ML20203G625
| ML20203G625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1993 |
| From: | Doerflein L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203G108 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-469 NUDOCS 9803030027 | |
| Download: ML20203G625 (10) | |
Text
- - _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _
k Enclosure 1 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: A. Randolph lilough, Chief Reactor Projects 11 ranch 4 FROM: Lawrence T. Doerflein, Chief Reactor Projects Section 4A SUBJEC1: INSPECTION COVERAGE DURING MILLSTONE UNIT 2 RESTART Enclosed is a plan to provide augtrented coverage starting December 28,1992, for the l Millstone Unit 2 restart. We plan to provide about two days of augmented coverage i
verifying heat-up and start up preparations, then three to four days of around the-clock coverage, commencing about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> prior to entry into Mode 4. Follow-on augmented coverage should last approximately I week, the amount of time for the plant to reach.104%
power.
Paul Swetland will manage the team effort and Rien Barkley will be the team leader. Rich will coordinate the inspection activities and be responsible for compilh:g the inspection report. Shift coverage will be provided by A. Asars, R. Arrighi, P. Sena, R. Barkley and M. Buckley, as needed (see Enclosure 2). The current schMule calls for shift coverage to begin on December 30,1992; alternate schedules have been proposed if the plant : tart up is
'iclayed. ,
4
. ,,L a I
lawrence T. Doerflein, Chief Y Reactor Projects Secticn 4A
Enclosures:
- 1) Augmented Inspection CoveraEe for th: Millsto;,e Unit 2 Restart
- 2) Personnel Availability for Unit 2 Restart Team cc w/ enclosure:
Unit 2 Restart Coverage Team Participants J. Wiggins P. Swetland W. Pasciak D. Jaffe J. Durr --
,- R.11arkley 9803030027 900226 PDR FOIA
.__G'1AL197,-469 PDR ,,
1 Enclosure 1 AUGMENTED INSPECTION COVERAGE
]
FOR TIIE MILLSTONE UNIT 2 RESTART OVERVIEW Based upon the decline in performance of Millstone Station in the previous SALP cycles and the length of the Unit 2 steam generator replacement /refuci'L ., outage, augmented inspection coverage is planned to monitor NU management oversight and controi of start-up activities and to verify proper operator performance. ,
NRC INSPECTION COVERAGE This inspection effort has been planned to monitor plant start up activities both before and after NU and the NRC hwe ascertained that the unit is ready for start up. The inspectors will verify some start up preparations during approximately the final two days before heatup.
The Team Manager and Team Inder will select items from the NRC Millstone Unit 2 Restart Checklist and NRC Manual Chapter 93802, Operational Safety Team inspection (OSTI), during this period. Twenty four hour shift inspection coverage is planned for the first two or three days of the Unit 2 start up and will begin about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> prior to entry into Mode 4. The need to continue around theelock coverage will be reassessed on the basis of
')
licensee performance and progicss during the start up. The proposed shift coverage will provide the buis for an assessment of the effectiveness of management oversight and operatar performance. The team manager will assess the need for continued shift covemge on an ongoing basis. Shift coverage may be deferred during stagnant periods of start up activity.
The shift coverage will be terminated upon achievement of the inspection goals and after consultation with Region 1 management. Thereafter, only significam evolutions would be covered. The period of augmented inspection (approximat iy I week) should cover ascension to 100% power.
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES The following key activities will be reviewed during shift coverage:
- Heatup and start up prerequisites (including independent vc-ification)
- Shift crew briefings and turnovers Management and plant operations review committee meetings
- Test data reduction and evaluation
)
i
- y. ,
Unit 2 Restart coverage 2
- Mode change preparaticas and safety system alignments (Technical specification verification)
- Reactor Start up nd low power physics testing
- Main turbine start-up and synchronization to the grid
- Dynamic tests of motor operated valves (Generic Letter 89-10)
- oteam generator and containment temperature in service test
- Steam generator performance test
- RCS hydrostatic test
- RPS/ESFAS systems testing
- Safety related equipment main % nance 4
PRE-INSPECTION PREPARATION Each inspector should review the following documents prior to arrival on site.
