiliary Systems Unit of Plant and Project Engineering.
Component Engineers are expected to become component experts and use this expertise to assist System Engineers and Maintenance crafts personnel in solving component related problems.
Component Engineers should initiate FCRs on multisystem items and monitor the progress of FCR implementation.
Some Component Engineer positions are not presently filled.
3-8
'l
)
i Recommendations:
1 l
Fill the vacant Component Engineer positions.
This would pro-l vide expertise to the System Engineers and Maintenance crafts.
~
Provide formal training., to Component Engineers in their antici-pated areas of expertise.
This will allow them to function-1 properly in a support role.
Locate the Component Engineers inside the fence as ' planned.
This location will ensure proper interface with the Maintenance craft personnel and the System Engineers.
l t
l l
'i 3-9
i 1
4.0
)ESI434 ENCINEE DIN 3 S ETI)4 -
QBSE t/ATIC NS A sD REC 0 HEOATIONS The Design Engineering move to the Nuclear Engineering Facility at Calvert Cliffs was completed in 1986.
Although there were some personal difficulties as.sociated with the relocation, it appears that the overall effect has been beneficial.
It is apparent that a common objective has been established between the operating and design functions for maintaining the plant in a safe and efficient mode.
Definite pride is exhibited by members of the Design Engineering Team, and there is an excitement about being on site "where the action is."
Also, Design Engineering has become more cognizant of the opera-tional needs of the plant and is now positioned to respond more quickly to these needs.
\\
4.1 FUNCTIONS 4.1.1 MAINTAINING THE PLANT DESIGN BASIS A key functional responsibility of Design Engineering is maintaining the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Design Basis.
Many Design Engineering personnel interviewed listed this as their primary function; therefore, it is believed that a good understanding of this responsibility exists.
However, the same personnel that listed maintaining Design Basis as their primary function also expressed concern that the Design Basis is not being adequately main-tained.
Reasoning for this concern is as follows:
Fragmented implementation of plant modifications - the install-ing of modifications piece-meal without tying the parts together or checking the impact on other parts in required documentation packages.
Implementation of plant modifications without Design Engineering involvement or knowledge - the changing of systems or installa-tion of components by Systems Engineering or Plant Maintenance without the involvement of Design Engineering.
Design and implementation of plant modifications without con-trolled documentation - the designing of plant modifications by i
Design Engineering and Bechtel concurrently, using the same drawings and design data.
Backlog of as-built packages in the plant modification process as-built documentation not being maintained in a timely manner.
These concerns are all tied together due to inadequate time for the present workforce to perform the required work.
If Design Engineering is to properly maintain the Design Basis of the plant, adequate time and workforce must be allocated to perform this function.
Recommendation:
Establish a formal program directed at updating the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Design Basis.
This program should 4-1
e establish specific goals and a specific timetable for updating and verifying the Design Basis.
The program should address:
Verifying the Design Basis that is questionable for al.1 modifications completed within Design Engineering.
Verifying-the Design Basis that is questionable for all modifications completed within Bechtel.
Checking for modifications that hav'e been performed by Design Engineering and Bechtel that use the same design documents and verifying the Design Basis.
Checking for modifications that have been implemented without Design Engineering involvement and verifying the Design Basis.
Accelerating the as-built program for design docu-ments as soon as possible and then keeping the program current.
Since this formal program is expected to require considerable time to implement, adequate budgeting and resou'rce allocation must be provided.
4.1.2 FACILITIES CHANGE REQUEST (FCR)
A key daily responsibility of Design Engineering is the handling of FCRs.
Based on the interviews cunducted, it is concluded that all Design Engineering personnel know the importance and function of the FCR process; however, several problem areas exist.
The primary concerns are a lack of a complete understanding of how the FCR process works, the, extent of responsibilities of involved groups, and the priority FCRs should have on an individual basis.
In many instances, Design Engineering personnel receive FCRs but do not understand how and why the FCRs were generated.
Personnel have an understanding of the technical content of the FCRs, but in some cases do not understand the overall scopes of the FCRs.
Also, most do not understand that tney can question scopes and in fact,..bave a responsibility to interject design concerns and modify technical requirements of FCRs if the design warrants such changes.
Finally, Design Engineering personnel are experiencing difficulty in scheduling and prioritizing FCRs.
Scheduling and prioritizing FCRs will be discussed further in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.
Design Engineering must address these problems with a systematic approach that emphasizes understanding of the FCR process.
Recommendation:
Extend the existing System Engineer training program to Design Engineering ' personnel for explanation of the FCR process from initiation to closeout of the project.
This program should show how the design activity relates to the other steps in the FCR process and identi fy the information other work units must supply and receive. The training program should also deal with scheduling and prioritizing FCRs (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6).
4-2
.o 4.1.3
" FLY-UP" WORK
" Fly-up" work is an accepted responsibility in the Design Engineering Section.
The attitude towards " fly-up" work is that of preeminence and obligation, and this results in the work being performed in a timely and efficient manner.
Because of the nature of the work, one-on-one action by individuals often occurs, which has resulted in good team building.
Unfortunately, no matter how well the " fly-up" work is handled, it interrupts other required work (i.e.,
update of Design Basis, FCRs, etc.).
This interruption in turn affects work management and schedule commitments.
Properly assigning and organizing
" fly-up" work to minimize impact within Design Engineering can help to alleviate the interruption problems.
Recommendations:
Establish single point contacts within _ each Design Engineering work unit to handle " fly-up" work requests.
Publish these contacts and distribute the list to the Operating Department, the Maintenance Department, and the Plant and Project Engineer-ing Section of NESD.
In the Design Engineering units where this has been initiated, it appears to be successful.
Establish " fly-up" work subgroups or resource persons reporting or.. available to each single point contact within each unit.
Establishment of subgroups would be dictated by past workload statistics.
These subgroups would then handle or be the initial contact for the " fly up" work requests without interrupting other Design Engineering. personnel within the units.
Such an organization will then allow better work scheduling and time management within each unit.
4.1.4 CRISIS WORK The handling of crisis work in Design Engineering is conducted very well, and the utilization of expertise results in addressing crises in a very direct and effective manner.
Recommendations are not warranted with respect to approach-ing this work since crisis work cannot be planned or scheduled in advance; how-ever, feedback af ter the crisis has been resolved should be improved.
Lessons learned, feelings of accomplishment and participation are valuable parts of the continuing professional development of the Design Engineering Section personnel.
Recommendations:
Increase the. feedback process to Design Engineering personnel on the lessons learned on crisis work.
Provide recognition of accomplishments with regard to crisis work handled in the Design Engineering Section.
4-3
s e
4.1.5 WORK ROUTINE Assessment of the Design Engineering daily work routine revealed no concerns of any significance outside of the areas of scheduling and prioritizing work assignments, which are discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.
The general obse'rva-tion is that if improvements are made in these areas, the work routine will improve and time management will be more evident.
4.1.6 MISCELLANEOUS RESPONSES TO OTHER GROUPS / UNITS The Design Engineering Section appears committed to cooperation and teamwork.
This is reflected by numerous examples of requests for assistance from outside the section which were handled quickly and effectively.
It is recommended that this spirit of cooperation remain at a high level and that management encourage this attitude.
4.2 INTERFACES 4.2.1 STATION INTERFACES Individuals in Design Engineering can be contacted by many different individu-als at Calvert Cliffs to solicit their participation in various work efforts and resolution of problems and concerns.
Some channeling of these requests is appropriate to avoid random lines of communication being established and possible confusion of responsibilities, priorities and actions.
Recommendation:
Requests for Design Engineering involvement in plant operational problems should be initiated or coordinated by a Systems, Projects, or Auxiliary (Component) Engineer in the Plant and Project Engineering Section.
If modifications (FCRs) are anticipated, the Project Engineer should contact the appropriate Design Engineering individual (Responsible Engineer) for the discipline, system or equipment predominantly involved.
This contact should occur as early as possible in the initiation of an anticipated modification so that Design Engineering can participate in the development of the scope and concept.
Design Engineering should provide design information resulting in changes to scope or modifications to the plant through the Plant and Project Engineering Section.
4.2.2 ARCHITECTURAL / ENGINEERING (A/E) INTERFACES Design Engineers obtained design from A/Es (Bechtel) by using multiple approaches.
Consistent criteria for the selection of projects to be ser.t to Bechtel did not appear to exist.