- MC 93802, Operational Safety Team Inspection
- Inspection report 50 336/90-22; Containment integrity violations
f Each inspector will monitor NU during their assigned shift. Shift covuage will, as best possible, parallel NU's schedule with a short period before shift for turnover and after the shift for de-briefing. Findings or concerns will be recorded in a shift inspector log in order -
to (entralize all observations. The inspectors should monitor the following specific types of activities during their shift:
. f (Jnit 2 Restart Coverage 3
)
- Operator attentiveness to plant acdvities and conditions l
- Formality, safety perspective, and performance of routine functions ,
- Non liceirmi operator performance
!
- Procedure adherence
- Satisfactory completion o? procedure objectives aiid acceptance criteric
- Technical Specification conpliance
- Restomtion and testing of fafety rclaied equipment
- - Response to non routine oxurrencos l
l * -Involvement of managemen'
- Conduct of special tests, including pre-evolut8 on briefings
- Shift team work
- Shift superesor oversight of shift activities
- Role of QA/QC during jtb performance
- Problem solving Manual Chapters 71711, Pknt S/U from Refueling,71715, Sustained Control Room and
-Plant Observations, and 93802, OSTI, will be used as guidance for this inspection effort.-
DOCUMENTATION
)
All inspectors will provide write-ups to the team leader for incorporation in the team inspection report, preferably prior to departure from the site but in no case less than a week later.
2
- g .
MAP Minutes #8 5 6
bec w/enclosu'.e:
R. Barkley, DRP L. Lamber.1, DRP l
1 l
r Cencurrence: Q \
Bar e Blough iggins 1/ 79 3 14]/93 N/_/93 .1/_/93 S:MAPMINS8.YRB 1 :7
( ; ,, * , f , '
J , - . . . ' > ' E*** "'
i e
MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL (MAP)
FEB.9.1993 COMMISSION BRIEFING OUTLINE
= MAP
Background
Purpose Activities
= PEP EVALUATION
=
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS 3G
\
MA2
=
MAP TEAM: (Rl/NRR)
Established May 1992 a PURPOSE:
Evaluate Adequacy of NU Performance Enhancement Program Oversight
i i
MA2
= MAP ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING EVALUA TION MAP List of (23) Performance issues at Millstone 2 Audits Public Meeting Seven MAP Meetings Normal Site Inspections l
l l
i l
l l PEP EVALUA TION .
i i
i l
= ROOT CAUSE l
l Imbedded in broad categories of:
- 1) Management Practices
- 2) Programs & Processes
- 3) Performance Assessment Finding: Complete
= SCOPE: COMPLETENESS OF P.E.P.
NU's 4 Task Groups l _
NU Programmatic Issues l _
NU Consultants (A TLAS; HA Y)
MAP Operational Concems Finding: Complete I >
PEP EVALUA TION
= VERIFICA TION: PEP ACTION PLANS Supporting Action Plan Deliverables Status
= VAllDA TION: PEP ACTION PLANS Criteria for Success Stillin Preparation By NU l
l
1 MA2
SUMMARY
CONL,'.USIONS E
= SCOPE OF PEP ACTION PLANS COMPLETE
=
TOO EARL Y TO JUDGE SUCCESS REGARDING IMPLEMENTA TION RESULTS l
=
MAP STA TUS RECOMMENDA TION
g .
+*g2 '8 49'o d, Cb L L UNITED STATES 8j
- Pg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
gi $
'f r.tcioN i 476 ALLENDALE ROAD D \~4 d@
e% ...** j' KING oF PRUSslA. PINNsYLVANIA 194061416
[p e, 73 Docket Nos. 50 213, 50 245, 50-336, 50-423 Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President Nuclear Northeast Utilities P.O. Box 270 riartford, CT 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUlUECT: JANUARY 13,1993, NORTIIEAST UTILITIES MEETING WITil TIIE MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL REGARDING TIIE PERFORMANCE ENIIANCEMENT PROGRAM (PEP)
The NRC Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) met with you and your staff on January 13, 1993, from 10:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. in the Lee F. Sillin Training Center at the Millstone site to discuss the Performance Enhancement Program. The meeting was open for public observation. During the meeting, you presented: 1) your progress to date on implementing the PEP; 2) your work since October 1992 in the areas of developing validation criteria and communicating the PEP to your work force; and 3) your evaluation and response to the comments provided to the NRC by attendees at the public meeting held on the PEP on November 5,1992, in East Lyme, CT. A copy of the slides from your presentation is enclosed, in addition, the MAP discussed with you: 1) the findings to date of the NRC review of the PEP; 2) the preliminary findings of the NRC team that observed the restart of Millstone Unit 2; and 3) future activities planned by the MAP.
The MAP founo that your progress thus far at implementing the PEP is near the schedule you originally provided in your June 1992 PEP submittal. However, while you have made additional progress with the verification and validation (V&V) effort since the NRC looked at the program in October 1992, the V&V effort still remains at a preliminary stage. To date, the MAP has not yet drawn a definitive conclusior, regarding the adequacy of the validation effort due to the changes you have made recently and tM infancy of the program. The MAP will need to maintain a continuing dialogue with your staff e. these program changes and progress.
. n o m o u r: qm
, n Mr. John F. Opeka 2 With regard to the public comments received on the PEP, we found that your efforts to date appear responsive to the concerns raised at the public meeting. In particular, your initiatives to address the concerns in the emergency planning area were comprehensive and responsive to the concern raised. However, the remaining comments on the PEP are significantly more difficult to address than the EP concem had will therefore require continued attention.
The MAP informed you that our review of the PEP has not yet been fully completed due to our outstanding questions with the adequacy of the PEP validation program. However, to date we have determined that Phase 1 (the evaluation of the underlying causes of your performance deficiencies) and Phase II (the PEP Action Plans intended to address the causes of these deficiencies and improve performance) are sufficiently comprehensive to address the )
performance deficiencies both you and the NRC have noted. In addition, the verification process you have established in PEP Phase 111 appears adequate with sufficient management oversight and independence of the verification group to ensure its effectiveness. However, given the changes you have made to the validation process of PEP Phase 111, the preliminary j nature of the process and the lack of any sample validation criteria available to us for review, the MAP has not yet been able to determine the adequacy of the effort.
i With regard to the restart of Millstone Unit 2, the NRC Operational Safety Team inspection (OSTI) conducted during the period from December 28,1992 - January 14,1993, observed your preparations for the h:at up of the plant from the Cycle 11/12 refueling and steam l generator replacement cutage. Overall, the team found that the restart operations were conducted in a safe and conservative manner. Your performance during the outage l demonstrated the Unit 2 organization's ability to manage a number of significant work activities concurrently and to satisfactorily return the plant to safe power operations.
However, the team did note several problems with the closcout of Plant Design Change Records (PDCR) prior to the return of plant systems to operability r.s well as concerns with the approval process for changes to PDCRs These findings will be further developed and presented to you at the exit meeting and documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-336/92-36, We appreciate your efforts in preparing for this meeting. We found the meeting informative and appropriately focused toward our concems. If you have any questions regarding this meeting or future activities of the MAP, please contact Larry Doerflein of my staff at (215) r 337 5378. .
Sincerely,
) l ,
J Ja T. Wiggins, 1 DireYc Di ion of Reacto i ects 1 t
---w. ---------_---,-,.,,,,n,--n..- -
na. ~ . - . . . . , ,- - e, .-m - ,--,,,m.m. -a ----.,,,,.-,-e, ----.n va---=.-nc>
Mr. John F. Opeka 3
Enclosure:
Presentation to the Millstone Assessment Panel by Northeast Utilities on January 13, 1993 cc w/ enclosure:
W. D. Romberg, Vice President Nuclear, Operations Services S. E. Scace, Vice President, Millstone Station H. F. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director J. S. Keenan, Nuclear Unit Director C. H. Clement, Nuclear Unit Director R. M. Kacich Director, Nuclear Licensing D. O. Nordquist, Director of (uality Services Gerald Garfield, Esquire Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire K. Abraham, PAO Public Document Room (PDR)
, local Pubhc Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident inspector State of Connecticut SLO l
Mr. John F. Opeka 4 .
bec w/ encl:
Region 1 Docket Room (with concorrences)
T. Murley, NRR T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA W. Russell, NRR J. Partlow, NRR J. Calvo, NRR G. Zech, NRR M. Davis, NRR B. Boger, NRR S. Varga, NRR
.W. Hodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS C. Hehl, DRP J. Wiggins, DRP V. McCree, DEDR J. Joyner, DRSS R. Blough, DRP J. Durr, DRS L. Doerflein, DRP W. Pasclak, DRSS W. Raymond, SR1, Haddam Neck P. Swetland, SRI, Millstone V. McCree, OEDO J. Stolz, PD 14, NRR D. Jaffe, PD I-4, NRR O. Vissing, PM, NRR V. Rooney, PM, NRR R. Barkley, DRP
Eaclosure PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
'l PRESENTATION TO MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL
! JANUARY 13,1993 l NORTHEAST UTILITIES
i l
NU PRESENTERS i
! J. F. OPEKA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR
!' - S. E. SCACE VICE PRESIDENT-MILLSTONE STATION .