The reasons stated for sending work to Bechtel included the size of the modification, disciplines involved, monetary value of the modification, expertise required, turnaround time or schedule needs, unit workload, and historical precedence.
Once a decision was made to have design performed elsewhere, the various engineers handled the projects differently.
Some appeared to turn the project over to Bechtel with little follow-up or understanding of the design, particularly while it was in progress.
Other engineers elected to become more involved and essentially checked all points of the design, particularly the deliverables.
4-4
1 Recommendations:
Establish criteria for sending projects to Bechtel for each of
'the Design Engineering units.
If either expertise or unit workforce is a criterion, then NESD should decide whether to continue sending work to Bechtel at the present level.
This is a satisfactory decision if NESD does not want to develop certain expertise, sees the work effort demands as only temporary, or establishes that it is desirable to maintain the Bechtel effort at~the present level.
The assigned lead engineer from Design Engineering for each project sent.to Bechtel should follow the project and be the i
primary contact until all the deliverables are received and the i
FCR package is completely _ implemented.
The lead engineer should not be checking all of the deliverables in great detail as if to reconstruct the development and design of the deliver-ables.
This engineer, and any support engineers participating in the modification, should ensure that Bechtel has the correct information before and during the work effort.
Bechtel has the responsibility: (a) to design a suitable product as directed by Design Engineering; (b) to perform adequate checking to keep errors and interferences to a minimum; and (c) to ensure the product conforms to all specified codes, regulations, and good practices commonly expected from a highly reputable -A/E, experienced in the nuclear utility field.
The lead engineer should only check to see that all of the deliverables are there, that they are complete and that they meet the charge and intent of the directions set forth to Bechtel.
Deliverables that are found to contain errors and faults should be reviewed with Bechtel to determine causes and corrective actions.
4.2.3 NESD INTERFACES Some units in Technical Services Engineering are capable of proactively inter-ceding with Design Engineering to help in the solution of plant problems and to assist in optimizing design.
Design Engineers do not appear to be fully aware that certain Technical Services Engineering units have this capacity.
Both the Performance Engineering Unit and the Analytical Support Unit have capabilities that can be beneficial to Design Engineering, particularly in the System Engineer / Design Engineer / Technical Services Engineer team framework.
Perfor-I mance Engineering, by the very nature of the unit's responsibilities, has l
personnel that are familiar with how the systems work from a functional view-point, how to discern between normal and abnormal conditions, and how to determine the location and cause of a suspected abnormality.
Recommendation:
Routinely discuss problems or proposed conceptual solutions received from either Systeins or Projects Engineers with the Performance EngineeHng Unit.
For example, this participation and communication is occurring on the Saltwater, Service Water and Component Cooling Water Study to include as much experience 4-5 1
as possible.
This unit may have monitored data or may be able to perform tests that can more quickly lead to the best solution of many problems.
The Analytical Support Unit may be able to help on some problems if they are given the opportunity to beccme involved as. a member of the team.
Design Engineering should keep an open mind about advising the Analytical Support Unit about certain types of problems (i.e. fluid, thermal or electrical transients) in order to give the Analytical Support Unit the opportunity to participate in problem solving.
4.2.4 INTERNAL DESIGN ENGINEERING INTERFACES Internal interfacing within Design Engineering lacks a uniform effort in some areas for a variety of reasons.
A few areas may be weak in experience, thus they are bypassed or omitted from consideration.
Other areas are perceived as being too busy, End even though they are fully qualified to provide meaningful input, they are not bothered with additiunal problems or work.
Hence, work or subjects that fall in these areas are avoided, passed elsewhere or deferred.
Recommendation:
Identify, insofar as practical, groups or persons responsible for specific types of work, (i.e., FCRs, " fly-up", Design Basis, etc.) in each functional area and subject to all personnel in Design Engineering.
This identification should not be considered as firm assignments.
Others may handle the same type work and other functions or responsibilities may be handled by the identified individuals.
Workload should not be a factor in interfacing, though it may be difficult to always obtain the desired response.
This is not to say that all requests will be answered, or higher priorities will not delay the information.
The General Supervisor should continue to monitor and obtain feedback from all Principal Engineers within Design Engineering to assess workloads and to determine when more resources are required or where adjustments can be made.
4.3 EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING Overall, the experience level in the Design Engineering Section is good, both in the management and subordinate areas.
The concept of Senior Engineers leading Design Engineers is a straightforward approach that inherently keeps the experience level in an acceptable range.
Hiring experienced personnel to fill open positions could help to raise the overall experience level for the entire Design Engineering Section.
l In any engineering organization, and especially within the nuclear industry, training has an important relationship to performance.
Appropriate personnel and technical training should be major goals for any organization.
The training philosophy within the Design Engineering Section appears to be good, particularly in the areas of personal self-development and management training.
Technical training could use further development.
Because the experience level 4-6 n
imini.
- i i i iumuma
is higher in the Operating Department than in Design Engineering (on an indivi-dual basis), it is sometimes difficult for Design personnel to converse with Operating personnel.
This tends to discourage contact by the Operating Depart-ment and may be demoralizing for some Design Engineering personnel.
An in-crease in tecnnical training for Design Engineering personnel should help to alleviate this difficulty and help maintain high morale.
Recommendation:
Encourage and support attendance on a regular basis of Design Engineering personnel at technical training seminars, confer-ences, and/or schools.
This should keep the section experi-ence level high and abreast of the current technology and keep morale high within the section.
4.4 WORKFORCE AND WORKLOAD A review of the March 1, 1988 Design Engineering organizational chart reveals a total of 64 filled incumbent positions (including student part-time) with a-total of 14 open positions (including contractor positions)..
Discussions concerning workload with respect to in-house versus Bechtel revealed estimates of 30% in-house and 70% at Bechtel.
To address the questions of workforce and workload, Design Engineering management should first determine the types and quantity of work that is desirable to keep in-house.
If Design Engineering elects to handle more than 30% of its work in-house, then significant addition-al workforce will be needed.
If Design Engineering elects to keep its in-house work level at about 30%, then only a minor increase in workforce will be needed.
Assuming the remaining 14 open positions are filled, this will bring the section total to 78 (including contractor positions).
If the Bechte. project team. remains at about 50, this would bring the total to approximately 128 in support of the two Calvert Cliffs Units.
In general, the nuclear industry supports such two unit plants with 140-150 Design Engineering personnel.
While no precise conclusions can be drawn from these figures with respect to Calvert Cliffs, it would be prudent to consider increasing the Design Engineering Section staffing.
In the course of the interviews pertaining to Design Engineering workload, three work areas were identified as having an excessive workload burden:
Electrical Modifications, Design and Drafting (Civil Engineering), and Instru-mentation and Control (I&C) Engineering.
With the amount of " fly-up" work and normal FCRs now in-house and expected in the future, the Electrical Modifica-tions Engineering Unit appears to be overburdened.
A similar problem exists in the Design and ' Drafting area because of the backlog of as-built drawings that need to be updated. Finally, the experience level in the I&C Engineering Unit apper.rs low with respect to plant requirements and changing technology.
Recommendation:
Determine or confirm that staffing levels are adequate for the balance of in-house versus Bechtel design assignments.
Specific areas of concentration should be the Electrical Modifications Engineering, Design and Drafting, and Instrumentation and Control Engineering Units.
4-7
0 4.5 SCHEDULE The inability of Design Engineering to schedule work against available work-force and factor in all the various priorities and legitimate needs in a reasonable and timely manner is a major hindrance to the success of NESD.
Interfaces with the Nuclear Operating Department, Nuclear Maintenance
)
Department, Plant and Project Engineering units, Technical Services Engineering units, and Bechtel frequently are time-consuming.
Also, assigned respon-sibilities such as Design Basis maintenance and NRC bulletin work demand portions of ~many of the engineers' time.
Therefore, some method of allocating each individual's work time must be available.
Many engineers do not appear to know the sequence of work items they must complete, how long it will take them to complete their portion of the work, and where they fit in the schedule with other engineers in accomplishing a
given assignment.
- Likewise, in-dividual priorities may not support the completion of a task.
It is not clear if the Principal Engineer of each work unit has a good understanding of the workload and commitments for the individuals in his unit or the schedule of commitments for his unit as a whole.
Consequently, it is difficult to assess workforce loading and individual requirements past the immediate future and make decisions on work assignments or adjustments.
In addition, some units have not come to terms with how to handle " fly-up" work, urgent requests, or crisis work to minimally impact scheduled work efforts, nor have they defined the methods to keep unscheduled work from untracking scheduled work.
Recommendations:
Identify and schedule the majority of the major work ii. ems that must be accomplished in the next two years.
These items should include the required FCRs, mandated changes, support time for Licensing, System and Project Engineer interfacing, " fly-up" work, and any studies or external efforts requiring significant Design Engineering involvement.
The more recent FCRs in the sizable backlog should be coordinated with Project Engineering as recommended in Section 3.2.5.
The objective is to eliminate those FCRs in the backlog that have no chance of presently being implemented because of workforce,
- schedule, and available budgets.
Schedules for individual work items should be prepared by each Responsible Engineer (Lead Design Engineer) with appropriate supervisory scrutiny.
The Responsible Engineer should receive schedule items from other disciplines or Bechtel in order to arrive at a complete Design Engineering schedule with support from the Engineering Planning Unit.
The schedule and workforce required should be reviewed by the Principal Engineers asso-ciated with the project for credibility and planning purposes.
Actions, inputs and deliverables from all parties outside of i
Design Engineering should be identified and considered in the schedule.
In some cases, commitments made by others should be discussed and concurrence given while the Responsible Eagineers are developing the schedule.
After the General Supervisor's
- review, the schedule should be integrated into a Design Engineering Section schedule and then provided to the Project Engineering Unit to obtain the necessary commitments from other sections and departments i r<vol ved and to arrive Lt an overall NESD schedule.
4-8 I
4 l
Continue to monitor Bechtel or other externally produced work, j
(e.g.,
Technical Services Engineering. Analytical Support Unit 1
-input), in order to maintain the Design Engineering deliverable schedule.
This would be accomplished by the Lead Design Engineers with-the aid of Procurement personnel, Bechtel contacts or other supporting parties as necessary.
Provide status of projects in progress and workforce loading on an individual and unit basis to Design Engineering Responsible Engineers.
Design Engineering also needs support to assemble an internal integrated schedule for any given project.
The engi-neers and their supervisors need tools (such as printouts, bar charts, schedule outputs, deliverables lists, etc.) to assess the workload and track budgets of individuals, units and Design Engineering as a. whole.
External resources, such as Bechtel, should also be tracked and accounted for with these tools.
It is suggested that the personnel responsible for providing this information and support not be assigned to any particular unit, though one or more disciplines could act in an advisory capacity.
Furnish to Design Engineering lists of lead times for various pieces of equipment and materials that they might normally be expected to specify.
These lists and other information present-ly provided by Procurement should be updated routinely (quarter-ly) and distributed within Design Engineering.
Procurement may also have to supply lead times on specialized items, in some cases.
This is necessary to develop realistic schedules that include equipment specification, selection, vendor drawing and information submittal times required for design, as well as actual delivery of equipment.
It may also be helpful to develop preapproved and preselec.ted items lists where advantages, such as she.:ned design times, are gained because of bulk or repeti-tive ordering practices.
4.6 PRIORITIES Design Engineering has and is part of a priority system.
The Work Management Committee, the Schedule Review Group, Nuclear Operations, and others have input to the definition of Design Engineering priorities.
In some cases, differing priority lists cause confusion at the working level.
Recommendation:
Some individuals in Design Engineering do not have a good understanding of their individual work-related priorities.
A schedule should be developed which assigns work items and commitment dates as recommended in Section 4.5.
The develop-ment of a schedule and as:,ignment of commitments will result in the establishment of priorities for these persons.
Individuals I
should be assigned to perform " fly-up" work and general support l
as noted in Section 4.1.3.
These actions will establish priori-l ties for nearly all individuals within Design Engineering.
4-9
l 4.7 WORK LOCATION
)
{
l The single most controversial action taken by Design Engineering was moving the 1
offices from BG&E Headquarters in Baltimore to the Calvert Cliffs Plant site.
l It is believed that final support of the. move has surpassed all expectations, While some personnel would prefer. to move back to Baltimore, others have been j
i surprised at how well they like' the new location.
More importantly, all individuals see this move as a positive step for Calvert Cliffs, with benefits for the company.
In summary, the move was a good one and the Design Engineer-3 ing work location is optimum.
No changes are warranted.
I i
4-10
s e.
- 5. 0 T ECHICA SERVICES EN3I4EFRMNG SECTION -
0 15 E RVAT. DNS AN) RECO4 MEN )A"10NS 5.1 FUEL CYCLE MANAGEMENT UNIT 5.1.1 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES The function of the Fuel Cycle Management Unit is to direct and coordinate ac+ivities related to the management of the nuclear fuel cycle in a cost e'
- tive manner.
To accomplish this task, the unit is organized into the f:
- wing three subunits: Reactor Engineering, Core Physics, and Out-of-Core
(
Fuel Management.
The responsibilities of the unit cover the entire spectrum of fuel management and generally include cost analysis, procurement, nuclear design, monitoring of fuel performance, special nuclear materials accountabili-ty, and disposition of the spent fuel.
The specific responsibilities, as outlined in the Purpose and Functions Document 42-09-03 on Fuel Cycle Manage-ment, in conjunction with the logical division of those responsibilities into the three areas previously mentioned, provide for an effective fuel cycle management organization.
The unit is staffed with motivated, experienced personnel at a level that is consistent with the workload.
This should allevi-ate certain documentation problems experienced previously with a smaller staff.
However, staf fing should be reviewed as more of the reload design work is taken over from the fuel vendor, Combustion Engineering, to ensure that adequate levels are maintained.
Recommendation:
The reload design process is currently performed via a modified FCR.
There have been concerns noted in the past regarding prompt completion of documentation which has been attributed to a lack of workforce.
Additional staff has been added to resolve this problem.
Also, a controlling workplace procedure should be developed which may be based on the existing NFM 6 documentation that follows the reload design process and provides milestone documentation.
The procedure should address all aspects of fuel cycle management and provide an auditable set of documents as its output.
5.1. 2 INTERFACES The Fuel Cycle Management Unit has many interfaces both within and outside of NESD.
Effective working relationships have been established with Operating personnel through direct support, such as operating guides on power distribu-tion and Technical Specification monitoring, and through active participation in the refueling processi and startup physics testing.
Likewise, a good rela-tionship exists with the fuel vndor, as evidenced by the technical support provided on computer codes e1 methods.
Other interfaces exist with the Information Systems Departmer.t (ISD) for support of both the; plant process computers and other hardware and sof tware (e.g., the CYBER 830 and personal computers); corporate purchasing on fuel contracts; the NRC on reload design-i.
related matters; some NESD groups such as Licensing, Analytical -Support; and to a small extent, Design Engineering.
5-1 l
l
1 Recommendations:
Continue the scheduled interface meetings with all the groups involved in successfully completing the refueling process.
This should include personnel from Operati es, scheduling, outage coordination, Licensing, and others involved in the fuel cycle management process.
These meetings should be held to discuss schedules of work activities to assure that each group under-stands its responsibilities and the timeframe involved for a successful refueling outage.
Additional meetings between fuel management and the fuel vendor, ISD, and purchasing may be necessary to discuss specific interfaces.
Interface improvements should be made with ISD.
Much interac-tion occurs on different levels with this department (CYBER 830, process computers, and personal computers), and it would be advantageous to establish a better-defined contact with them to ensure that Fuel Cycle Management gets the support needed to perform the job.
5.2 LICENSING UNIT 5.2.1 ORGANIZATION AND WORKFORCE The Licensing Unit of the Technical Services Engineering Section is organized to support both the operating organization at Calvert Cliffs and Design Engi-neering.
It is divided into two groups with the responsibilities and functions of the two being clearly defined and' understood by the individuals in the unit.
Changes to this structure would not likely result in significantly increased support to the plant.
The present organizational structure resulted from the combining of the Design Engineering licensing group and the on-site licensing group at Calvert Cliffs and occurred when the Nuclear Engineering Services Department was established on site.
Although the responsibilities of the new Licensing Unit remained at about the same level or even increased, the number of personnel allocated to perform the duties decreased.
The reduced staffing level in conjunction with a high turnover rate has resulted in the Licensing Unit being understaffed.
This affects the Operational Licensing Group most.
The Licensing Unit has experienced a high level of turnover as compared to the other units within NESD.
There is a perception within the unit that Licensing offers little opportunity for advancement.