I E. A. DE BARBA VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR, ENGINEERING SERVICES W. D. ROMBERG VICE PRESIDENT-NUCLEAR, OPERATIONS SERVICES l D. O. NORDQUIST DIRECTOR-QUALITY SERYlCES i i
! D. G. DIEDRICK DIRECTOR-NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS i
PROGRAM
, R. T. LAUDENAT MANAGER-PEP -
A. J. CASTAGNO MANAGER-CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS 1 J 4
2 . .j i . -
I ~
l
- AGENDA '
i l
BACKGROUND j PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS l SELECTED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT l ACTIVITIES l VALIDATION '
)
1 PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN I
l
! PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP
~
SUMMARY
3
e BACKGROUND I
l '
J. F. OPEKA ,
1 e
4 . .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . h.-
BACKGROUND 1991 Millstone Station SALP Report
)
. 1991 Self Assessment PEP Established in January,1992
- Phase I of PEP Completed in March,1992 - Critical Areas of Concern i Management Practices Programs & Processes Performance Assessment 5
/
BACKGROUND (contJ Phase ll of PEP Completed on June 4,1992 (4 Series of Action Plans)
Title No. of Plans '
Series 1 Management Practices 10 Series 2 Programs and Processes 13 l Series 3 Performance Assessments 9 Series 4 Functional Programs 10 l Phase ill (Action Plan Implementation) Ongoing 4
6 , ,
BACKGROUND (cont)
July 20,1992 Meeting with MAP MAP Performance issues ('23 Listed)
Fall 1992 MAP Team inspections of PEP November 5,1992 NRC Public Moeting on PEP 7
s PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Deliverable / Milestone (D/M) Performance
~
1321992 D/Ms Established in June,1992 Two D/Ms were Consolidated in One Action Plan, Resulting in 130 D/Ms at Year End 128 D/Ms Completed on or Before The Target Completion Dates The 2 Late D/Ms Completed Within 10 Working Days After the Target Completion Dates Acuan Plan Schedules for 1993 Were Revised to: .
Reflect Integration of Several Action Plans Ac<oowledge More Efficient and Desirable End -
Results 0 . .
r PEP !MPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Budget Performance
$19.2 Million Budgeted in 1992 (S16.4 Million for PEP +
S2.8 Million for October 1991 "200")
At Year End,812.2 Million Expenced Against the i Budget 9
PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
- Action Plan Performance A Number of Action Plans are on Schedule but Undec Budget Due to Less- than-Anticipated use of Consultants and Contractors. The Key Plans in This Category are:
Engineering Backlog Reduction Assessment Philosophy Trend Analysis Design Consolidation Corrective Action Execution Shutdown Risk Management Engineering Programs Plant System Engineering Millstone Station Organization CY Station Organization 4
Nuclear Training Enhancement Cultural Analysis Chemical / Hazardous Material Control These 13 Action Plans Account for Approximately $4.4 of the $7.0 Million Under Expenditure in 1992 10 . .
a
i PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS Action Plan Performance (cont)
Procedure Upgrade Project is Behind Schedule and Under Budget Due to Delays in Development of the Writer's Guide Which Accounts for 82.6 of the 87.0 Million Under Expenditure for 1992 l
- Under Spent Budgets will Not be piutomatically Carried into
! 1993. Justification for Additional Funds Will be Considered, j l Based on Identified Needs in 1993 l - Quantification of the Impact of Integration has not Yet Been
! Determined 11
Eb PEP IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
- Staffing Status i Staffing Goals for Each Action Plan for 1992 Were Met 226 Additional Personnel On-Board for PEP and October 1991 "200" Positions,45 Acceptances Not Yet On-Board 12 , ,
9 O 1992 DELIVERABLE / MILESTONES PERFORMANCE "O iso 120 1
$ 100 8 */
! oo vs
/I*
s
- j. "/"
e b 37 f g 40 g .
" 15 -- ) ~
MEM IE Rlil BNOVE i OCT JUL AUG SEP DEC E TOTALPLAN 3 TOTAL ACTUAL -N- CUMM PLAN -*-- CUMM ACTUAL
~
13
N ACTION PLAN STATUS
~
Completed Except for Verification and Validation 7 Scheduled for Completion in 1993 17 Scheduled for Completion in 1994 8 Scheduled for Completion in 1995-97 10 Total 42 9
14 . .
D ACTION PLAN STATUS COMPLETED IN 1992 Action Plan Completion Date 2.1.1 Strategic Planning October 16,1992 December 31,1992 2.3.8 IRG / HRG 3.1.1 Reporting Relationships July 6,1992 Communications November 13,1992 3.2.1 November 30,1992 3.4.3 Integration of Assessment Results December 8,1992 4.4.2 Measures of Performance 4.4.3 Employee Concerns Program July 10,1992 l
15
./ "
)
SELECTED PERFORMANCE l lMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
16 . .
e 0
COMPETENCY MODEL (SERIES !)
I J. F. OPEKA l s
i s/
.g 7
COMPETENCY MODEL l Competency Model Process Based on Development Work Performed By Dr. David C. Mc C;elland at the Harvard Business School Nuclear Group Competency Model Being implemented for l
the Manager, Director, and Officer Levels The Competency Model Process Interviews and Surveys Performed by Consultants Experienced in Use of the Model to:
- Determine Behavioral Characteristics of Performance in the Nuclear Group Determine Current Level of Management Effectiveness Aid Panel Focus Groups to Define Skills Required at rious Position Levels18 . .
COMPETENCY MODEL (cont)
(
Review and Adoption of the Nuclear Group Model by NU Management The implementation of the Model has Begun with Evaluation of V.P.s and Directors Using This Information as One input, Focused Training, Rotational Assignments, and/or Other Appropriate Management Actions Will be implemented as Necessary Process Will Subsequently be Applied to the Manager Level Positions in the Nuclear Group .
19
SELECTED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES l
l 1
i PROCESS MAPPING ACTIVITIES S. E. SCACE
~
20 . .
PROCESS MAPPING ACTIVITIES I
Process improvement Initial Task was to Rewrite Procedures Process Problems Encountered Decided to Use Proven GE Process .
Hired a Consultant Familiar with GE Process Process Mapping - Areas of Application Work Control ..
Tagging Control Design Control Material Control
WORK CONTROL - PROCESS IMPROVEMENT METHOD TIMELINE UXOR ROOT NEWPROCESS DEVEIDP NEWPROCESS PRO OSS OPPORRPUTIES MA*
m V., O[IE l FORIMPROVEMENT1 l CAUSE u DEVELOPMEffr I 4 m
" a NEW M l
'l I I I E I Individual and Group Deteralee Develop e Depiction of p,,,,,,,,;,,
Detailed Identify te Process Identification of the Base Mission Statement ,g g g,,
Depiction Problems es = w Arm PMese 8 M **8 88 # fw the Process. Process med of Actual the Key p.velop Process k so be. 3, g,,
y,,,,,, and ImProveseent.
Groep Diocession and Selected based on Roog Compere Structure by l ggep, Hendoffs against 1 Consolidation into Improvement ca e, gg Me Te m Concise Statements. Opportselties Castomers headoffs and Served. Root Casset 7/6 - 1/21 Developed from the color coded map Validate New 9/12 - 10/14 8/4 - 8/13 Process.
7/23 - 7/30 8/17 - 3/25 8/25 - 9/10 NEWPROCESS IMPLEMENTATION 2
r r
New Work Control Orgeeiration New Procer- implementstion actoils Process is i td.
Procedures Personeel r: New Process.
Process ph. .
22 . .
PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
Methodology Uses Individuals Most Familiar With Task .
l Requires Little Formal Training for Participants Task Mapped for Maximum Efficiency Procedure \Nritten From New Map Advantages
" Keep it Simple" Philosophy Procedure Based on Way Task is Performed Demonstrates " Management's" Willingness to Listen Fosters Team Work Attitude -
23
e N
PROCESS MAPPING (cont) N b
- Experience With Work Control More than 60 individuals Participated l More than 190 Opportunities For Improvement l Compiled Management Accepied Recommendations e
B 24 ,.
PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
~
7 Recommended an Integrated Team Concept Provide Independent Planning and Work Control Provide Performance Groups with Completed Work Packages j This Results in:
Reduced Interfaces Between Departments Reduced Returns of Work Pcckages for Revisions Minimized Handoffs Streamlined and Simplified Process Clearer Lines of Accountability and Responsibility 25
'M PROCESS MAPPING (cont)
FUTURE ACTION Work Control Write Procedures Manpower Allocation Integrate Tagging Process Mapping Results with Work Control Implementation Schedule Initial Implementation in April 1993 Full Implementation Prior to Year End .
t 26 , ,
- - - = -
/
PROGRAMS AND PROCESSES '
(Series 2)
PEP Engineering Initiatives l
E. A. DE BARBA
~
l 27
w... . . .
ENGINEERING PROGRAMS (EPs)
Engineering Programs Being Upgraded Under PEP Action i Plan 2.3.3 Program Examples include: MOVs, E/C, HELB, etc. .
Program Goals: i High Quality, Living & Integrated Programmatic, Engineering - Based Procedurally Controlled Key Deliverables:
A Corporate - Wide (NEO 2.32) Procedure Governing EPs [ Issued: 11/1/92]
Program Specific-Manuals 28 , ,
~
- MOV PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES l
Directed Toward Meeting Provisions of GL 89-10 (" Ensure MOVs are Operable")
Became Focal Point in Early 1992 Because " Progress Less than Expected" Realigned MOV Program in April,1992 (Organization, Staffing, etc.)
Independently Evaluated by CUAT in June,1992 I An Upgraded Program Plan Completed in July,1992 1 Process Mapped Using METAVISION in September,1992 MOV Program Manual Issued in December,1992 29
SUMMARY
OF KEY MOV l
PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES l
~
Dedicated MOV Engineering Team (7 Full-Time NU Plus Support Staff and Contractors)
Program is Fully Funded Increased Plant Participation and Interface Program Simplified A High Qua!ity Program Manual issued I
30 , ,
MOV PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIO AT MILLSTONE 2 Millstone 2 Refueling: June,1992 - January,1993 54 Valves Governed by Program:
Engineering Calculations for All 54 VOTES Static Testing for All 54 17 Dynamic Tests to Date Operability and Part 21 Issues Resolved Draft MOV Program Manual Used as a " Guide" 31
U t
, UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (SERIES 3)
D. O. NORDQUIST 32 .
- - ~-, . w
. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Focus improve Our Practices to Assess, Monitor and Report l
Performance l
Process - Performance Assessments are Conducted Through the Following Activities Line Self Assessment In-Line Reviews Internal Independent Assessments External Assessments Management Oversight 33
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Results to Date More Visible QSD Reporting Relationship Improved Report Formats Improved Root Cause Training Initiated (INPO)
Established QSD Personnel Qualification Matrix Establishing Pilot Program on Finding Significance Measures
~
j .
V , . .
e 4
2
~
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 8
! j i
i Additional Activities Established improved Trend Analysis Plan i Overal Assessmont Philosophy in Review a Integrated Tracking System Under Development
- Pilot Peer Inspection Program Under Development 1
35 i
SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (Series 4)
W. D. ROMBERG
~
-l.
1 SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU
! )
OVERVIEW .
I NU Implemented a Shutdown Risk Management 1
Program at Millstone and Haddam Neck in 1992 as Part i
of PEP Action Plans i Program is responsive to NUMARC 91-06 Developed in Cooperation With:
INPO Yankee Rowe Maine Yankee Calvert Cliffs 1
37 .
SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (cont)
Program in its interim Phase was Used for: ;
Millstone Unit 2 Refueling / Steam Generator Outage 1 Millstone Unit 3 SLCRS Outage Millstone Unit 11991 Refueling Outage Haddam Neck 1991-92 Refueling Outage
)
38
SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT A
)
NU (cont)
TypicalInterim Actions Taken AC Power Tech Specs Plus One l l
Portable D/G Available Minimized Mid-Loop Operation Designated Shutdown Risk Coordinator Service Water Outage Optimization Time to Core Boiling Calculated
)
/
39
i ,
l i
i SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT NU (cont)
- Program implementation
( l l Detailed Shutdown Risk Self Assessment Performed
! Using NUMARC 91-06 NE&O Policy Statement 36 " Management of Shutdown Risk" issued ,
Station Procedures in Place at Both Sites implementing Shutdown Risk Management i
. j 40 , ,
m SHUTDOWN RISK MANAGEMENT AT)
NU (cont)
Program implementation: Hardware Modifications Fenced in or Modified Fencing as Required for Transformer Yards at Millstone Unit 1 and Millstone Unit 2 Installing Station Blackout Diesel in 1993 Refueling Outage at Millstone Unit 3 Evaluating Simulator Mods to Address More Scenarios Described in NUMARC 91-06 Other Hardware Modifications are Being Considered on '
a Unit-By-Unit Basis 41
m HANDLING NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS (Series 4)
I D. G. DIEDRICK 42 ' '
NUCLEAR SAFETY CONCERNS b
l Peer Representative Program NSCP Charter NEO 2.15, Nuclear Safety Concerns Training Initiatives
]
( '
43
- i - . .
VALIDATION I
R. T. LAUDENAT i
e 44 . .
4
- m. -
l VALIDATION PLAN Validation Will Focus on " Intended Effect" - The i
Performance improvement Achieved by 'mplementation of the Action Plan Standard Validation Plan Format Established l Validation Performed by Independent Validation Team
- Validation Team Leadr:c Responsible for Developing Final Validation Plan
! Draft Validation Plans for Completed Action Plans Under i Development Validation Will be Scheduled for Remaining Action Plans Management Review Process Establist: .d to Ensure Effectiveness l
45
e qq "I ..-
I PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN i
l l
A. J. CASTAGNO m"
46 , ,
l PEP COMMUNICATIONS PLAN hj i
Issued in 1992 Crosses All Actior >lans Major Elements.
Verbal (one-on-one; small groups, personal) t
! Executives Directors / Managers /Line Supervisors Communications Training 47 i -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PEP COMMUNICATION PLAN (cont)
Written (Supports Verbal, Employee-to-Employ.ee?
Newsletters Nuclear News" (8-page monthly) l " Nuclear News PEP Special" {P-4-Page Monthly, Mid-Cycle)
"TieLine" (1-Page Daily)
NU Employee Publications: NUsLine, Update Video (Employee-to-Employee)
" Nuclear Newsreel" 48 , ,
a PEP COMMUNICATION PLAN (cont)
Communications Review Committee Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees From Millstone, Haddam Neck, Corporate, Seabrook
- Role: Liaison with Workforce Evaluate Effectiveness of Communications I
Focus Groups Survey Anecdotal PEP Brochure 49
i i
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP i i
t J. F. OPEKA l
50 . .
t i l
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP l - Comment Key to improve Performance is to improve Employee Morale and Trust in Management
Response
PEP Series 1 First Line Supervisor Buy-in Communication Efforts ,
- Comment t Portions of PEP are Unnecessary l .
- Response j 1
Phase l'. Development Process Ongoing Integration Efforts 4
4 51
f
'PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PEP (cont)
I f* Commens , ,
Reduce Paperwork Burden on the Worker 1
Response
Process Mapping j Comments Routine Radiation Releases; Public Address System /
Response
Releases are Carefully Controlled and Monitored Public Address System is Not Part of Emergency Notification System; it is For Use By Public Officials During Non-Nuclear Emergency Events .
52 -
l ll 1l l e e e
~
Y A R K E
A P M O 3
5 M F U
J S
( 1
O h
EVIDENCE OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT l
- Complex and Involved Undertaking
- Validation Process Designed to Accomplish This
- Other General Indications of Performance improvement I
e O M
- ~
! RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS i
Millstone Unit 1 1992 ALARA Performance f 81 Man-Rem - Believed to be Second Lowest dWR in World
- Millstone Unit 31990-1992 ALARA Performance j 4
3 Year Average of 66 Man-Rem, Believed to be Lowest j
! in U.S.
Millstone Unit 2 - First Plant to Permanently Dispose of Replaced Steam Generators Millstone Unit 2 - One of Only Three Plants in the U.S. with Zero Requalification Examination Failures Since inception of 1987 Process InSituForm" Lining of Millstone Unit 2 Service Water Piping .
55
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
- ~ EPRI Recognition l Millstone Unit 1 Zinc injection
! Millstone Unit 2 Steam Generator Channel Head '
Electro Polishing Millstone Unit 3 Lithiuin Ph Control INPO Casualty Control Drill at Millstone Unit 1 "One of the Best They Have Seen" i
56 ,
U
SUMMARY
l
- NU Will Operate Our Nuclear Plants Superbly, i.e. Safely and Efficiently, and Cost Effectively
- Committed to Secure NRC Acceptance of PEP -
Responsive to Feedback From MAP
- Phase Ill of the PEP is on Schedule with Limited Changes
- PEP is a Living NU Program Which Will be Responsive to
. Emerging issues within the Nuclear Organization 4
57
_ - _ _ _ _ - - _