The high turnover rate compounds the perception of the problem by projecting a negative image within NESD.
Consequently, few engineers are interested in accepting positions within this unit. This image makes it difficult to attract and retain experienced personnel with the qualifications-necessary to deal effectively with the NRC in a posi-tion visible to management.
Recommendations:
While the experience level of a few engineers now in the Licens-ing Unit is high or comparable to levels in other NESD units, this experience cannot compensate for the turnover and vacancies that exist in the approved complement.
The approved increase in staffing of the Licensing Unit should be completed to support 5-2
Lo.;
.t the functional responsibilities 'of the unit.
In general, similar on-site organizations have as many as eleven staffed engineer positions; however, indications from with'1 the unit are that nine engineer positions would be adequata.
Recently approved complement changes to add two engineers to the Licensing Unit should alleviate this understaffing situation.
The functions of the Licensing organization are necessary for the effective operation of the plant within Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.
However, the job responsibilities will not offer as many technical challenges or opportunities as some other engineering positions at the plant.
The Licensing Unit interfaces with all plant groups and many important outside organizations.
The requirement for knowledge and understanding of all plant groups and their roles is critical for effective resolution of licensing issues.
The individuals in the Licens-ing Unit have an excellent opportunity to experience a side of nuclear power which is not experienced by other personnel at the plant.
In order to make the Licensing Unit a more stable organization and promote a high experience level 'within its ranks, personnel from within NESD should be rotated through the Licensing Group on staggered multiyear intervals with one or two individuals joining and leaving each year.
In time, the rotation into the Licensing Unit should be perceived as a career advancement opportunity.
5.2.2 RESPONSIBILITIES 4
Normally the Licensing Unit is not very active in the daily operation of the plant.
While the group provides assistance in areas such as Technical Specifi-cation interpretations, the Nuclear Operating Department assumes final respon-sibility for licensing concerns.
This is demonstrated by the interface between the NRC Resident Inspector and the plant.
The primary contact for the NRC Resident Inspector is the Operations General Supervisor. This direct involve-ment in licensing-issues could lead to a conflict of interests where plant operability is concerned; however, there is no indication that this has,tet occurred.
The licensiig group perceives that they are frequently the itst group in the int te be involved with many problems, even those involvi"g r
licensing issues.
The responsibility to draft LERs is presently shared with Systems Engineering.
This responsibility does not receive as high a priority within Plant and Pro-ject Engineering as it possibly should, i
Recommendations:
The Licensing organization should be a key interface between the plant and the NRC Regional Office and should generate or review the formal correspondence.
Consequently, the Licensing organ-ization should be kept informed of discussions and questions that are raised between the NRC Resident Inspector and members of the Nuclear Operations Department.
The Unit should serve as a focal point for answering questions from the NRC Regional Office and draw on specific experienced personnel from within 5-3
4 the plant to provide assistance as required.
Meetings held l
periodically with plant management should provide interaction i
between the different groups and keep the groups informed of NRC concerns and interests.
)
An adequately staffed and experienced Licensing Unit is the most logical organization to insure that documentation such as LERs is prepared and distributed.
Since these reports are eventually issued to the NRC and are subject to questioning, they should be di'stributed by the Licensing Unit so that a point contact is available to resolve concerns.
5.3 ANALYTICAL SUPPORT UNIT 5.3.1 RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERFACING Thermal / hydraulic analysis, dose assessment, risk / reliability assessment, PRA, and cost / benefit anciysis as performed by the Analytical Support Unit are vital parts of the NESD operations.
This fact needs to be further emphasized within all units of NESD and within other departments at Calvert Cliffs. Various incidences have occurred where the Analytical Support Unit could have been invited to participate sooner to analyze the situation and utilize their expertise to help solve problems in a quicker and more efficient way.
Such Analytical Support Unit involvement can save valuable time and resources in the future.
Recommendation:
Brief, but specific orientation seminars should be held with supervisors within NESD and with other departments to outline the responsibilities and capabilities of the Analytical Support Unit.
In addition, System Engineers and Design Engineers, after becoming more cognizant of the Analytical Support Unit, should request their assistance when appropriate concerning routine plant problems to fully utilize the unit's expertise.
5.3.2 COMPUTER SUPPORT The Analytical Support Unit is currently utilizing computer resources in an efficient and productive manner; however, computer resource allocation could be improved to make the unit more efficient and productite.
Limited access to the computer mainframe and inadequate allocations of PCs seem to be the basis for concern.
An increased awareness of the unit's responsibilities will further accentuate this concern.
ISD should be made aware of this fact in an effort to build communications to help the Analytical Support Unit better express its needs.
Recommendation:
Since the Analytical Support Unit must have adequate computer resources available, a direct liaison between the unit and ISD should be established to aid the unit in specifically defining its needs from ISD.
In addition, NESD budget allocations should 5-4
c, be increased as appropriate to provide needed mainframe access terminals and PCs to the unit.
5.4 PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING UNIT 5.4.1 RESPONSIBILITIES The capabilities of the Performance Engineering Unit are not fully recognized by some groups and many individuals at Calvert Cliffs.
Many perceive _this as a unit that primarily performs studies and tests and that is not in the main-stream of plant operation.
Actually, some of the Performance Engineers have an equal or better understanding of the functional aspects of fluid systems than many of the other plant engineers.
Their knowledge covers hydraulic and thermal systems, as well as many electrical systems.
Additionally, Perfor-mance Engineers are likely to be familiar with many problems that inherently occur in power plants (i.e., pump and valve cavitation, vibration problems, tube leaks, electrical losses, heat exchanger fouling or pluggage, etc.).
Recommendation:
The System and Design Engineers should routinely consider the Performance Engineering Unit as a resource when they are con-fronted with an operating problem that does not have an obvious solution or that is hydraulically, thermally, or efficiency related.
5.4.2 COMPUTER SUPPORT The Performance Engineering Unit may be hindered by long-term computeri soft-ware and ISD policy.
While long-term budgets and plans are necessary to preserve budget structure, the lack of short-term contingency and flexibility may hinder the Performance Engineering Unit's capability to respond to problems and give their best support to the plant.
Budgets and software requests must have flexibility, given the rapid development of computer applications that are noW Common.
Recommendation:
The computer requirements of the Performance Engineering Unit should be discussed with NESD management.
At present, for those applications judged very beneficial, the resources should be provided in a straightforward and direct manner.
In the future, a contingency budget should be set aside to acquire anticipated (but yet unknown) software and hardware. Additionally, negotia-tions with 150 are in order to allow movement of funds from one j
allocation to another, once this reallocation is approved by NESD management.
L 5-5
5.~ 4. 3 WORKFORCE Although the workforce level of the Performance Engineering Unit appears to be r
satisfactory for the
'ectives that NESD wishes to accomplish, the act of borrowing personnel i the unit to perform nonperformance-related tasks detracts from the unit's capability.
This also can be inherently demoralizing to the unit by inferring that the responsibilities of the Performance Engineer-ing Urft are less important than some others.
Recommendation:
The Performance Engineering Unit should not be considered a re-source or engineer pool.
In general, Performance Engineers should not be assigned to nonperformance-related groups in which their expertise is not warranted.
The Performance Engineering Unit's expertise is best utilized by consulting with System Engineers to resolve plant operating problems, or participating in design modifications or projects to enhance plant efficiency or capacity.
5-6
6.0 N JC
- EAR EN3"NE E RI13 SE RVI:ES DEPARTMENT -
0 3S i tVATIO iS A4)
R ECOM4EN)ATID 4S 6.1 CAREER PATH The Nuclear Engineering Services Department (NESD) is staffed with energetic and highly-skilled personnel who want Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant to be one of tM top nuclear plants in the country.
This group represents a valuable resource to Baltimore Gas and Electric.
During the interview sessions with members of ' the organization, it became apparent that career paths were an item of concern in alI groups.
Future success for NESD may be determined largely by the way these concerns are addressed.
The success of an engineering organization depends on its ability to keep experienced personnel involved in technical positions'.
Most career paths for these companies involve the training of new graduates in handling technical positions.
Recognition is usually acquired as the employee gains technical experience and handles engineering assignments.
As supervisory positions become available, these experienced individuals are normally promoted and the level of experience in the technical area is reduced.
Within the NESD organization, the engineer may progress as follows:
Engineer Associate, Engineer, Senior Engineer and Principal Engineer.
The Engineer Associate level is an entry position; the Senior Engineer and Principal Engineer levels are-supervisory positions of limited number based on organizational and functional requirements.
The experienced technical classification is Engineer.
An individual could spend several years in this position before a Senior Engineer position became available.
This lack of movement in an individual's career could be discouraging and demotivating, causing individuals to want to avoid technical positions because little reward is offered while remaining in the Engineer classification.
Some companies have developed two career paths for engineers:
one path leads to supervision and management while the other leads to technical specialist in i
areas such as equipment, materials, etc.
The rewards associated with progress-1 ing through these levels are similar to a point.
Individuals in the technical side are those who enjoy hands-on engineering and resolving operational prob-lems.
They may be used as group leaders for a limited size team of special-ists.
The more experienced technical specialist may be involved in upper level management decisions when technical expertise is required.
Recommendation:
The Engineer position should be further expanded to provide a career path in the technical side of engineering.
This would provide rewards for performing technical duties well and encour-age longevity in these positions.
Incentives are currently needed to develop expertise in areas such as systems, projects, component engineering, licensing, etc.
Expanding this position into several different classifications with progressing responsi-bilities, job requirements and salaries will give technically-oriented personnel incentives to grow in technical expertise and professional development.
6-1
e.
\\
l 6.2 PROCUREMENT 1
The interfaces between the various units and Procurement and the understanding j
NESD personnel have about how the procurement process works varies a great i
deal.
Many people in NESD are not certain what takes place after purchase requisitions, procurement specifications, and order information leaves Calvert Cliffs.
Also, some units have an intermediary at Calvert Cliffs who can position their requirements between NESD and Procurement.
NESD does not have a good understanding of procurement problems, including material or equipment lead times and availability of specialized equipment.
Some NESD personnel may not understand the need to follow through in a timely manner on their part of the purchasing process in order to complete projects.
It is also apparent that some persons in Procurement do not understand the NESD needs and practices.
All the roles of the team members and the latitude and responsibility of each member do not anpear to be functioning optimally throughout the procurement i
effort.
Recommendation:
NESD General Supervisors, certain Principal Engineers, and intermediary unit representatives in the procurement chain should meet periodically with Procurement representatives in an open forum to discuss problems and expectations.
Once problems are identified and resolved, procedures should be revised or generated if necessary.
Some training or seminars should then be presented by Procurement to appropriate NESD personnel.
These presentations will give many an opportunity to ask questions. Some of these questions'may need to be fully assessed by Supervision and a formal response given.
The meetings should occur every year or two, permitting NESD engineers and techni-cians to meet with Procurement face-to-face.
NESD should also consider asking Procurement to occasionally send a few people to Calvert Cliffs to meet with the groups and observe the daily routines of the people who send purchase requirements.
This builds a better working relationship and results in a team effort.
6.3 SCHEDULE All of the concerns with scheduling at Calvert Cliffs have yet to be defined and addressed.
This includes concerns within NESD; however, this observation also applies to other areas.
By far, the most recognized section with schedul-ing problems is Design Engineering.
Other departments, groups and committees contribute in varying degrees to the problems associated with scheduling at Calvert Cliffs by not delivering the work needed on time. The observations and recommendations within Design Engineering are addressed in Section 4.5.
The Plant and Project Engineering Section should do the schedule rollups and status of schedules.
Also, they should establish commitment lists and be the incom-ing focal point for work that requires scheduling.
The Nuclear Maintenance Department and the Nuclear Operating Department must realize that requests requiring FCRs can take a significant amount of time to bring deliverables to fruition.
Therefore, many changes need to be identified a year or two in advance if they are outage-related.
Likewise, once an FCR plant modification is approved, the Work Management Committee and Schedule Review Group cannot 6-2
change priorities and schedules without impacting NESD's ability to supply deliverables.
Corporate Goals affecting NESD must be considered in the overall scheduling process.
Recommendation:
The focal point for incoming NESD work to be scheduled should be the Project Engineering Unit.
Technical Services Engineering units, such as Fuel Cycle Management, or work efforts not requiring FCRs are possible exceptions.
The NESD engineering units should assess the work requested and provide the appro-priate Project Engineer with a schedule after considering other work in progress and available workforce.
The Project Engineer should be the clearinghouse for NESD and provide proposed schedules and commitments to the Work Management Committee or Schedule Review Group and other departments as appropriate.
Once concurrence has been reached, the work plan and schedule should be put into effect, priorities established, and commit-ments met.
On a larger scale, the Schedule Review Group should monitor plant milestone commitments made by all departments, including final implementation notices and as-built documenta-tion.
6.4 PRIORITIES Work priorities for some persons in NESD, and in particular Design Engineering, are not clearly established or are perceived to be continually changing; however, many persons have a clear understanding of the responsibilities of their position.
Still, many of those are faced with day-to-day priority shifts and find themselves questioning which jobs should receive immediate attention.
In a few cases, conflicts in priorities in several areas of responsibility were evident.
Recommendation:
Job function priorities should be established for each unit in NESD.
The Principal Engineer of each unit, alor.g with the unit supervisors, should determine the persons responsible for each job function on a priority basis.
The objective is that various persons in a unit should have different job functions as a top priori ty.
Types of job functions that might receive priority are direct support for Nuclear Maintenance and Nuclear Operat-ing Departments, FCRs, Design Basis Maintenance, Fuel Manage-ment, Licensing, and " fly up" work. Further prioritization will usually be required once these functional priorities have been established.
For instance, FCRs should be agreed upon, priori-tized, and scheduled.
Otherwise, the teams required to work on the various parts of the FCR will not be working toward the same end.
Once priorities are established and budgets committed, priorities should not be routinely changed.
Starting over, rescheduling and reprioritizing causes a great deal of confu-sion, lost work effort, and extra costs.
6-3
8 6.5 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTRATION While no Tormal Professional Engineer registration program exists in NESD, supervision recognizes that registration is desirable and encourages each individual to work towards registration.
It is recommended that this policy be formalized throughout NESD.
Professional Engineer registration can add pres-tige, professionalism, and a feeling of advancement to the NESD organization.
Individual recognition adds to the career development of the personnel in the department..Also, Professional Engineer registration will add to the status and authority of the department with regard to the use of contractors, (i.e.,
Architect / Engineer and Contract Service organizations).
Recommendation:
Establish a formal program of requiring Professional Engineer registration for appropriate job classifications within NESD.
]
The formal program should establish a one-time payment of fees associated with obtaining registration and payment of annual renewal fees.
Also, the program should establ'.sn a method of recognizing individuals who obtain registration, such as inter-nal and external news releases, " trophy board" in the Nuclear Engineering Facility, etc.
6.6 INTERFACES The Nuclear Engineering Services Department has established numerous interfaces both within and outside the department.
Generally speaking, these interfaces are well established and are very effective in co'nducting business.
This fact speaks well for the philosophy and attitude of NESD management in working with other organizations.
- However, two specific interfaces need attention to increase the awareness of the needs of NESD.
6.6.1 QUALITYASSURANCEANDSTAFFSERVICISDEPARTMENT-DOCUMENT CONTROL UNIT All manuals, vendor drawings, product literature, etc. are presently handled exclusively by the Document Control Unit.
Also, this unit is responsible for transmitting all Design Engineering drawings.
Detailed procedures are needed to describe the handling of such documents, particularly those which are received from outside of Baltimore Gas and Electric.
Such procedures can pre-vent new or revised vendor documents from being filed or distributed without responsible engineering review and approval and the determination of whether field changes are required.
Also, these procedures can aid in the tracking of design drawings throughout the printing and transmittal process, and thus avoid the possibility of lost drawings.
Recommendation:
NESD should establish a Task Force with the Document Control Unit to generate detailed procedures pertaining to the receipt, printing, transmittal, and filing of documents, consistent with proper review and approval of these documents.
6-4
)
)
6.6.2 INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT The computer terminal and PC are playing more important roles in the day-to-day operations of NESD.
In some Work units (e.g., Analytical Support), the comput-er is required for personnel to perform assigned duties.
Since all computer resources are allocated by the Information Systems Department (ISD), a strong i
interface between ISD and NESD is a necessity.
At present, this interface is in place; however, neither ISD nor NESD appears to fully understand the other department's operations or procedures.
For example, NESD does not fully understand ISD's forecasting of computer needs with respect to capital budgets.
On the other hand, ISD does not comprehend NESD's special short-term program-ming needs.
Strengthening the interface between.ISD and NESD should result in ISD being more responsive to NESD's special programming and equipment needs, and in turn would allow NESD to better handle the procedures for requesting programming software and equipment.
Recommendation:
NESD should establish a Task Force with ISD to further educate both departments in the needs and procedures of the two groups.
Personnel from ISD should be encouraged to visit the NESD work areas to observe firsthand how the computer resources are being used and to discuss new and improved applications of computers in the workplace.
Also, key individuals in NESD should visit ISD to !?arn how they forecast computer needs and to receive training on the procedures that are followed to request computer software and equipment.
6.7 MEETINGS Meetings are a vital part of the day-to-day operations of the NESD and the other departments at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
The interviews conducted at the plant revealed that meetings are indeed held and that informa-tion is being disseminated.
This is particularly true in the middle management area and is reflected in middle management's awareness of the operational status of the plant.
However, it is apparent that possibly too many meetings are being held, and these meetings lack structure to make them ful.ly.. productive and effective.
Time management strategies should be implemented.
Training in how to conduct and participate in effective meetings is a possible solution to this problem.
All parties should be aware that during a meeting they cannot
-perform job-specific tasks nor are they available to others from a supervisory or problem solving standpoint.
Recommendation:
Institute training of personnel in conducting and participating in ef fective meetings.
Establish a policy concerning meetings which should include the following guidelines:
Confirm the necessity of the meeting.
Invite only key participants, but strive to include all participants.
6-5
\\
4 Set an agenda before the meeting.
Stick to the agenda during the meeting.
Set a time limit for the meeting.
Keep records / minutes of the meeting.
Disseminate records / minutes of the meeting promptly to appropriate personnel highlighting action items.
6.8 CORPORATE GOALS The Baltimore Gas and Electric corporate goals are supported by the Nuclear Program Plan which involves operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP).
The mission of all associated with CCNPP is to: Improve the position of Calvert Cliffs in the Nuclear Industry by achieving established performance levels in the following areas:
Public Safety Personnel Safety Generation Output Productivity Enhancement External Perception Performance improvements in these five areas are the long-range goals for CCNPP.
Long range goals are each divided into strat.egic goals.. Strategic goals are sub-divided into objectives, which are accomplished by the completion of several initiatives.
These initiatives are well-defined, specific in nature, and clearly stated.
This hierarchy of results-oriented tasks provides an excellent structure for achievement of the overall CCNPP goals.
Within the goals structure, objectives are generally assigned to department managers and general supervisors are responsible for initiatives.
The plan for transferring responsibility for specific initiatives to the appropriate General Supervisor is excellent.
Definition of each initiative includes a target schedule in addition to the specific responsibility assignment.
The inherent accountability structure provides an incentive for timely task completion in support of the corporate goals.
However, based on interviews with many NESD personnel below the General Supervisor le/el, a lack of under-standing of the commitment to Corporate or Nuclear Energy Division goals exists for personnel not directly responsible for the initiatives.
Work packages for implementing initiatives compete with " fly up" work, as do other nongoal-related FCRs.
Recommendation:
Achieving corporate goals is the responsibility of all Baltimore Gas and Electric employees.
The performance objectives of each individual within NESD relate to and involve ~ the achievement of corporate goals, objectives and initiatives.
Although these 6-6
9 4
items are clearly stated in a definitive plan, no opportunity to stress their importance should be missed.
It is recommended that NESD management increase their efforts to communicate the corporate goals program to all' personnel.
Employees should be educated on the goals, the importance of achievement to the company, and how their individual efforts support the achieve-ment of the goals.
Status of corporate goals should be conveyed periodically to all personnel.
NESD management should provide specific information concerning the role of NESD in the attain-ment _ of corporate goals, the status of NESD-related goals, and what' actions are being taken to assure that all goals, objec-tives, and initiatives will be met.
As this information is.
provided, employees will-gain a better understanding of the management decision-making process and will be more likely to include company and department goals ~into daily decisio'ns concerning work priorities and methods.
i i
6-7 i
J
N 9
- 7. 0 gJ,gLfMg1
- 7.1
.SHORT-TERM ITEMS ~
1.
Keep Senior Engineers closely involved with systems assigned to new and inexperienced engineers.
(3.1.2) 2.
Further implement a short' training course to familiarize inexperi-enced System Engineers with plant systems.
(3.1.2) 3.
Assign prioritir.ing " fly-up" and backlog work in the System Units to the Principal Engineers.
(3.1.4) 4.
Establish " fly-up" single point contacts within Design Engineering.
(4.1.3) (4.2.4) 5.
Provide crisis work lessons learned feedback to Design Engineering Personnel.
(4.1.4) 6.
Recognize accomplishments of Design Engineering personnel with regard to crisis work.
(4.1.4) 7.
Plant and Project Engineering should contact Design Engineering concerning plant problems.
(4.2.1) 8.
Maintain established criteria for s'ending work to A/E.
(4.2.2) 9.
Appoint responsible engineer for each modification sent to A/E (4.2.2) 10.
Involve the Performance Engineering and Analytical Support-Units in resolving operation problems and conceptual design.
(4.2.3) 11.
Identify Design Engineering personnel responsible for all functional areas and work types.
(4.2.4) 12.
Encourage attendance of Design Engineers at technical seminars and conferences.
(4.3) 13.
Confirm Design Engineering staffing levels.
(4.4) 14.
Identify and schedule Design Engineering work items for the next two years.
(4.5) 15.
Responsible Engineers (Lead Lesign Engineers) should monitor Design Engineering and external schedule Commitments.
(4.5) 16.
Procurement should routinely provide updated list of lead times for l
Design Engineering.
(4.5) 17..
Fuel Cycle Management should develop a controlling work place proce-dure for the reload design process.
(5.1.1) 7-1
8 18.
Fuel' Cycle Management should continue regularly scheduled interface meetings with all groups involved in the refueling process.
(5.1.2) 19.
Establish a contact with ISD for Fuel Cycle Management.
(5.1.2) 20.
Complete the approved Licensing Unit staffing.
(5.2.1) 21.
Establish the Licensing Unit as a key interface for the NRC Regional-Office and a contact for the NRC Resident Inspector.
(5.2.2) 22.
Reassign the sponsorship of LERs to the Licensing Unit.
(5.2.2) 23.
Orient NESD and other departments as to the capabilities of the Analytical Support Unit.
(5.3.1) 24.
Establish direct liaison between the Analytical Support Unit and ISD.
(5.3.2) 25.
Emphasize 5e use of the Performance Engineering Unit in resolving plant opere ting problems.
(5.4.1) 26.
Establish job function priorities for each unit of NESD.
(6.4) 27.
Establish a Task Force with ISD to address computer needs and proce-dures.
(6.6.2) 28.
Provide a monthly status of Corporate Goals to personnel.
(6.8) 7.2 LONG-TERM ITEMS 1.
Continue to transfer the FCR coordination responsibility to Project Engineering Unit.
(3.1.1) (3.2.1) 2.
Provide an indoctrination period for newly hired engineers through various departments for interface and rol.e acquaintance.
(3.1,2) 3.
Assign NESD responsibility to get FCRs scheduled to Project Engineers in Plant and Project Engineering.
(3.1.4) (3.2.1) 4.
Implement the present plan to move System Engineers inside the fence.
(3.1.5) 5.
Establish a Minor Modification Program.
(3.2.2) 6.
Continue to provide FCR, system, and major discipline training for Project Engineers (3.2.3) 7.
Evaluate the present Project Engineering staff in light of the I
proposed increase in FCR and scheduling responsibilities.
(3.2.4) 8.
Develop an NESD priority list for FCRs.
(3.2.5) 7-2 4
- e...
'9.
. Consolidate' the scheduling activities for NESD into the Engineering
'Plannifig Unit.
(3.2.1) (3.2.5) 10.
Develop an FCR outage list.
(3.2.5) 11.
Develop a monthly status report of FCRs'in progress.
(3.2.5) 12.
Develop an FCR ranking list.
(3.2.5) 13.
Update the Calvert Cliffs' Nuclear Design Basis.
(4.1.1) 14.
Establish an FCR process training program for Design Engineering.
(4.1.2) 15.
Involve Design Engineering in modification scope and concept develop-ment.
(4.2.1) 16.
Provide scheduling support and tools to Lead Engineers.
(4.5) 17.
Establish _a program of rotating. individuals through Licensing.
(5.2.1) 18.
Provide budget flexibility of computer support for the Performance Engineering Unit.
(5.4.2) 19.
Utilize performance engineers predominantly on performance-related projects.
(5.4.3) 20.
Provide additional steps in the Engineer career ladder between Engineer Associate and Senior Engineer.
(6,1) 21.
Establish periodic meetings between Procurement and NESD and insti-tute training as necessary.
(6.2) 22.
Make Project Engineering the clearinghouse for NESD schedules and commitments.
(6.3) 23.
Establish a program for PE registration.
(6.5) 24.
Establish a procedure for Document Control.
(6.6.1)
- 25. Institute training of personnel in conducting and participating in effective meetings. (6.7) 26.
Ensure specific corporate goals and objectives are assigned to responsible parties at all times.
(6.8) l 7-3
n.ny- -..,
O g h
4 9
ATTACHMENT 1 PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED
PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED W..J. " Jim" Lippold
_ Manager, NESD A. R. "Al" Thornton - General Supervisor, Plant and Projects Engineering
. G. S. " Gary" Pcvis - Principal Engineer M."J. " Mike " Gahan - Principal Engineer T.' L. " Tom" Sydnor - Principal Engineer C. R. " Charlie" Mahon - Principal Engineer J. M._" John" Dahlquist - Senior Engineer S. M. " Steve" Davis - Senior Engineer M.'G. " Mike" Polak - Senior Engineer R.'D. " Rich" Branch - Senior Engineer B..N. " Bruce" Proctor - Senior Engineer B. J. "Barry" Sullivan - Senior Engineer G. R. " Guy" Knieriem - Senior Engineer E. V. " Gene" Farrell - Senior Engineer
- 0. P. " Otto" Bulich - Senior Engineer R.-B. "Russ" Sydnor - Senior Engineer T.' M. " Tim" Delaney - Engineer C. W. " Chad" Main - Engineer J. K. " Kent" Mills - Engineer H. E. "Bart" Nixon - Engineer R. C. "Ron" Clement - Engineer M. A. " Mike" Cox - Engineer lA L__
= - - _ _ - _ _.. _
V 8
. +.
m4w..
' PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED (Cont'd) p R.'C.'"Russ" Lake Engineer.
M. R. " Mike" Snodderly - Engineer.
E. R.~"Ed" Bauer - Engineer Analyst J.'R. "Ronnie".Dunn'- Engineer Analyst K. T. "Kevin" Brandt - Engineer Tech.
B. R. " Brad" Wright - Engineer Tech.
M. J. " Mike" Warren - Engineer. Tech.
P. E. "Pete" Xatz - General Supervisor, Design Engineering D. T. " Don" Ward - Principal Engineer
.S. C. " Steve" Collins - Principal Engineer K. H. " Ken" Sebra - Principal Engineer
-M. D. "Malcolm" Patterson - Principal Engineer R. C. "L. " Rich" Olson - Principal Engineer P. J. "Phil" Hebrank - Senior Engineer R. A. " Rich" Buttner - Senior Engineer C. N.," Bud" Butler - Senior Engineer W. C. " Bill" Holston - Senior Engineer R. L. " Rich" Szoch - Senior Engineer D. E. " Dennis" Brady - Engineer G. J. " Gary" O'Connell - Engineer M. T. "Michaela" Sharpe - Engineer i
J. A. "Julie" Rausa - Engineer T. H. " Tom" Franz - Senior Designer 1B 1
..__u_
m.__--_
I
7 Y
,s.
h.
i PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED (Cont'd)
[
L p
M.'E. "Marv" Bowman - General Supervisor, Technical Services Engineering R. R. " Bob" Allen - Principal Engineer L. E. " Larry" Salyards - Principal Engineer i..
J. B. Couch - Senior Engineer
~
D. S. " Scott" Elkins - Senior Engineer J. F. " Joe" Williams - Senior Engineer S. R. " Steve" Cowne - Senior Engineer B. S. " Bruce" Montgomery - Senior Engineer R. H. " Bob" Beall - Engineer W. P. " Bill" McGauthey - Engineer K.'L. " Ken" Green - Engineer 1C
5 PERSONNEL INTERVIEWED EXTERNAL TO NESD l
J. R. " Jim" Lemons - Manager, Nuclear Operations Dept.
G. C. "Gus" Wolf - Supervisor, N00, Operations and Maintenance Coordination i.
L. B. " Lee" Russell - Manager, Nuclear Maintenance Dept.
R. M. " Bob" Douglass - Manager, QASSD E. "Eric" Zumwalt - Supervisor, QASSD, Planning and Support L. L. " Larry" Weckbaugh - Supervisor, QASSD, Procurement and Contract (Formerly Supervisor, Nuclear Maintenance Department, Planning and Scheduling) l 1
l 1
{
l i
L.
l-1D l
l l
l l
y.
h a
6-ATTACHMENT 2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 4
=..
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT-The questions. listed below served as a. framework during the personnel inter-views conducted during this review.
Some were inappropriate and were excluded.
However, in many instances, these' questions initiated in-depth and probing discussions.
Therefore, this list should not be considered comprehensive.
I.
MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS:
1.
What do you see as the primary. function and responsibility of NESD?
2.
What ' problems do you see with and within NESD?
Plant & Projects Engineering?
Design Engineering?
Technical Services Engineering?
- Interfacing
- Experience Level
- Sc'heduling
- Responsiveness
- Cost
- Workload
- Technical 3.
What improvements would you like to see in interfaces or internal to NESD? The Sections? The Units?
4.
Are there goals for each department?
How are they monitored and reported?
5.
Is there any type of incentives program related to job performance and goals?
6.
Three years from now, what changes do you foresee?
7.
Reports to upper management and within Nuclear Energy Division - What type? Example.
How often? Contents?
- What is done about significant items that are identified in reports?
- How effective are reports?
6.
Who makes decisions on plant operations?
How involved is NESD with these decisions?
9.
Who at BG&E/Calvert Cliffs is responsible for the budget? Goals? How are budgets tracked?
10.
What is the process of Calvert Cliffs for review and approval of Capital Expenditures? Plant Maintenance Expenditures?
II. INTERFACE GROUPS QUESTIONS:
(Some Managers and Supervisors Included) 1.
What do you see as the primary function and responsibility of NESD?
Plant & Project Engineering?
Design Engineering? Technical Services Engineering?
2.
How do you interface with NESD? P&PE? DE? TSE?
2A
4, 7
1
- Phone - Paperwork - In Person g
3.
What problems do you see with interfacing?
4.
Describe. the division of responsibilities between NESD, P&PE, DE, TSE and your group, i
5.
Is. there a free exchange of ideas and information between groups?
6.
What improvements would you like to see?
7.
Are there things that you feel should be accomplished but do not have time or authority to do?
8.
Do you recognize any duplication of effort by various groups?
9.
Are there areas that do not fall within any group's responsibility?
Examples?
10.
Are there problems, handicaps, road blocks in performing your job that one of the sections in NESD could help?
- 11. What is your perception of quality or quantity of design work per-formed by NESD? P&PE? DE? TSE? (Primarily DE)
- In-house - By A/Es III. NESD MANAGERS' & SUPERVISORS' QUESTIONS:
1.
What do you see as the primary function and responsibilities of NESD?
P&PE? DE? TSE?
2.
Describe division of responsibilities between NESD, P&PE, DE, TSE and other groups.
3.
What groups / departments / companies do you interface with? (Formal and informal.)
4.
Is there a free exchange of ideas and information between groups?
5.
Describe wort flow in general terms.
6.
What reports are generated or used by NESD? P&PE? DE? TSE?
7.
What are the criteria to determine whether a job is performed in-house versus an A/E7 Who makes the decision or what factors are used to make the determination?
8.
What is the difference in the final design product, in-house versus A/E?.
- Cost
- Quality
- Schedule 2B
T n..-
9.
How is the work of A/Es?
- Reviewed-
- Evaluated
- Managed 10.
How are changes handled in-house? Scope? ~With A/E?
11.
Who identifies problems in plant?
12.
How much use of CAD /CAE? Data Bases?
- 13. What design standards do you use? A/E use?
14.
How is high priority and/or unplanned work handled?
Crisis work?
How is time charged?
16.
What problems do you see in:
- Interfacing
- Technical
- Training
- Paperwork
- Monitoring
- Experience
- Schedules
- Organization
- Work Location
- Costs.
- Manpower
- Computer Resources
- Workload 17.
What improvements would you like to see?
18.
Do you recognize any duplication of effort by various groups?
19.
Are there things that you feel should be accomplished but do not have time or authority to do?
20.
Do you have any comments concerning the current organization of NESD?
P&PE? DE? TSE?
21.
Do you have goals'to meet (corporate / divisional / department)?
If so, are the various goals related? Are they monitored and how?
22.
Do you receive feedback from upper management on performance or accomplishments as a Department, Section, Group, Individually?
23.
What are your responsibilities?
24.
What is your educational background?
25.
Are you a Professional Engineer?
26.
What committees do you serve on, if any?
How much time does this require?
~
27.
Do you feel that system, design, etc. engineers should be Professional Engineers?
2C 1
_____-__________-_____-_-_______-___O
p 5
q 4
k
.q
- 28. Who sets priorities of work?
How are they set?
Who changes them?
How?
29.
Are there too many priority changes?
IV. NON-SUPERVISORS 5 QUESTIONS _:
1.
What do you see as the primary function and responsibilities of NESD?
P&PE? DE? TSE?
2.
What are your responsibilities and duties?
3.
Describe the chain of command, formal and informal.
4.
How does the work flow?
5.
What procedures, codes and standards do you use in your work?
6.
Who do you work with (other groups) on a regular basis?
Formal or informal?
7.
What types of information related to your job do you receive from other groups or your supervision?
8.
What information do you send to other groups (end product)?
9.
Is there a free exchange of information between groups?
10.
How do you manage A/E jobs? What detail review?
11.
How do you perceive the quality / quantity of A/E work?
12.
What are examples of in-house jobs versus outside?
13.
What reports are generated? Who do they go to?
14.
Do you make recommendations to P&PE, DE, TSE management?
15.
Are they accepted favorably by management?
Do you see action taken?
16.
Do you receive feedback from supervision regarding performance? How?
17.
Do you have formal performance evaluations?
Are they meaningful?
18.
Do you have a c-lear career path?
19.
Are there any job functions which you now perform that you feel under-qualified to perform? Overqualified?
20.
Do you often feel that you have too much work to do?
Not enough?
What is your workload?
21.
Who establishes your work priorities?
2D
~~
~
~~
22.
Are you often frustrated by interruptions or priority changes in your work?
23.
In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the current organ-izational structure?
24.
How do you find the work environment and conditions?
25.
What problems do you see in:
- Interfacing
- Technical
- Paperwork
- Monitoring
- Schedules
- Organization
- Costs 26.
Do you detect any duplication of effort?
- 27. What improvements.would you like to 5te?
28.
Are there things you feel should be accomplished but do not have time or authority do do so?
29.
What is your educational background?
30.
Are any special qualifications or experience needed in your work?
31.
Do you need any special training?
32.
Do you receive special/ routine training?
33.
Are you a Professional Engineer?
34.
What committees do you serve on?
How much time does this require?
O 2E
r ia e
e.
4 ATTACHMENT 3 NESD ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS 6
l
$ _p
,4 g-W f
1t
- -1 lEl u as g=
g b
Ic W
5 e
ag E
$ *W
=
C O
8-
[
w w
ile m
g ei y
a.
n 5.
a M
W Yd w
e x
8 5
.z '
"i sg
=,
,x Ld w
Iw 8 6 e
5 5
2 3A g
E 4
_..___1.
______________________._________________-________.___________._____.________._______._._________.______m_______
b.
>.8I 1x s-d
$g.ilI e
2 iE 8-l4=
y 5
M.
EE E
N s
52 l5 j !!EE
'"$8 E
n g
w I
g h o*
E s8 Il^
Z s
o E5 5
+
- e u su 5 Me 5E W
5 e
55 B
MSEA f
$l5 S
l 5893 5
as 5e 9b w
w j
4 6'
a e
G IN R
E R
E EE M S N
GI G N V E A N
E LP.
I A S.
T P
C CG I
EJ N
O R
R P
P O
N E
S R
T Y
M E
S LL E
E L
U TGN A
N I
C SNIGA YI G
R S
S RNH N
A EEA T
L I
YE R
R J.
RNAL G.
I E
IAGPJ.
E G
C I
I E
LNCM E
N N
R S
IL EN X
I E
R U
R IG E
O P
A N
I N
I SN G VO E
N RT T
E EN PR C
TC UO E
E SH J
J L T.
O O
A R
RR R
P E.
S P
M E
NA R
E T
G E
E N
TGNR S
T A
YI GO N
N R
SRNDN E E A
Y Y
L RELS I
P AI A GPL.
0 I
NC 7
T C'. E N R
E P
S R
S E
M E
EGNN TN G O SIY RN H S EE A M.
E L
I YNA R G P R.
A I
NC I
C
)
M EN 8
R I
8 R
P 9
P 1
1, HCR AM EV l
iC E
EFF E(
I1 lll IilI!!l1il
li
- ;:Ai l1 i
. e I.
6 GN R
E R
E E
N E
I M N G
GE N
NL E
EL A I
E L
C AR N F A
CR M
N RO R
F P
REP O
N E
TR R
T S
O E
S M
P E
L A
P NY G
I D
U G K A
I S
N R
A S
NR A
L.
L EI IR T
I L M.
A E
G E
G I
P M.
A C
R E
N C
T I
N R
E Y
C I
E S
L N S G
E R
A IR N
IN O
N P
A E
G S
N VN I
S E
S C
E PW C
UO I
I SB V
V R
R L.
E AE S
R.
L N
E R
L A
E M
E A
E G E
E C
N G N (B A
C N
C N G L I
I E
A NA M EN H
I I
LM C
E A
E L
F.
T C
CA.
YC NJ R
L P
EU F
R EES ND G
I R G
N N A Y
S E
L N
LA I
E AS C
I PIE L
C
)
NL 8
I 8
R 9
P 1
1, HCR AM EV l
i C
E F
(
I i
l1lll!f[
e.
s a
PIP TO PIPIP CORRELATION PIP SECTION TITLE COteosStONDItG PIPIP SECTION I,
Management Overview, Findings NONE II.B.1 Planning Process NONE II.B.2 Perfomance Objectives 2.4, 2.5 II.B.3 NumgemsInt Expectations 2.2 II.B.4 Camunications Plan 2.2.2 II.B.5 tkclear Infomation Project 5.3,2 II.B.6 C mmitment Management Project 2.5.1 II.B.7 Team B2ildirtl Workshops 3.4 II.B.8 Quality CirN.2 Program 3.9 II.B.9 Perfomance Management Pmeess 2.2.1 II.B.10 Pmeedums Upgrade Pmject 5.2.1 II.B.11 Leadership Conferences 3.3 II.C.1 Pmject Management 3.5 II.C.2 System Cimles 3.8 II.C.3 System Engineer Job Description 3.1 II.C.4 Combined Maintenance and 3.1 Operations Department II.C.5 Surveillance Test Program 5.2.2 II.C.6 Technical Manual Impmvements 5.3.3 III.B.1 Off-Site Safety Review Cocxnittee 4.8 III.B.2 Plant Operations and Safety 4.7 Review Cocunittee III.B.3 Safety Evaluations in accordance 4.5 with 10 CFR 50.59 III.B.4 Configuration Management Unit 5.3.4 III.B.5 Engineer Training 5.4.1 III.B.6 Duke Engineering Evaluation 3.1, 5.4.2 III.B.7 Visiting other plants 4.9 III.B.8 Reliability-centered Maintenance 5.4.3 Pmject III.C.1 Self-evaluations N0tE III.C.2 Independent Safety Evaluation 4.4 III.C.3 Internal Assessment Process 4.3, 4.2 III.C.4 Boot Cause Analysis 4.6 III.C.5 INFO Significant Operating 4.1 Experience Reports III.C.6 Procurement Program Project 5.3.1 III.C.7 Post Maintenance Testing 5.3.2 L.
- gl 6%
'~
PIP SECTION TITLE 00RRESPONDItG PIPIP SECTION IV.B.1 Budget and Staffing 2,3 IV.B.2 Engineering Plannina 3.7 IV.B.3 Daily and Outage Wort Activities 3.6 IV.B.4 Auxiliary Systems Engineering S.1 Unit IV.B.5 Managing Orwaninticnal and 3.2 Pr %
Changes APPENDIX A M mma n of Process NONE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -