ML042920077
| ML042920077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/2004 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML042920077 (124) | |
Text
1 1
BUSINESS/PUBLIC MEETING 2
Between U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 0350 Panel And FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 4
5 Meeting held on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6 at 6:00 p.m. at Oak Harbor High School, Oak Harbor, Ohio, taken by me, Marlene S. Lewis, 7 Stenotype Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio.
8 9 -----
10 PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
11 FOR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12 John (Jack) Grobe, Chairman, 0350 Panel 13 Christine Lipa, Branch Chief, NRC 14 Steve Reynolds, Acting Director of the 15 Division of Reactor Projects of Region III 16 William Ruland, Vice Chairman, 0350 17 Panel 18 Geoff Wright, Leader of Management and Human Performance Inspection 19 C. Scott Thomas, Senior Resident 20 Inspector 21 Monica Salter-Williams, Senior Resident Inspector 22 Jack Rutkowski, Resident Inspector 23 24 25 MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
2 1
2 FOR FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY 3
4 Steve Loehlein, Director of Engineering 5 Mark Bezilla, Vice President - Davis-Besse 6 Barry Allen, Director of Site Operations 7 Kevin Ostrowski, Manager of Operations 8 Ray Hruby, Manager of Nuclear Oversight 9 Bob Schrauder, Director of Performance Improvement 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
3 1 MS. LIPA: Okay, well good evening.
2 Id like to welcome FirstEnergy and members of the 3 public for coming to this meeting today.
4 This is a public meeting between the NRCs 5 Davis-Besse Oversight Panel and FirstEnergy 6 Nuclear Operating Company.
7 My name is Christine Lipa, and Im a Branch 8 Chief in the Region III office for the NRC, and 9 Im responsible for NRCs Inspection program at 10 Davis-Besse, so for the purposes of this meeting 11 today -- well go to the next slide, mostly to 12 keep the public informed of the ongoing NRC 13 activities at Davis-Besse, discuss licensee 14 performance and planned activities that the 15 utility has and, of course, be available to answer 16 any public questions or comments, so well walk 17 through the agenda. Id like to make some 18 introductions up here at the NRC table.
19 Jack Grobe is the Senior Manager in the Region 20 III office in Lisle, Illinois, to my left, and 21 hes the Chairman of the Davis-Besse Oversight 22 Panel.
23 MR. GROBE: (Indicating).
24 MS. LIPA: To Jacks left is Steve 25 Reynolds.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
4 1 MR. REYNOLDS: (Indicating).
2 MS. LIPA: Steves the Acting 3 Director of the Division of Reactor Projects in 4 our Region III office.
5 To Steves left is Bill Ruland. Bill is a 6 Senior Manager in the office of NRR in 7 headquarters, and Bill is the Vice Chairman of the 8 Oversight Panel.
9 To Bills left is Geoff Wright.
10 MR. WRIGHT: (Indicating).
11 MS. LIPA: Geoff Wright is a Project 12 Engineer in Region III, and hes the Panels lead 13 inspector for Safety Culture area.
14 To my right is Scott Thomas.
15 MR. THOMAS: (Indicating).
16 MS. LIPA: Hes the Senior Resident 17 Inspector at Davis-Besse, and hes our lead 18 inspector for the Operations area.
19 To Scotts right is Monica Williams.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: (Indicating).
21 MS. LIPA: Shes the Resident 22 Inspector of the Davis-Besse office.
23 Next to Monica is Jack Rutkowski.
24 MR. RUTKOWSKI: (Indicating).
25 MS. LIPA: Hes a resident -- another MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
5 1 Resident Inspector at the Davis-Besse office.
2 Also greeting you in the foyer on the way in 3 is Nancy Keller. Shes the Resident Office 4 Assistant for the Davis-Besse Inspector office.
5 We also have some other NRC folks to the audience.
6 We have Alex Garmoe and Richard Smith, and they 7 are Reactor Engineers in Region III office, and I 8 thought I saw Viktoria --
9 MS. MITLYNG: (Indicating).
10 MS. LIPA: There she is, Viktoria 11 Mitlyng. Shes our Public Affairs in Region III, 12 and Roland Lickus is State and Government Affairs 13 in Region III, and I think thats it for the NRC 14 folks today.
15 Would you like to introduce your folks, Mark?
16 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, thank you, 17 Christine. A little bit later in our 18 presentation well talk about the new Davis-Besse 19 organization, so some of the introductions -- some 20 of these guys have different titles, so, Ill just 21 walk through that. To my far left is Bob 22 Schrauder.
23 MR. SCHRAUDER: (Indicating).
24 MR. BEZILLA: And hes our Director of 25 Performance and Improvement.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
6 1 Next to him is Ray Hruby.
2 MR. HRUBY: (Indicating).
3 MR. BEZILLA: Hes our new Manager of 4 Nuclear Oversight.
5 Next to him is Kevin Ostrowski --
6 MR. OSTROWSKI: (Indicating).
7 MR. BEZILLA: -- our Manager of 8 Operations.
9 To my immediate left, Barry Allen, Director of 10 Operations, Plant Manager.
11 MR. ALLEN: (Indicating).
12 MR. BEZILLA: And to my right, Steve 13 Loehlein, Director of Engineering at Davis-Besse.
14 MR. LOEHLEIN: (Indicating).
15 MR. BEZILLA: In the audience tonight we 16 have Gary Leidich, our President and Chief Nuclear 17 officer, and also Joe Hagan, our Senior Vice 18 President of Fleet Engineering and Services.
19 MS. LIPA: Okay, thank you. Do we 20 have any public officials or representatives of 21 public officials in the room?
22 MR. KOEBEL: Carl Koebel, Ottawa County 23 Commissioner.
24 MS. LIPA: Hi, Carl.
25 MR. ARDNT: Steve Ardnt, County MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
7 1 Commissioner.
2 MS. LIPA: Welcome, Steve.
3 MR. WITT: Jere Witt, County 4 Administrator.
5 MS. LIPA: Welcome, Jere, thank you.
6 Anybody else?
7 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE).
8 Okay, great! Well, this meeting is open for 9 public observation. This is a business meeting 10 between the NRC and FirstEnergy.
11 At the conclusion of the business portion of 12 the meeting but before the meeting is adjourned, 13 the NRC staff will be available to answer 14 questions or receive comments from members of the 15 public.
16 There are copies of several documents and 17 copies of slides for this evening in the foyer 18 that I wanted to walk through.
19 We have the NRC September newsletter, and that 20 provides background information and also discusses 21 current plant and NRC activities. The main 22 article in the front of this update is the 23 Independent Assessments that are underway at 24 Davis-Besse, and there are four independent 25 assessments that are being done this year in MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
8 1 response to the Confirmatory Order that we issued 2 with the restart letter, and for those four 3 independent assessments we have our four lead 4 Inspectors, and I introduced earlier Geoff Wright 5 and Scott Thomas, who are here with us today.
6 Also on the back page of this update is 7 information on how you can reach the NRC web site 8 and phone number information.
9 There was also -- Davis-Besse Utility folks 10 brought copies of their presentation, and there 11 were also copies of presentation materials that 12 Im using as well as an NRC feedback form that you 13 can use to provide comments to us on the public 14 meeting.
15 Were having this meeting transcribed today to 16 maintain a record of the meeting, and the 17 transcription will be available on our web page in 18 about three to four weeks. Its important that we 19 speak clearly so the transcriber can hear and the 20 audience, of course, can hear what well discuss 21 today, so, with that, Ill turn it over to Jack 22 Grobe.
23 MR. GROBE: Thanks, Christine. I just 24 wanted to take a moment to talk about a transition 25 that were going through at the Davis-Besse MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
9 1 Oversight Panel. Ive recently been selected for 2 a position in our headquarters offices in 3 Rockville, Maryland. That will become effective 4 shortly after the first of the year. Between now 5 and the end of this year, 2004, the end of 6 December, well be transitioning to a new 7 Oversight Panel Chairman. Its very important to 8 Region III that we maintain a -- a very strong 9 oversight and focus on Davis-Besse and, 10 consequently, were going through a very 11 methodical process of bringing the new Oversight 12 Panel Chairman up-to-speed on everything thats 13 gone on in the last two years, and Steve Reynolds 14 will be assuming the Chairmanship of the Panel at 15 the end of December.
16 Steve has been with the NRC for 3- or 400 17 years -- no, no, since the mid 80s. He started 18 as an Inspector in Region III, and then went on to 19 headquarters, the headquarters offices in the 20 NRC. In that capacity, he accomplished a number 21 of different achievements; one of them was during 22 the long-term shutdown of the Millstone station.
23 Steve oversaw the independent engineering 24 assessments at Millstone during the shutdown that 25 lasted several years. Since then, in the late MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
10 1 90s, he came back to Region III as a Senior 2 Manager in the Division of Reactor Safety, and 3 for -- over the last year, hes been active 4 Director of the Division of Reactor Projects. In 5 that capacity he has overall responsibility for 6 implementation of the Reactor Inspection program 7 and day-to-day responsibility to oversee the 8 Resident Inspection program, so Steves a very 9 strong candidate to fill the role as Oversight 10 Panel Chairman. Between now and the end of 11 December, Christine and Bill Ruland and I will be 12 meeting regularly with Steve, bringing him 13 up-to-speed on all the various issues so that he 14 can assume those responsibilities in December.
15 MS. LIPA: Okay, thank you. Okay, 16 well go on next to recent NRC activities. On 17 July -- yes, there we go. On July 19 we had a 18 site visit by one of the NRC Commissioners, this 19 is Commissioner Merrifield, and also our Executive 20 Director of Operations, Luis Reyes, and then from 21 July 19th through the 30th, Geoff Wright led a 22 team inspection on the effectiveness of Corrective 23 Actions based on the Safety Conscious Work 24 Environment Survey results from last year, and his 25 exit was held August 13th, and Ill let Geoff MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
11 1 describe his results.
2 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Christine. Is 3 the mike on? Can you hear me out there now?
4 Okay. As Christine indicated, we did a follow-up 5 inspection to independently assess the 6 effectiveness of the corrective actions that were 7 put into place because of the November 2003 Safety 8 Conscious Work Environment Survey as well as the 9 assessment that was done on that survey. To 10 accomplish that, we had a team of five individuals 11 visit the site, including one individual, a sixth 12 individual was back in Washington doing some other 13 reviews. That team interviewed between 65 and 70 14 individuals in focused group settings, 15 representing about 10 different organizations on 16 site.
17 We also reviewed all of the Corrective Action 18 documentation against the issues that they were 19 supposed to have cured. The team concluded that 20 the corrective actions were appropriate, that, in 21 general, they were effective in approving the 22 Safety Conscious Work Environment at the site.
23 We did identify that there were two events which 24 had occurred earlier in the year which limited the 25 effectiveness of the corrective actions, and, MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
12 1 finally, we noted that a lack of effectiveness 2 monitoring tool for significant communications 3 hampered your efforts to further improve the site 4 Safety Conscious Work Environment. Those were 5 the conclusions of the team.
6 MS. LIPA: Okay.
7 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
8 MS. LIPA: Thank you, Geoff, and 9 Geoffs inspection report is near final, expected 10 to be issued this week.
11 Also on August 13th there was a routine 12 Resident exit for six weeks, and Ill let Scott 13 summarize his results.
14 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, recently we issued 15 an integrated Resident Inspection report 2000-412 2004-012, 16 which covered inspection activities conducted from 17 July 1st to August 14th, 2004. No findings were 18 documented in this report. This report did 19 document the review of several completed Cycle 14 20 operation improvement planning initiatives.
21 These included the Operations Department five year 22 staffing plan, the Operations Department 23 leadership improvement plan, the licensee plan to 24 reduce and maintain engineering backlogs, changes 25 to modify license procedures to restrict the use MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
13 1 of at risk changes in the plant modification 2 process, implement actions to improve safety 3 margin at the Davis-Besse site, and we reviewed 4 the completion of a plan which provided a 5 framework for addressing backlog work priorities 6 that were identified as part of the system health 7 reviews.
8 Additionally, this report documented a review 9 of the inspection plan for the Corrective Action 10 independent self-assessment that is currently in 11 progress at Davis-Besse. Another team -- is 12 there another slide?
13 MS. LIPA: Yes.
14 MR. THOMAS: Next slide, please.
15 Recently a three person inspection team completed 16 a Triennial Fire Protection Inspection at 17 Davis-Besse. The inspection results are being 18 reviewed by regional management, but to date no 19 findings have been identified as a result of that 20 inspection.
21 MS. LIPA: Okay, thank you, Scott.
22 On September 7th, Jim Caldwell, our Regional 23 Administrator from Region III, and Steve Reynolds 24 were on site for tours and met with the Resident 25 Inspectors, and then Mr. Caldwell presented MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
14 1 license certificates for some of the SROs and 2 Reactor Operators at the facility, and then, on 3 September 20, the NRCs office of Research issued 4 a memorandum with the preliminary results of the 5 Accident Sequence Precursor analysis, and this 6 document is available on our web site, and the 7 analysis was really the combined effects of the 8 degraded vessel head, the cracking of the nozzle 9 and the high pressure injection pumps and the 10 qualified coatings on structures in containment 11 that could have caused some clogging, and so the 12 combined effects of all those equipment 13 deficiencies is what was reviewed in this Accident 14 Sequence Precursor analysis, so those preliminary 15 results showed us to be what we considered a 16 significant precursor, and the numbers of this 17 said there were six chances in 1,000 of core 18 damage during a one year period prior to the 19 vessel head being discovered, so thats what this 20 analysis did, was to provide those preliminary 21 results, and it would be undergoing peer reviews, 22 both the utility will be reviewing it, as well as 23 NRC staff before the final results are issued.
24 The next slide covers the Confirmatory Order 25 Activities. These are also covered in our MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
15 1 monthly update, but its really the schedule of 2 activities that are coming up, and, as I mentioned 3 before, for the four areas that are listed here 4 covered by the Confirmatory Order that the NRC 5 issued back in March, the licensee is required to 6 do independent assessments, and we have a lead for 7 each of those independent assessments, and the 8 leads have prepared their inspection plans for the 9 rest of the year to monitor the licensees 10 performance in these four areas. The licensee has 11 submitted the plan that they have for each of 12 these assessments. One of the assessments is 13 already completed, the other one is on the way, 14 and all of the results of those assessments will 15 be submitted and publicly available on the docket.
16 Other upcoming NRC activities include a team 17 inspection that will be on site next week, and 18 this will be reviewing the licensees service 19 water system and the licensees program that they 20 implemented in response to Generic Letter 89-13, 21 which is really to have a program out there, 22 service water and system components.
23 Another important team inspection coming up in 24 November is the Problem Identification &
25 Resolution Inspection. Thats also a team MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
16 1 inspection, and it will review the licensees 2 implementation of their Corrective Action program, 3 and, then, finally, were planning to hold a 4 public meeting tentatively in November and that 5 would be to review performance at all three FENOC 6 sites, all three FENOC nuclear plants, so thats 7 all I have for introduction here, and, with that, 8 Id like to turn it over to FirstEnergy.
9 MR. BEZILLA: Thank you. Thank you, 10 Christine. Next slide. Okay, our desired 11 outcomes for this evening are to demonstrate that 12 Davis-Besses operations continue to be safe and 13 conservative, to present Davis-Besses new 14 organization of the management team, and to status 15 you on a number of improvement initiatives and 16 Confirmatory Order related activities.
17 Barry will start things off with an overview 18 of plant activities and performance.
19 I will then spend a few minutes and review 20 with you Davis-Besses new organization.
21 Kevin Ostrowski will be next, and he will 22 briefly discuss the collective significance 23 assessment he commissioned.
24 Barry will then discuss the Confirmatory Order 25 Independent Assessments, spending some time on the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
17 1 Operations Performance area independent 2 assessment. He will then provide you an update 3 on our backlog reduction efforts, and briefly 4 status the Integrated Restart Report and 5 Supplements, Cycle 14 Operational Improvement Plan 6 and Confirmatory Order commitments.
7 I will then brief briefly discuss the results of our 8 latest Safety Culture assessment and a few other 9 assessments conducted since our last public 10 meeting.
11 Ray Hruby will then share his thoughts and 12 insights and then Ill wrap up our presentation.
13 With that, Id like to turn it over to Barry 14 Allen.
15 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. As Mark 16 discussed in his introduction, my objective is to 17 demonstrate that Davis-Besse operations continue 18 to be safe and conservative. Next slide, please.
19 Current plant status, Davis-Besse station is 20 at 100 percent power. Were generating 21 approximately 925 megawatts of electric. Were 22 at 51 continuous days of safe and reliable 23 operation. We have a capacity factor of 24 approximately 96.2 percent since restart, and, 25 most importantly, we have 86 Human Performance MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
18 1 success days as of today.
2 Next, Ill cover some of the highlights which 3 occurred since our public meeting on July 13th.
4 As you mentioned previously, on July 19th NRC 5 Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield was at Davis-Besse 6 where he stressed to us that we must focus on 7 individual execution tasks every day and control 8 and manage our backlogs.
9 Also during the week of July 27th, the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission performed a Radiological 11 Environmental Monitoring program and also a 12 Radiological Access Control Inspection, and as a 13 result of those inspections there were no 14 potential violations or findings.
15 On July 27th, we held a new FENOC leadership 16 charge session for all supervisors and up, and in 17 those sessions we discussed transitioning to the 18 new organization, which Mark will discuss in more 19 detail later, the discipline and execution and how 20 accountability will help this station move forward 21 to achieve the results we desire, and on July 30th 22 we held our six month mid-cycle outage readiness 23 review meeting where we brought in Fleet peers to 24 challenge our outage readiness. Feedback we got 25 from that team was that our outage focus must be MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
19 1 on safety in the event of execution, operation 2 must focus on preparations for shutdown and 3 startup, and we can provide additional structure 4 and rigor in our outage to folks who help us be 5 successful.
6 On August 4th, we experienced a reactor trip 7 with full power. We formed a problem solving and 8 decision making team, which determined that the 9 cause of the trip was a latent fuse failure in the 10 control rod drive trip breaker alpha cubicle.
11 The cause of the fuse failure was attributed to 12 age and/or weakening due to long-term cycle.
13 Our transient critique concluded that we were in a 14 Category A or alpha transient category, which is 15 the best, cleanest category for Babcock and Wilcox 16 units, that all safety systems performed as 17 inspector expected, safety limits were maintained, reactor 18 coolant system pressure temperature were 19 maintained within limits, and our radiological 20 conditions were not adversely affected by all the 21 transfers, so during the transient overall, both 22 the plant and our people responded well; in fact, 23 our unit supervisor on shift that day was a newly 24 licensed Senior Reactor Operator who was serving 25 his first day on the shift as unit supervisor and MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
20 1 he performed very well in large measure because of 2 the good training he had received at Davis-Besse.
3 During the forced outage, they improved the 4 material condition of the unit. Outage resolved management 5 concluded all similar control rod drive fuses were 6 proactively replaced. Surveillances were revised 7 and insured that we inspected those fuses, and 8 were also looking at other surveillances for 9 similar improvement opportunities. Additional 10 items were we resolved two control deficiencies to 11 replace control rod drive modules and also the 12 main generator digital watt meter was replaced, 13 and we did some work on the electrohydraulic 14 control system, which resolved the walk -- the 15 work parameter of the move on temporary 16 modification. We also did work on a bravo phase 17 main transfer transformer bushing, they cleaned and actually 18 resolved an issue there, and we worked on other 19 high authority work appropriate for the forced 20 outage situation.
21 On August 8th, we resynchronized to the grid.
22 One issue prior to the plant startup which 23 affected our capability to remotely transfer our 24 safety logs to an auxiliary power supply, we did 25 not have the parts required to repair the transfer MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
21 1 pulse to circuit, so we called our existing 2 procedural guidance for manually transferring the 3 rods, and we are prepared to resolve this item 4 during the next outage opportunity. Overall, we 5 were pleased with the performance of the plant and 6 of our people during the forced outage, and as we 7 safely return the unit to full power.
8 On August 13th, as you mentioned earlier, we 9 had a routine NRC Resident exit and Safety 10 Conscious Work Environment exit, and we are still 11 finding some violations were identified, and, on 12 August 16th, an Independent Assessment team began 13 their assessment of Operations performance in 14 accordance with the Confirmatory Order, and Ill 15 discuss this in more detail later in the 16 presentation.
17 On August 23rd, we implemented the new FENOC 18 organization and Mark has a later presentation 19 affecting the leadership team at Davis-Besse, and 20 well look at that later in the presentation.
21 Also on August 30th, we implemented new 22 standards in Turbine Building radiological 23 controls, and in that effort we posted 24 radiological control areas were appropriate and we 25 implemented new turbine building radiation work MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
22 1 permits.
2 On September 3rd, our superintendents and 3 managers attended Leadership in Action refresher 4 training presented by the Senior Leadership team 5 on site. Among other topics, we discussed the 6 discipline of execution as it relates to our roles 7 as leaders and implementing the FENOC Division, 8 which is people with a strong safety focus 9 delivering top lead operator performance. We 10 also discussed the importance of accountability in 11 helping us achieve our desired results we were 12 discussing with other topics, including 13 communications allowed throughout the organization 14 and balancing work and personal life.
15 On September 8th, our Region III NRC 16 administrator, Mr. Jim Caldwell, and Mr. Steve 17 Reynolds here tonight visited the site, and 18 messages we received during that visit were we 19 should closely review our Flow Accelerator 20 Prevention program, based on operating experience 21 overseas. Also, we should not let down our guard 22 from the Safety Culture standpoint, we should be 23 vigilant. We cannot fail in the area of 24 emergency preparedness. We must always keep the 25 public health and safety in the forefront of our MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
23 1 minds, and we should capture our lessons learned 2 from our improvements and operations performance, 3 to capture those so we can use those for learnings 4 down the road, and that evening Mr. Caldwell did 5 present license certificates to three new Reactor 6 Operators and four of our five new Senior Reactor 7 Operators. Next slide.
8 So, in conclusion, Davis-Besse has had 9 approximately six months of safe operation since 10 we received permission to restart. Our plant 11 performance has been and continues to be safe and 12 conservative. Next slide.
13 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Allen, I have a few 14 questions.
15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir.
16 MR. REYNOLDS: If you go back to slide 6, 17 your first noteworthy item is the second quarter 18 QA exit, what were the results of that?
19 MR. ALLEN: I got that right here.
20 MR. REYNOLDS: And just to make sure Im 21 looking at the same document, is that the 22 Davis-Besse Nuclear Quality Assessment, quarterly 23 assessment for DB-C-04-02?
24 MR. ALLEN: Thats correct, thats the 25 correct document.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
24 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
2 MR. ALLEN: In the Executive Summary, 3 Steve, the Nuclear Quality Assessment group 4 assessed 16 Davis-Besse primary element program 5 areas and from the four functional areas --
6 operations, engineering, maintenance and support, 7 five of the scheduled primary elements were rated 8 as effective. That was Fire Protection program 9 organization staffing and responsibilities, also 10 Fire Protection program fire hazard analysis 11 program changes, other items there, and Fire 12 Protection program safe shutdown analysis 13 capability, along with records and records indexes 14 under records management document control, so 15 those were all rated as fully effective. Rated as 16 marginally effective was some training 17 performances group. Quality identified that we 18 had area for improvement there, and that was rated 19 as marginal, and then under not fully effective, 20 we have identification and classification under 21 Corrective Action, licensing documentation under 22 regulatory affairs, exercise supports and training 23 under emergency preparedness, and then continuing 24 from the Executive Summary, overall section 25 performance appears to be steady. Operations MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
25 1 performance overall supported safe plant 2 operations and organizational effectiveness 3 involving emergent plant issues was satisfactory.
4 It goes on to talk about improvements to the work 5 management area, particularly in work schedules.
6 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Another 7 question dealing with that, maybe you can help me.
8 When did you restart?
9 MR. ALLEN: March 27th of this year is 10 when we restarted.
11 MR. REYNOLDS: This assessment period is 12 from April 5th to July 2nd, so thats the first 13 quarter that the plant was in power after a long 14 period of time?
15 MR. ALLEN: Thats correct.
16 MR. REYNOLDS: Could you explain why 17 operation wasnt looked at?
18 MR. ALLEN: There is essentially the 19 primary elements that are laid out in a schedule, 20 and so the quality organization looks at them as 21 schedules, and they rotate through it.
22 MR. REYNOLDS: So you followed a 23 schedule?
24 MR. ALLEN: Thats correct.
25 MR. REYNOLDS: So thats the reason why MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
26 1 operation wasnt looked at even though thats the 2 first quarter when you had a chance to --
3 MR. THOMAS: Isnt there some 4 discretion about QA, what they can look at in 5 implementing the assessment schedule?
6 MR. HRUBY: Yeah, Steve, I can address 7 that.
8 MR. LOEHLEIN: Or I can address it, but 9 hes the QA manager now, go ahead.
10 MR. HRUBY: Can you hear me? Okay, 11 in addition to evaluating primary elements per the 12 master assessment plan as scheduled, we also have 13 continuous assessment, so as we go through a 14 quarter, were also evaluating all areas rating 15 quality for faulty fuel observation and condition 16 reports and in the areas that we see the need to 17 write one, so even though something may not have 18 been on the schedule, Steve, to be a primary 19 element focus there, the continuous assessment 20 process should -- should cover that.
21 MR. OSTROWSKI: And if I may add, also 22 there were many opportunities during that first 23 couple of months for quality to observe, which 24 they did, operations evolution in the control room 25 and also in the field, so while perhaps not MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
27 1 specifically documented in this report, there was 2 a QA presence on many of the tasks which we have 3 received feedback on throughout the operation.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. I was just curious 5 why it wasnt a focus of this assessment right 6 after restart. Okay.
7 MR. THOMAS: I have a follow-up on 8 that. If QA is doing continuous assessment on Ops 9 performance, whats QAs assessment of their 10 performance during that time period?
11 MR. BEZILLA: Scott, it says in here, 12 Operations performance overall supported safe 13 plant operations in organizational effectiveness 14 as well as emergent issues were satisfactory.
15 MR. THOMAS: Okay.
16 MR. HRUBY: If you look at Page 8 of 17 37, under the Operation Functional Assessment, 18 theres a section on operation and that continues 19 on Page 9.
20 MR. BEZILLA: Steve is wanting to jump 21 in here.
22 MR. LOEHLEIN: Maybe I can clear it all 23 up. There were a number of activities and 24 operations that quality had been following for 25 quarters in the plant and was done, so we had lots MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
28 1 of data on operation performance except in the 2 areas we didnt get to see for quite a long period 3 of time because the plant hadnt run, so what 4 Scott said is true, the first quarter there was an 5 awful lot of activities in the primary element 6 areas that we had not had much activity before, 7 so in the two year cycle most of the things we 8 did, a lot of things got evaluated and rated in 9 that first quarter. Once the plant was running 10 during the use of continuous assessment, the 11 process was to monitor the routine activities, 12 which is what was done, and from that we were able 13 to conclude that during that order, Operations 14 performance was steady, and it was safe. There 15 was no notable change in performance up or down 16 for that quarter is what we concluded.
17 MR. REYNOLDS: Is it correct to say it 18 was steady?
19 MR. LOEHLEIN: Right.
20 MR. REYNOLDS: No change up or down?
21 MR. LOEHLEIN: There was no real 22 distinguishable change, but we werent focused on 23 any particular primary area for that quarter, just 24 the observations of whatever activities we 25 selected to do some in training, whatever was MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
29 1 available for the training simulator and those 2 types of activities that we would do on a regular 3 basis.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Another 5 question on this report, I guess on Page 3 of 37, 6 observed trends. The first sentence here, if I 7 could read it. It says trend analysis, Im 8 looking at. . . the quarterly assessment data 9 identified adverse. . .
10 Can someone speak to what that issue is and 11 what actions, if any, you have taken to fix that?
12 MR. BEZILLA: What page is that, again?
13 MR. REYNOLDS: Sure.
14 MR. BEZILLA: What page?
15 MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, Page 3 of 37, its 16 right after the Executive Summary. Im not sure 17 how its formatted. You can have -- you can look 18 at my copy, if that helps.
19 MR. BEZILLA: Youre talking about the 20 trend analysis for quarterly assessment with 21 emergency preparedness program?
22 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir, that whole 23 sentence there.
24 MR. BEZILLA: We had the quarterly exit.
25 There were a couple of items that the QA guys MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
30 1 brought up from the emergency preparedness 2 standpoint. What we have done since this is we 3 have run drills in July and also in the September 4 time frame, and Ill talk a little bit about those 5 later in the presentation, but we ran additional 6 drills to look at our performance, and that 7 qualified some additional new individuals for our 8 emergency response organization, so it was a 9 practice.
10 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. So your practice 11 took care of equipment issues, the administrative 12 program compliance and procedure identification 13 during that practice?
14 MR. BEZILLA: The equipment issues were 15 resolved at the time of or essentially at the time 16 of discovery, and then through our drills we 17 validated that -- whenever we drill, we always 18 find additional opportunities, and I have a detail 19 from those two recent ones where we had a number 20 of enhancements that we captured, so the answer 21 is, yes, we believe our emergency preparedness 22 organization is in a good stance.
23 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, thank you.
24 MR. ALLEN: Steve, theres additional 25 details on Page 33 of the report.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
31 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Thats what I was looking 2 for, somebody to walk me through that, okay.
3 If I go on to Page 7 of your slides, your 4 third bullet, July 29th, Quarterly FENOC 5 performance review meeting, what were the results 6 of that for Davis-Besse?
7 MR. ALLEN: The Quarterly FENOC 8 performance review meeting?
9 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
10 MR. BEZILLA: From a Davis-Besse 11 perspective, that was for the second quarter, as 12 was already talked about in the Quality Assessment 13 Report. Ray talked about the steady performance, 14 and, at that point, the plant had behaved pretty 15 well, the people had behaved pretty well. The 16 one item of note was Human Performance which he 17 talked about at a previous meeting and also had 18 triggered Kevins selective significance 19 assessment, a champion in operation because he had 20 seen some performance deficiencies that had caused 21 his section clock reset as well as a couple of 22 site clock resets. Ill say that was the item of 23 note out of the FENOC Fleet review; otherwise, 24 performance was acceptable.
25 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, I appreciate that.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
32 1 The meetings, Im not familiar, maybe -- how was 2 that review handled? I mean, I -- I guess its 3 when they talk about all three plants, but from 4 Davis-Besses point of view, who does the 5 assessment and who does the review and who comes 6 up with the --
7 MR. ALLEN: Steve, for example, I 8 have -- from the quarterly performance review 9 meeting I have some slides here, so its very 10 similar from a presentation perspective as to how 11 we present our monthly performance review, so we 12 have an opportunity to go through our performance 13 indicator data as a station and present that to 14 the main fleet and then they receive challenges on 15 our performance, so its very similar to what we 16 do internally now from a fleet perspective.
17 MR. REYNOLDS: So if I understood you 18 right, you and Mr. Bezilla make the presentation 19 and FENOC corporate --
20 MR. ALLEN: Thats correct.
21 MR. REYNOLDS: -- people like Mr. Leidich 22 perhaps would ask questions, clear understanding 23 point of view, do you agree or disagree with me?
24 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and our peers and a 25 few others.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
33 1 MR. BEZILLA: Its directed levels and 2 above on those fleet -- fleet reviews.
3 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. On Page 8, the 4 third item, visit by INPO Senior Representative, I 5 noticed later on you repeated to the best of your 6 ability the feedback provided by Mr. Caldwell, our 7 Regional Administrator of the NRC. I wonder what 8 feedback you got from this INPO Senior 9 Representative based on his or her visit?
10 MR. BEZILLA: Okay, Ill address that.
11 We have a senior individual that comes, say, owns 12 us as well as a few other plants in our region, 13 and hell visit us periodically. What he looks 14 at is performance, like how are you doing, whats 15 your INPO indicator -- look at. He looks always 16 at what areas we can provide assistance in. On 17 this specific visit what he was looking at is how 18 had the plant performed. When he was there, the 19 unit came off line, tripped, as Barry said, so he 20 watched the reaction response of the team to that 21 opportunity, all right, and he also took a look at 22 training because thats an area of focus for us as 23 well as the instituting of nuclear power 24 operations of individuals, and Ill say his 25 feedback was fairly positive on what he saw from a MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
34 1 behavior standpoint, our dealing with the reactor 2 trip and the progress that we made in our training 3 arena.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, thank you. On 5 slide nine, I guess, the Operations Performance 6 Assessment, are you going to talk about that 7 later?
8 MR. ALLEN: Thats correct.
9 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Then on Page 10, 10 the last bullet, Implemented new standards in 11 Turbine Building radiological controls -- again, 12 maybe other people at the table can understand the 13 reason behind that, but can you tell me some of 14 the reasons for implementing new standards, and 15 Im asking what those new standards are?
16 MR. ALLEN: Sure. Looking at our 17 turbine building, okay, were a pressured water 18 reactor, so we had some contamination in our 19 secondary system from the past, so its present, 20 and so when people go to work in a secondary part 21 of the plant, we want to make sure we take proper 22 precautions, setting up and those kinds of things, 23 so what we did was posted the areas appropriately 24 and then developed a radiation work permit for 25 individuals working in the turbine building, just MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
35 1 made sure we had the proper radiological controls 2 and monitoring those operations and activities.
3 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, and then, my last 4 comment, on Page 11, the first bullet says, 5 Superintendents and managers attended Leadership 6 in Action refresher training. What were the key 7 take-aways for the superintendents and managers in 8 that training? If you went up and asked them, 9 what would they -- what message were they supposed 10 to take away from that?
11 MR. ALLEN: I think probably the two 12 key take-aways, okay, are discipline of execution, 13 okay? Thats being in details, thats our roles 14 as leaders and leading the organization and 15 execution is the key, dont confuse activity with 16 results, okay, so we have to be disciplined in 17 executional tasks to be successful, okay? And, 18 secondly, conversations on accountability, do we 19 have clear action items? Do we have clear owners 20 for those action items? Do we have clear due 21 dates for those action items, and are we 22 communicating clearly such that we understand what 23 our issues are when resolved and what the expected 24 response is?
25 MR. REYNOLDS: Today I attended the 8:00 MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
36 1 meeting and I think it was Mr. Ostrowski heading 2 that. The safety message, do you follow?
3 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Industrial safety message, 5 what would you expect expectations to be if 6 somebody saw -- let me back up here I guess. The 7 message, if I understood it correctly, was that 8 you want -- you match your signs and take a rope 9 to match, a red tape would match a red tape; 10 yellow tape, yellow tape and I notice on a white 11 rope, I believe I have that correct, so if 12 somebody saw a condition different than that, what 13 would you expect them to do?
14 MR. OSTROWSKI: Steve, if I could address 15 the answer to that question?
16 MR. REYNOLDS: Sure.
17 MR. OSTROWSKI: It has delivering of the 18 message, you may have recognized or heard a duty 19 team report-outs as well as part of our 8:00 20 meetings. We do have duty teams that are 21 assigned to observe some of the plant activities 22 on a daily basis including training. The 23 expectation of the management team is to take that 24 message and make that opportunity to observe or 25 focus on that particular item throughout the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
37 1 course of their observations. If they were to 2 see something out of -- out of bounds, out of 3 normal, then the expectation would be to stop and 4 immediately coach the individuals that would have 5 been involved in that activity, follow-up with an 6 observation card as well as a Condition report as 7 necessary to have the item tracked and trained for 8 future performance as well, so the message that we 9 delivered this morning are opportunities for us to 10 remind ourselves of those standards and 11 expectations and correct behaviors as we see them.
12 MR. REYNOLDS: So if there was a notice 13 sign with yellow rope, that would be something you 14 would expect somebody to take action on?
15 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct. Thats 16 part of the accountability that we talked about as 17 leadership and action, to take the action and have 18 the condition immediately corrected and follow-up 19 with individuals as well.
20 MR. REYNOLDS: If I understood you, a 21 condition report should be written on that 22 action --
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct.
24 MR. REYNOLDS: -- that condition? Okay.
25 I think it was a -- Scott, youll have to help me MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
38 1 on what this equipment was, right outside the 2 control room, I think theres a --
3 MR. THOMAS: High pressure turbine.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: -- high pressure turbine 5 thats roped off with yellow rope and a white 6 notice sign that I believe several people walked 7 by today. I would assume there was a condition 8 report written on that?
9 MR. OSTROWSKI: I will certainly take that 10 action and follow-up on that. I appreciate that 11 feedback.
12 MR. REYNOLDS: I just noticed where it 13 was and a lot of traffic was through there. I 14 listened to your message today, and I always 15 looked when I saw a white sign, a yellow sign. I 16 was wondering if that was consistent with that, 17 but I was wondering if I was the only one that 18 would have thought there was a condition report 19 written on that. I would appreciate that 20 feedback.
21 MR. BEZILLA: Thanks, Steve.
22 MR. REYNOLDS: And when I was in the 23 control room, there was some equipment problems 24 you were having. Could you just give me a quick 25 update of where you stand on that? The MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
39 1 anticipated reactor trip system, where you stand 2 on that issue?
3 MR. OSTROWSKI: Currently, the problems we 4 were having earlier today, is that what youre 5 making reference to?
6 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir.
7 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes, sir, we were 8 performing steam feeds rupture, the full system 9 testing, and in the process of testing, that 10 particular system feeds a signal to the 11 anticipatory reactor trip system. That signal 12 was not processed or not received by the parts --
13 by the anticipatory reactor trip system. As of 14 approximately an hour ago, we had demonstrated 15 through trouble-shooting that the problem resides 16 in the anticipatory reactor trip system where we 17 had completed an input check to that system, and 18 we have since determined that the problem is not 19 originating from steam feeds rupture control, but 20 it is clearly in parts -- in anticipatory reactor 21 trip, so now our trouble-shooting is focused on 22 relays and cards within the anticipatory reactor 23 trip system.
24 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
25 MR. OSTROWSKI: We do have problem solving MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
40 1 teams assembled days and nights to help us work 2 through that process, and our problem solving team 3 will be working on this throughout the course of 4 the evening.
5 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
6 MR. GROBE: Mark, if you dont mind, 7 what Id like to do is just continue with Kevin 8 and deter your agenda a little bit, and well 9 cover the new organization after Kevin is done.
10 MR. BEZILLA: Okay.
11 MR. GROBE: So well start with slide 12 15.
13 MR. BEZILLA: Slide 15.
14 MR. OSTROWSKI: Okay, thank you and good 15 evening. Operations performance continues to 16 improve and we continue to demonstrate safe, 17 conservative and deliberate control. Some recent 18 examples of this have already been mentioned in 19 response to the reactor trip and subsequent 20 reactor startup; however, at the last public 21 meeting I had expressed my concern with regards to 22 some challenges -- however, at the last public 23 meeting I expressed my concern with some 24 challenges in Human Performance, specifically 25 attention to detailed challenges. Between MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
41 1 January and July we had experienced five 2 shortcomings all dealing with routine tasks 3 associated with tech spec equipment testing and 4 monitoring. While each of those individual tasks 5 was separately evaluated and corrected and 6 appropriate actions taken, I have written a 7 Collective Significance edition report and 8 commissioned a team to take a look at those five 9 events to determine if any commonality of cause 10 existed and to recommend any additional corrective 11 actions. The team was made up of a number of 12 individuals, one of which was one of our own 13 Operations staff individuals, an SRO certified 14 person; two individuals, one from Training, one 15 from Performance Improvement, one was a former 16 licensee. We had an SRO from the Perry Plant, a 17 unit supervisor. We also had three industry peers 18 participate on the team. A Braidwood -- an 19 individual from Braidwood, an SRO from there, and 20 we very much appreciated his support and effort to 21 help us out. We had a former SRO at Perry, now a 22 member of our corporate team, our Operations 23 program team out of Akron, and a contractor, a 24 former Operations manager all made up of members 25 of the team. The team performed their evaluation MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
42 1 and investigation on the week of July 23rd through 2 the 29th and assessed the data associated with 3 those five tech spec related condition reports 4 looking at commonality with respect to the 5 situational and circumstantial conditions, 6 resulting problems and errors that had taken 7 place, identified causes and contributors, the 8 corrective actions that had been identified and 9 had been implemented and any other associated 10 miscellaneous factors. Based on the analysis of 11 the data, including the causes and contributing 12 factors, commonality pointed to our need to 13 develop -- continue to develop Human Performance 14 behavior necessary to continue to improve and 15 prevent errors particularly doing routine 16 activities. The corrective actions that were 17 recommended under the focus area included 18 benchmarking for performance management, 19 specifically at a crew level headed up by the 20 shift manager. Also training for looking at 21 opportunities to utilize and employ those Human 22 Performance models as well, in re-looking at and 23 clarifying roles and responsibilities of the -- of 24 the shift crews including the shift manager and 25 unit supervisor, in an effort, again, to improve MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
43 1 Human Performance behaviors. In the interim, 2 while those actions are being worked, we had dealt 3 with each of the individual -- individual 4 condition reports using our performance management 5 process, the existing FENOC performance management 6 process. We also personally conducted a stand 7 down with each of the operating crews to raise 8 awareness as to the attention to detail errors 9 that had been made, and, also, we had implemented 10 an interim action whereby we asked two SROs to 11 document their independent reviews of peer checks 12 of the surveillances requirements to make sure 13 that the proper test was completed and that the 14 acceptance criteria had been met, and those were 15 some of the interim actions taken.
16 In conclusion, while we have realized improved 17 performance, I need to continue to focus on safe, 18 conservative and deliberate control of all plant 19 operations, but, specifically, needing to focus on 20 routine discipline of execution for routine tasks 21 and continue to look for opportunities to improve 22 Human Performance.
23 MR. THOMAS: Kevin, approximately --
24 there we go. Approximately how many corrective 25 actions were recommended as part of this MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
44 1 Collective Significance Review, and of those, how 2 many to date have been translated to corrective 3 actions?
4 MR. OSTROWSKI: There were four corrective 5 actions identified in the Collective Significance 6 Review. The condition report carries five 7 Corrective Actions, one of which is to evaluate 8 the events for operating experience, so four of 9 the Corrective Actions were realizing and 10 correcting Condition reports.
11 MR. THOMAS: So there are Corrective 12 Actions assigned to document those similar -- the 13 collective significance report?
14 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct.
15 MR. GROBE: I have a couple questions.
16 This activity was completed July 29th, and theres 17 four actions that are identified. In August, 18 there were several situations that occurred 19 that -- that Id like to talk about a little bit 20 if we could.
21 The first one had to do with night shift 22 tagging out a flow path, and then day shift 23 attempting to add boric acid to the makeup system 24 through that flow path.
25 Could you talk a little bit about that, and MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
45 1 help me understand the role of operators 2 awareness of equipment configuration and how that 3 relates to the pressurizer heater issue that 4 occurred in December and why the corrective 5 actions from the pressurizer heater event of 6 operators attempted to pressurize the plant with 7 heaters that were tagged out that they were not 8 aware of plant configuration, how the corrective 9 actions for that impacted on this occurrence in 10 August?
11 MR. OSTROWSKI: In August the night shift 12 had tagged out the makeup flow control for work 13 that was to take place on the day shift, so that 14 tag out removed the normal boric acid injection 15 flow path from service. The valving that was 16 used to isolate that controller had also 17 eliminated the normal makeup flow path. The day 18 shift, shortly after returning, attempted to 19 initiate the makeup flow path in order to add 20 demineralized water to the reactor coolant system.
21 It was noted that they had seen approximately 37 22 gallons of water indicated that had been added to 23 the coolant system on the controller and did not 24 expect to see an indicated flow on that 25 controller. As a result, they terminated the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
46 1 evolution, again, it was a very short period of 2 time that that occurred, seconds when it was 3 realized that something wasnt right and 4 immediately began to investigate what the cause 5 was. It was then realized that the clearance 6 that had been posted removed that flow path from 7 service. When checking the valving, there was a 8 valve in that particular alignment that was found 9 slightly opened. It was about three-quarters of 10 a turn from its full closed position. That valve 11 was a reach rod valve that had been double 12 verified closed the night prior during the hanging 13 of that particular clearance. In our 14 investigation on that, we identified that the 15 night shift certainly had an opportunity to turn 16 over and turn over properly that particular 17 clearance and the effects of that clearance on the 18 normal forecast flow path. There were 19 shortcomings in that turnover. That turnover did 20 not occur in accordance with our expectations, 21 and, subsequently, the day shift and the night 22 shift both shared the accountability to make sure 23 they understood the system alignment prior to 24 completing the turnover process.
25 Now, with regards to the pressurizer heater MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
47 1 instance, Im familiar with the -- with the event.
2 I was not in Operations at the time, and, perhaps, 3 I could use some assistance on the details on 4 that, but, from my memory, I do believe that it 5 was involved with a pressurized heater breaker 6 that was energized, yet all of the heaters 7 themselves were not totally available, and I, 8 again, do not recall the details on that, but on 9 this particular case the makeup flow controller 10 was clearly a turn over concern with adequate 11 turnover, understanding the flow and alignment on 12 night shift and then turning over that alignment 13 to day shift with the understanding as to what the 14 effects would be, so our corrective actions were 15 again centered on accountability for proper 16 turnovers and that really was the gist of the 17 event.
18 MR. GROBE: You mentioned earlier some 19 stand downs that occurred with each of the 20 outbreak occurrences to discuss discipline of 21 Operations. Did those occur before this event or 22 after?
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: They occurred before the 24 turn over event with the makeup system. The 25 actual incidents, it was late in July when we had MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
48 1 one incidence where an operator failed to record 2 the proper reactor coolant system flow using a 3 computer point, and it was after that event in 4 late July that those stand downs were conducted on 5 the operating crews.
6 MR. GROBE: And then, I believe also 7 in August, there was a surveillance test being 8 conducted on the feed pump quarterly test and data 9 was not collected correctly in that test and a 10 procedure wasnt followed as written. That seems 11 very similar to the failure to include all of the 12 outputs for the reactor coolant flow channel check 13 surveillance that occurred in July after it had 14 previously occurred on multiple occasions where a 15 surveillance test wasnt performed properly in 16 accordance with procedure. Could you talk about 17 that a little bit, Kevin?
18 MR. OSTROWSKI: In that particular 19 instance, a surveillance was performed on the 20 motor driven feed pump, and, again, it was part of 21 our corrective actions that we reviewed and done 22 of that surveillance to ensure that things had 23 been performed properly. The shift manager had 24 identified in reviewing that procedure that the 25 flows that were required to be adjusted had not MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
49 1 been adjusted properly. There was flow and the 2 proper amount of flow was -- was determined and 3 actually admitted for the pump, so the pump did 4 have the required flow; however, the flow was not 5 slick between two different flow paths. That was 6 recognized by the shift manager, and at that point 7 it was stopped and the test had to be 8 re-performed.
9 MR. THOMAS: Was the procedure 10 deficient?
11 MR. OSTROWSKI: The procedure was not 12 deficient. The procedure clearly stated that the 13 flows needed to be shared between two different 14 alternate flow paths. The operator however did 15 not recognize that in the procedure, and it was 16 caught by the shift manager.
17 MR. GROBE: So that also occurred 18 after the stand downs and after people were made 19 aware of the problem that happened with the 20 reactor coolant flow channel checks surveillance 21 tests?
22 MR. OSTROWSKI: That is correct, to the 23 best of my knowledge, and also, again, the shift 24 manager was the one that had reviewed that and 25 caught the particular pump.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
50 1 MR. GROBE: Okay.
2 MR. THOMAS: I think its positive that 3 the shift manager caught the error, but the fact 4 remains that the operator did not perform the 5 procedure correctly, so its bad news/good news.
6 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct, were not 7 discounting the performance of our Operations 8 staff, we certainly need to continue to 9 communicate those standards or performance and 10 again maintain that accountability. At the same 11 time, as the Collective Significance Review 12 pointed out, we need to continue to look for 13 opportunities to -- look for that performance 14 manager to maintain that accountability at the 15 operator level, at the supervisor shift manager 16 level as well.
17 MS. LIPA: Have you been able to 18 determine why the error was made in talking to the 19 operator or trace it through his steps to 20 understand why?
21 MR. OSTROWSKI: I do not have an answer 22 right now. I do not know.
23 MR. GROBE: And I also noticed that 24 there was a situation where there was a feed water 25 transient when a string of feed water heaters from MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
51 1 the main condenser -- could you talk a little bit 2 about that and what happened there?
3 MR. OSTROWSKI: In that particular event, 4 a clearance had been placed on a particular 5 instrument, pressure instrument, and when the 6 instrument had been -- maintenance had been 7 completed on the instrument, the instrument was 8 returned to service. It was during the return to 9 service that that feed water heater evolution took 10 place. In that case, that was, again, that 11 particular pick up there was -- the restoration of 12 the system was directed by the clearance process 13 and the valve was recovered as part of the 14 evolution before it was returned to service.
15 MR. GROBE: And was the return to 16 service valving done in accordance with adequate 17 procedure, or was the procedure inadequate, or did 18 the individual fail to follow the procedure?
19 MR. OSTROWSKI: The procedure in this case 20 would have been the clearance restoration steps to 21 replace the valves in a particular position. The 22 awareness here was the affect of placing the 23 instrument in service upon the system was returned 24 to a pressurized condition.
25 MR. GROBE: So it was a lack of MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
52 1 coordination between the planning group that did 2 the feed water, tag-out restoration and the 3 Operations folks?
4 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct, but 5 Operations is also accountable for the evolution 6 in the planning organization, so we should have 7 recognized that as well.
8 MR. GROBE: I -- while these may not 9 have resulted in Tech Spec LCO -- excuse me, 10 technical specification limited condition for 11 operation use, the causes of these situations seem 12 to be equally significant to me as the prior five 13 that you ended up doing Collective Significance 14 on. The -- in the Collective Significance Report 15 you correctly articulated that there were four 16 recommended actions and then a fifth was added.
17 I find the most significant conclusions in this 18 report, though, isnt assigned an actual number, 19 and Ill read from the report. The team also 20 considered the implementation effectiveness and 21 extent of condition review of timeliness of 22 Corrective Actions delineated and identified in 23 the condition reports. Noteworthy consideration 24 was the number of corrective actions that remain 25 open. Of the open Corrective Actions, the team MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
53 1 questioned the planning and implementation and the 2 unit of consequences for not being implemented, 3 and this report was prepared in August, late 4 August, and the review was completed in late July, 5 and I think the latest CR that they were looking 6 at was earlier July and went back through April or 7 earlier than that, I believe. Its quite 8 concerning to me that the Collective Significance 9 Review team concluded that your corrective actions 10 on the individual issues were not timely. They 11 also note that surveillance tests were performed 12 on multiple occasions between the time of the 13 initial event occurring when the CR was generated 14 and Corrective Action implementation with no 15 apparent controls and measures in place to 16 conclude event or occurrence, and theres a 17 recommendation here, but theres no action 18 associated, but the recommendation is that the 19 station has much stronger action on a more timely 20 basis to address issues when they come up. Could 21 you talk a little bit about that?
22 MR. OSTROWSKI: Well, once again the 23 Collective Significance Review did look at those 24 actions associated with an effect on tech spec 25 surveillance or tech spec equipment monitoring, MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
54 1 and as such, that is correct, has focused on those 2 particular items. We also received similar 3 feedback from the Operations assessment, 4 independent assessment that was most previously 5 done that corrective actions certainly need to be 6 looked at and viewed, prioritized for their 7 significance, so the Collective Significance 8 Review and the operational assessment also need to 9 be looked at. Part of our action plan that we 10 have developed and are still working on will be to 11 relook at those corrective actions to ensure that 12 the priority are on those.
13 MR. THOMAS: What does your Corrective 14 Action program require you to do as far as 15 effectiveness reviews of corrective actions?
16 MR. OSTROWSKI: Following the 17 implementation of corrective actions, the 18 Corrective Action program would ask us in 19 Operations section to relook at the effectiveness 20 of corrective actions following implementation and 21 after some time as -- has distanced itself from 22 implementation in order to determine whether or 23 not actions have been effective through 24 performance.
25 MR. THOMAS: Based on the result of MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
55 1 Significant Condition Reports adverse to quality 2 base and operator performance, anyway coming out 3 of the restart readiness team inspection -- and 4 there was another S tech SCAQ -- excuse me, significant 5 risk under condition adverse to quality that was generated 6 February/April time frame, have any effectiveness 7 reviews been done to assess the effectiveness of 8 any of those corrective actions that were 9 implemented as a result of those significant -- as 10 a result of those root cause evaluations?
11 MR. OSTROWSKI: No, specifically no 12 specific effectiveness reviews have been 13 conducted. We did perform a quarterly assessment 14 in the first quarter of this year, but, 15 specifically, no, no effectiveness reviews have 16 been done.
17 MR. BEZILLA: Scott, I believe those 18 effectiveness reviews are usually six months or a 19 year after the action has been taken, and I 20 believe we have some scheduled for the end of this 21 year or the beginning of next year. I would have 22 to reconfirm that.
23 MR. GROBE: I would have to go back 24 and recheck, but I believe the first effectiveness 25 review was not conducted and was deferred, and the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
56 1 reason it was deferred was because the Corrective 2 Actions hadnt been completed yet. The 3 corrective actions had been deferred, so the 4 effectiveness reviews of those corrective actions 5 had been deferred. This is not building a very 6 pretty picture as far as the effectiveness of the 7 Corrective Action. Its important to note that 8 there havent been any significant findings with 9 respect to operations and the plant is being 10 operated safely, but the message that Jim Caldwell 11 was trying to deliver when he was on site, which 12 you articulated, Barry, was to look at what 13 happened between December and March. There was 14 very significant improvement in the quality of 15 operations at the station, and to think about why 16 that improvement occurred and why its not 17 continuing. The types of problems that are 18 occurring, and continuing to occur on a regular 19 frequency are problems that shouldnt be 20 occurring. I refer to those as teachable 21 moments, and if you dont implement the corrective 22 actions on a timely basis, you lose the 23 opportunity to learn, and its -- its not clear 24 to me that the organization has that fire in the 25 belly for excellence that carried you into the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
57 1 restart, and I think we need to continue talking 2 about this at our next meeting. Do you have any 3 thoughts on that?
4 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, just Im reflecting, 5 Jack, on some of your comments and what we have --
6 yes, the answer is, yes, continuing dialogue, but 7 just in reflection of them. What we got is we 8 rank -- Ill say rate the activities on a 9 significance basis, whether its a public 10 ballistic or whether its a risk generation, and 11 for the medium and high risk activities we have 12 additional communication or attention, and so 13 were trying to make sure that we give those 14 things of significance the attention theyre due.
15 I realize that there are errors made. We have 16 lots of opportunities each day. But we do have 17 errors that we make and we follow-up immediately 18 and take longer term actions, and timeliness is 19 one of the things that were focusing on, so, I 20 guess --
21 MR. GROBE: Im not sure -- pardon me.
22 Im not sure you followed me. The Collective 23 Significance Review team concluded you werent 24 following up, and its very important that you 25 risk informed decisions and activities at the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
58 1 plant, but if you strictly focus on problems and 2 risk situations that occur, you very well may miss 3 whats going on. Each of these people come to 4 work every day wanting to do their job right, and 5 for some reason the frequency of -- I focus on the 6 root cause. I dont focus on necessarily the 7 outcome and the goal is to prevent that from 8 significant outcome. There is something going 9 on, Im not sure you have gotten to the bottom of 10 it yet, but, for whatever reason, the performance 11 is not at the level of expectation that you have, 12 and its not meeting your standards. In some 13 cases Im sure it could be personal performance, 14 there could be something more to it than that, and 15 Im suggesting that the organization needs to 16 focus more clearly on a more timely basis on these 17 issues and they need to look more deeply at whats 18 going on, and, again, get corrective actions 19 implemented promptly and evaluate the 20 effectiveness of those to ensure that situations 21 dont repeat themselves.
22 MR. THOMAS: Just one follow-up on what 23 you said, Mark. I would agree that when you --
24 as a side picture of mine to the highest activity, 25 high profile activity, but typically those MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
59 1 activities are done very well and in a safe 2 manner. Its the routine day-to-day conduct of 3 business that, okay, I think youll find that 4 thats where these errors occur, and, you know, if 5 you focus on them from a strictly risk base up, 6 you know, focus like you said, you may not --
7 these issues are in your day-to-day conduct of 8 business, you know, so you may want to expand 9 your -- your look at these issues and find out why 10 theyre happening -- you know, when youre not 11 focusing on significant management oversight 12 attention on activities, why these type of errors 13 occur.
14 MR. BEZILLA: We agree, Scott.
15 Appreciate your comments. Just one last thing is 16 that we have been working from a fleet perspective 17 on enhancing our Human Performance tools and 18 techniques, and were in the process of rolling 19 those out, so Ill say were in the start of 20 rolling those out. That was as a result of some 21 of our performance issues as seen earlier in the 22 first and second quarter of this year, so we have 23 that activity ongoing and were in the process of 24 rolling out those additional Human Performance 25 tools to help us be successful in everything that MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
60 1 we do.
2 MR. GROBE: Let me ask one more 3 question. If -- and you didnt highlight this, 4 Im not sure, but youve gone from four shift 5 rotation to five shift rotation in your operating 6 crews, and I believe as a result of that youve 7 reduced one Senior Reactor Operator per shift 8 assuming all the requirements, but you have one 9 fewer Senior Reactor Operator per shift; is that 10 correct?
11 MR. OSTROWSKI: First of all, it is 12 correct that we have gone from a four crew 13 rotation to a five crew rotation. Its our 14 long-term goal to reduce by one SRO per shift from 15 four to three, but, currently, we are continuing 16 to carry four SROs per shift, so that is the case 17 today. Those four SROs would be the shift 18 manager, unit supervisor, shift engineer or STA 19 and then the field supervisor.
20 MR. GROBE: Right, okay. And the --
21 you also have an SRO that works directly with work 22 planned; is that correct?
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct. In fact, 24 we had -- of the five shift managers that we now 25 have in place, three of the shift managers are MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
61 1 relatively new to position. Theyre new shift 2 managers, two of them are former unit supervisors.
3 One of them was a shift manager prior to the 4 rearrangement of the crews in December. Hes now 5 been restored back to the shift managers 6 position. One of the shift managers that was 7 part of that four crew rotation is now our shift 8 manager in charge of Operation Support, which is 9 our work management SRO. In addition to that, we 10 had the -- we had the former Operation 11 Superintendent, one of the other shift managers 12 and an SRO certified individual report to our 13 Training Department so that we can continue to 14 reinforce behaviors and expectations in our 15 operator continuing and initial licensed operator 16 training.
17 MR. GROBE: Okay. Other questions, 18 Steve?
19 MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, I have some 20 questions, and youll have to bear with me 21 because, again, Im not as familiar with 22 Davis-Besse, but lets start with Collective 23 Significance Review. I understand condition 24 reports and root cause evaluations and common 25 cause evaluations. Collective Significance MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
62 1 Review, big picture, what is that in relation to 2 root cause evaluation and common cause evaluation 3 if you can relate them in those terms?
4 MR. BEZILLA: Ill take that -- Ill 5 take that, Steve. Collective Significance 6 Review, so in this example that Kevin talked about 7 we had had five things, some of those were 8 apparent to our root causes and he said, hey, I 9 had these. I have had individual ones. Lets 10 put those together. Is there something else, is 11 there a trend, is there something else in those 12 things that we havent picked up or that we need 13 to take action on, so collective significance just 14 rolls them together, takes another look at them, 15 and says, is there something else here that would 16 require our attention or action?
17 MR. REYNOLDS: So if I understand 18 correctly, Mr. Ostrowski, the Operations manager, 19 identified correctly some of the action taken in 20 the Collective Significance Review. Do you have 21 a procedure that talks about Collective 22 Significance Reviews?
23 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes, sir, thats our 24 Nuclear Operating Procedure at Davis-Besse --
25 excuse me, its a FENOC Nuclear Operating MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
63 1 Procedure 2001, part of our Corrective Action 2 program process. The Collective Significance 3 Review details are in there.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Do you also have a common 5 cause procedure or is this similar to --
6 MR. OSTROWSKI: Its similar to a common 7 cause procedure.
8 MR. REYNOLDS: Im familiar with common 9 cause, I think they call them evaluations. You 10 come out with a root cause or common cause, and if 11 I read this correctly -- I may not be, but all I 12 see is areas that are identified for improvement.
13 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes, sir, if you go to 14 Page 6 of that report.
15 MR. REYNOLDS: Page 6.
16 MR. OSTROWSKI: The results summary and 17 recommended action.
18 MR. REYNOLDS: I see the prior 19 statements.
20 MR. OSTROWSKI: Top of the page it says 21 based on the data analysis, the team characterized 22 the Collective Significance as the five events in 23 the following generic problem statements. The 24 Operations management team has not fully developed 25 the Human Performance behaviors necessary to MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
64 1 prevent errors during a performance of routine 2 activities, and thats what Ive discussed here 3 this evening.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: Could you maybe restate 5 that in laymans terms for me or simpler terms, 6 the Operation --
7 MR. OSTROWSKI: Simpler terms is an 8 Operations management team. We recognize the 9 need to improve Human Performance behaviors. The 10 Human Performance behaviors that are recommended 11 as part of the Corrective Action include the 12 performance management process at approved level 13 with the shift manager, unit supervisors and even 14 a crew-to-crew operator-to-operator. In addition 15 to that, they recommend looking at benchmarking at 16 other places that do a good job of this. Hatch 17 site versus Braidwood, for example, that give us 18 an opportunity to go visit them and see how they 19 manage performance on a crew level. Also, 20 looking at implementation of those Human 21 Performance tools that we will be realizing as 22 part of our new Human Performance procedure and 23 looking at opportunities there to incorporate 24 those in the day-to-day operations, so overall in 25 Operations management team, myself included, take MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
65 1 ownership for developing some of these Human 2 Performance behaviors to a point where theyre 3 implemented not only for high risk or medium risk 4 activities, but for the daily routine activities 5 as well.
6 MR. BEZILLA: Steve, let me help you a 7 little bit. What I would say is we need to drive 8 the ownership and accountability into the crews 9 for their performance. The items that Jack 10 talked about are clearly with the crews, the 11 individuals on those crews and how they take care 12 of business and communicate and the way I -- Ill 13 say, put this in layman terms, is drive that down 14 into the crews, a crewship, leadership and the 15 individuals on that crew.
16 MR. OSTROWSKI: One example --
17 MR. REYNOLDS: You just confused me now 18 because the way I was following your words was 19 Operations management team had Human Performance 20 behaviors that need to be corrected, and you just 21 told me it was the crew. Maybe I misunderstood 22 it.
23 MR. BEZILLA: Were accountable for the 24 performance of our people. If our people arent 25 meeting our expectations, all right, we havent MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
66 1 done our job to drive down those expectations and 2 accountabilities to individual performance.
3 MR. REYNOLDS: So is it individual 4 performance or Human Performance behavior issues 5 whether its at the crew level or the shift 6 manager level or whatever manager level or is 7 operational or organizational -- or organization, 8 Human Performance behavior issues?
9 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes. I can answer that 10 question, its all of the above.
11 MR. REYNOLDS: Individual --
12 MR. OSTROWSKI: Individual Human 13 Performance, as well as team performance, and 14 thats what this is trying to describe.
15 MR. REYNOLDS: Team performance and the 16 point of working together as a team or 17 organizational issues that havent been developed 18 such as shift manager roles and responsibility 19 with the possibility of clarification, things like 20 that, which I understand is an organizational 21 issue?
22 MR. OSTROWSKI: That would be correct 23 looking at us as an Operations team collectively 24 operating the station, and, yes, we are 25 individually accountable as well as accountable to MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
67 1 each other to continue to reinforce those Human 2 Performance behaviors.
3 MR. REYNOLDS: So if I understood 4 correctly, its both an organizational problem and 5 individual performance problem?
6 MR. OSTROWSKI: Yes, Steve, that would be 7 correct.
8 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. The five tech spec 9 related condition reports what was the time frame 10 that this occurred in?
11 MR. OSTROWSKI: The first event was --
12 occurred in early January.
13 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay.
14 MR. OSTROWSKI: January 4th, I believe, 15 was the exact date, Im just going by memory, and 16 the most recent event would have been the end of 17 July, the 22nd or 23rd, in that time frame, so it 18 spanned six months.
19 MR. REYNOLDS: Can you tell me how many 20 occurred in April, May and June?
21 MR. OSTROWSKI: We had approximately one 22 each in the appropriate months. One in January, 23 and Im estimating that, but it averaged out to 24 approximately one per month.
25 MR. REYNOLDS: So most likely in April, MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
68 1 May and June you had two or three?
2 MR. OSTROWSKI: One, one in -- I think one 3 month we had two that occurred early in the month 4 of January.
5 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, I guess my next 6 question maybe Mr. Loehlein can answer this. The 7 operator identified a problem to a significance in 8 his mind to do the collective significance reviews 9 based on Operations performance, and I assume 10 maybe Im incorrect -- correct me if Im wrong, 11 that you dont do -- check collective reviews all 12 the time on tech spec related Condition reports 13 and operations performance, Human Performance 14 behavior problems. I wonder how this collective 15 significance and these problems line up with what 16 I understood your statement earlier to be that 17 Operations performance is not -- you said not 18 improving or declined, stayed the same. Is that 19 because these errors occurred in January, 20 February, March also? Im trying to say April, 21 May, June sounds like you had some issues, 22 problems that Mr. Ostrowski said was significant 23 enough to have a collective -- significant 24 collective review, a lot of folks outside 25 Davis-Besse. Im just trying to put that MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
69 1 perspective in my mind because youre saying that 2 things were okay.
3 MR. LOEHLEIN: Well, some of this 4 probably indicates time when you look at when the 5 Collective Significance Review was called for, 6 but, in essence, what you said initially was 7 correct. If you go back to the first quarter, 8 the assessment period, youll find that the --
9 just as they concluded the overall Operations had 10 improved, but still was not at industry best 11 performance, so there was lots of room for 12 improvement. What we concluded in the second 13 quarter is that there had been no substantial 14 change in the status of their performance at the 15 end of the first quarter, so its accurate to say 16 there were still some errors being made, but 17 overall, the assessment was they were still safe.
18 MR. REYNOLDS: Maybe I should have asked 19 this question when you made your statement awhile 20 ago. If you stick with your statement that the 21 second quarter has been -- relatively no change, I 22 think sticking with that for a second. What was 23 your assessment in the first quarter, I guess I 24 need to know what youre starting from to know 25 what no change means.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
70 1 MR. LOEHLEIN: I dont have any of those 2 reports here, maybe Mark does. We would have 3 assessed the startup of the unit at that time, and 4 it was --
5 MR. REYNOLDS: Well, Im guess Im asking 6 for what was your overall assessment in 7 performance -- of Operations performance, excuse 8 me.
9 MR. LOEHLEIN: The overall rating was 10 marginally effective for the first quarter.
11 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, so that carrying 12 forward, it would be the same for the second 13 quarter?
14 MR. LOEHLEIN: Yeah, see, you have to 15 really understand the continuous assessment 16 process --
17 MR. REYNOLDS: Im trying to.
18 MR. LOEHLEIN: -- because what we do is 19 we dont -- Ill try to provide a little bit of 20 explanation. The continuous assessment process 21 takes all the key elements of all the areas we 22 look at, whether its engineering or operation or 23 what have you, and most of the things you divide 24 up into a two year cycle. Now as part of that 25 continuous assessment, theres certain things like MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
71 1 Corrective Action program and things like that 2 that we take bad points on every quarter, but we 3 dont provide a score for a department level 4 performance on all elements every quarter, so its 5 a little bit confusing for folks because in 6 some -- in some quarters we might be looking at 7 certain activities in Operations, for example.
8 Radiation protection might be a focus one quarter 9 and at that time we will score radiation 10 protection for that quarter and whatever data we 11 may have in the prior two years, and it will all 12 be rolled up in that particular quarter, but for 13 each quarter we do provide some assessment of how 14 theyre doing relative to what we saw in the past 15 and do make a comment on that in the Executive 16 Summary and the summary section, so we did rate --
17 it was marginally effective for the first quarter 18 in terms of performance during startup and then 19 our comment in the second quarter was the data we 20 had, although we didnt provide specific ratings 21 in the same areas, was that the overall 22 performance remained unchanged during the path.
23 I dont know if that helps any, but --
24 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it does.
25 MR. LOEHLEIN -- spend some time at the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
72 1 site in the future here, you can stop by and see 2 Ray, and he can show you how a quarterly 3 assessment plan is laid out and what its focused 4 on in a particular quarter. We do adjust that 5 when we see particular weaknesses or particular 6 opportunity like when there is an unplanned forced 7 outage, theres an opportunity to go in and assess 8 things that maybe arent originally part of the 9 plan for the quarter, but those need to be done 10 because theres opportunities to look at it.
11 MR. REYNOLDS: No, I appreciate that.
12 What I -- if its not obvious, but what I was 13 after, theres different groups at Davis-Besse.
14 Do they assess one area or are they assessing the 15 same? Obviously, the Operations manager had some 16 communication of the problem, you wouldnt go 17 after -- and thats why he asked for this 18 Collective Significance Review, which I was trying 19 to line that up with what I heard you say earlier 20 in your assessment of Operation.
21 MR. LOEHLEIN: And, typically, it would 22 be that -- as a good thing if the organization 23 called for that, so when they do that we would 24 observe whats done, then follow the corrective 25 actions later and see if theyre effective, is MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
73 1 what typically is done, so if the management and 2 organization takes the lead on that, thats a good 3 thing as far as the oversight organization is 4 concerned.
5 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, I appreciate that.
6 Just a couple more questions, if you bear with me.
7 Back to the Collective Significance Review process 8 each of you have. What procedure have you 9 concluded with the problem statement that is 10 provided -- I mean, Im looking for a root cause, 11 a procedure, so I think the procedure that said --
12 ended up, the results of some of the recommended 13 actions that you come up with generic problems; is 14 that accurate?
15 MR. OSTROWSKI: The procedure itself is 16 not specifically in regards to what the actual 17 statement will look like. Its simply asking 18 that some summary or some analysis be done and 19 that those conclusions be communicated in the 20 final report.
21 MR. REYNOLDS: Maybe you answered my 22 question. Maybe I wasnt clear. A lot of 23 corrective actions processes that Im familiar 24 with, the procedure will say that you need to come 25 up with a root cause or a common cause, and Im MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
74 1 asking if your procedure says you have to come up 2 with a problem statement, or does it ask you to 3 come up with -- or maybe I heard you correctly and 4 its flexible and allows you to do various 5 different things whether the individual wants to 6 do -- say theres a problem which doesnt really 7 tell you the cause of the problem, it states 8 theres a problem. It appears theres a problem, 9 appears a root cause.
10 MR. OSTROWSKI: Theres no specific 11 requirement for a common cause statement or a root 12 cause statement or a problem statement.
13 MR. REYNOLDS: So its up to the 14 knowledge and skills and ability of the team 15 members as to how their results are recommended or 16 not?
17 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct.
18 MR. REYNOLDS: And that is a FENOC-wide 19 procedure?
20 MR. OSTROWSKI: Thats correct, yes, sir.
21 MR. REYNOLDS: I guess well talk more 22 about this in the future. All right. Thank 23 you.
24 MS. LIPA: We do need to get ready 25 for a break soon, but I did want to -- this is a MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
75 1 very important topic that weve been covering 2 here. Just to kind of circle back, I have been 3 following your performance indicators, and I think 4 youre getting to the August results, but I have a 5 concern that the Corrective Action program, that 6 your overall indicator has been yellow and red 7 pretty much since February, and, you know, Im 8 reading your assessment at the bottom here which 9 kind of describes how youre planning to make 10 improvements in this program, but Im not really 11 sure I understand what youre really planning to 12 do. A big important part of it is red, and weve 13 talked a lot about that. We talked about the 14 importance of the timeliness of the Corrective 15 Action and how its factored into performance 16 issues. Whats your game plan for getting 17 timeliness of these corrective actions improved?
18 MR. BEZILLA: Christine, well cover 19 that a little bit later in Barrys presentation, 20 all right, and just a minute on that. Theres 21 three elements that go into that; one is quality, 22 one is effectiveness and one is timeliness. From 23 a quality standpoint, we feel pretty good about 24 our quality standpoint. I believe we have been 25 green for the last several months in quality area.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
76 1 From an effectiveness standpoint, up until this 2 past month I believe we had gotten all of the 3 points there. It had been green in that area. We 4 had -- theres one situation that Kevin talked 5 about on the surveillance on the flow instrument 6 card used a computer point we felt was a repeat 7 item and that caused us to be red in August, and 8 from a timeliness standpoint we understand and 9 realize that were going to be red, Ill say from 10 a timeliness standpoint, and thats because of our 11 backlog, our workload, and well talk about a 12 couple of efforts we have to address those 13 backlogs, and well show you the progress we made 14 here in a little bit in a future presentation.
15 MS. LIPA: For the example that you 16 mentioned that was a repeat, do you already have 17 efforts underway to understand fully why it was a 18 repeat, like what you learned from it first, 19 didnt understand fully or could have done better 20 to prevent the repeat?
21 MR. ALLEN: I believe, Christine, the 22 most recent one on the flow that Mark mentioned, 23 that was the one that Kevin looked at in his 24 Collective Significance.
25 MS. LIPA: Okay, but it mentioned the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
77 1 previous submission for it, and Im sure you would 2 want to go back and look at that condition work 3 for what you did on that condition report and what 4 you didnt do that could have prevented this 5 repeat, and Im wondering if thats part of your 6 process or if thats already underway, so Im 7 definitely looking forward to some information on 8 timeliness -- and it sounds like you dont have 9 that, but I would like to know.
10 MR. ALLEN: Okay.
11 MS. LIPA: Now, I think it would be a 12 good time for a break, a 10 minute break, before 13 Marlenes fingers fall off here. Thank you.
14 MR. GROBE: Mark, during the break, 15 possibly you could look at the remaining slides, 16 we spent quite a bit of time on the first couple 17 topics, and I think you have about eight, and 18 maybe there is some editing that can be done to 19 give us the gist of the topics and more detail on 20 the ones you feel are more important, maybe you 21 could look at that during the break.
22 MR. BEZILLA: I understand, clip the 23 presentation.
24 MR. GROBE: Thank you.
25 THEREUPON, a brief recess took place.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
78 1 MS. LIPA: Were just about ready to 2 begin, if everybody could find their seats, 3 please. Thank you.
4 Okay, go ahead, Mark, you figure out where you 5 want to start.
6 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, based on the 7 request, I think what would be appropriate would 8 be let Barry go through the Independent 9 Assessment, the Ops Performance Assessment, and 10 talk about the backlog reduction, and well see 11 where were at and probably if there is time well 12 have you hear about the new organization, and I 13 think can probably finish this up, okay?
14 MS. LIPA: Okay.
15 MR. BEZILLA: So this would be slide 20.
16 MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Mark. As Mark 17 said, I will discuss some of the Independent 18 Assessments performed at Davis-Besse. We have 19 four Independent Assessments scheduled in 2004, 20 the Confirmatory Order Action Plan. First is the 21 Operations Performance, which I will discuss in 22 detail in a moment.
23 Second, Corrective Action program 24 Implementation, which is currently underway; 25 followed by Engineering Program Effectiveness in MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
79 1 October; and then Organizational Safety Culture in 2 November.
3 In the area of Operations Performance, an 4 independent team conducted a comprehensive 5 assessment of Operations in order to, first of 6 all, assess the overall rigor and quality of our 7 own internal self-assessments in the area of 8 Operations, and, secondly, to identify improvement 9 opportunities.
10 MR. REYNOLDS: Im sorry, you went a 11 little too fast for me, back on slide 21. The 12 Corrective Action Program Implementation, thats 13 currently going on, right?
14 MR. ALLEN: That is underway 15 currently.
16 MR. REYNOLDS: Any members of that 17 Independent Assessment here in the audience?
18 MR. ALLEN: Not that I saw.
19 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.
20 MR. ALLEN: Youre welcome.
21 Back to the Operations Performance Assessment, 22 the assessment scope was both broad and deep in 23 order to perform an extensive assessment of 24 Operations performance, including such items as 25 shift turnovers, manipulations in the control MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
80 1 room, communications, departmental interfaces 2 between Operations and the rest of the 3 organization, procedural use and adherence, 4 Operations awareness of plant and equipment 5 status, pre-job briefings, management interface, 6 Kevin hit those, management interface and 7 oversight from an Operations perspective, command 8 and control within the Operations organization, 9 the shifts ability to evaluate emergent issues 10 and prioritize and dispose of emergent issues, 11 behaviors exhibited by Operations in the areas of 12 questioning attitude and safety, and the shifts 13 handling of off-normal operations and situations, 14 and also the team observed operator simulator 15 training and performance and to ascertain whether 16 it can align with in-plant Operator Performance.
17 Next slide, please.
18 In order to independently assess our 19 performance, the outside team reviewed the 20 following items:
21 Condition reports related to Operations, 22 selected operational procedures, our Operations 23 self-assessments, also reviewed the Quality 24 Organization Assessments in Operations 25 Performance. One key review is our effectiveness MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
81 1 at performing quality self-assessments, and also 2 our aggressiveness in correcting self-assessment 3 findings. Positive observations --
4 MR. THOMAS: Can I ask a quick 5 question?
6 MR. ALLEN: Sure, Scott.
7 MR. THOMAS: How would you rate 8 yourself as an organization in taking the findings 9 of self-assessments and implementing the right 10 Condition reports and corrective actions to 11 address those issues?
12 MR. ALLEN: Scott, I believe what 13 were typically seeing is as were identifying 14 issues, we are putting those in our Corrective 15 Action process, were prioritizing those 16 appropriately commensurate with significance to 17 safety and when we get new perspectives from 18 assessments, well go back and relook at, do we 19 think we have these prioritized properly, so we 20 know we have a backlog, were working through our 21 backlog, and we believe were prioritizing those 22 appropriately, so -- as aggressively as we can be 23 along with the significance of the issues.
24 MR. THOMAS: Im not sure I heard the 25 answer to my question. Let me try it again.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
82 1 Maybe you said it and it just didnt register.
2 MR. ALLEN: Okay.
3 MR. THOMAS: When a self-assessment is 4 done, theres typically recommendations associated 5 with that self-assessment. Did -- correct me if 6 Im wrong, did you say that as an organization, 7 Davis-Besse does a good job at taking those 8 recommendations and translating those into 9 Corrective Actions to be implemented to improve 10 those weaknesses?
11 MR. ALLEN: Scott, I believe were 12 doing a good, adequate job, and I think what we 13 typically see is what are the immediate and 14 short-term actions that I need to implement, and 15 were pretty rigorous about getting those in 16 place. The longer term actions, when we broke 17 those in our work management process and then we 18 prioritize those according to their significance 19 and then just lay that out with the rest of the 20 workload as the work goes on.
21 MR. SCHRAUDER: Hey, Scott, if I could add 22 on that. Part of the Corrective Action program at 23 Davis-Besse thats going on right now, we did have 24 a finding, if you will, or a recommendation to its 25 inadequate preliminarily that were inconsistent MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
83 1 in that regard of self-assessments and how 2 effective we were in answering those 3 recommendations and such in the Corrective Action 4 program, so its not being consistently applied 5 throughout the organization like we honestly would 6 like to have identified the way to improve it.
7 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
8 MR. ALLEN: Slide 25, okay. Positive 9 observations from the Independent Assessment team 10 included efforts to improve standards and 11 behaviors are having a positive effect. Theres 12 a uniform understanding of standards, behaviors 13 and expectations, procedure usage and place 14 keeping expectation are internalized. Operators 15 are consistently exhibiting professional 16 behaviors. Also the company Nuclear Review Board 17 and Nuclear Quality Assurance assessments 18 performed factual, in-depth, accurate and aligned 19 with the independent assessment teams findings 20 and in training the team saw both strengths and 21 opportunities for improvement. Areas to focus on 22 from the teams assessment included:
23 We can continue to improve our communication 24 within the organization. Some Operations 25 personnel do not fully understand the work MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
84 1 managements scheduling process. A plan to reduce 2 the number of open operations procedure revision 3 needs to be developed. Kevin and I are working 4 on that.
5 MR. OSTROWSKI: (Nod indicating yes).
6 MR. ALLEN: Some cause determinations 7 do not go deep enough, and two Operations internal 8 assessments were not as thorough as they could 9 have been.
10 MR. REYNOLDS: A question on two 11 Operations internal assessments.
12 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
13 MR. REYNOLDS: Either one of those, did 14 you Collective Significance Review?
15 MR. OSTROWSKI: No.
16 MR. ALLEN: (Nod indicating no). So 17 in summary --
18 MR. REYNOLDS: Im sorry, maybe its just 19 a wording issue back on 25, the first two bullets.
20 Ill read the second one first. It says 21 understanding of standards, behaviors, and 22 expectations are uniform; then the first bullet 23 says, efforts to improve standards and behaviors 24 are having a positive affect.
25 Any comments on expectations, like is that MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
85 1 expectations are positive for the effect?
2 MR. ALLEN: Steve, if I understand 3 your question -- let me try, if I dont get it, 4 come back.
5 MR. REYNOLDS: Sure.
6 MR. ALLEN: The first bullet, okay, 7 efforts to improve standards and behaviors are 8 having a positive affect, what were doing is 9 raising the bar for conduct in Operations area, 10 and as we do that, as we raise our standards and 11 expectations, its having a positive impact on the 12 organization. Its leading us in the proper 13 direction.
14 MR. REYNOLDS: Right.
15 MR. ALLEN: Secondly, as were doing 16 that, were changing and revising our expectations 17 in the arena of conduct of operations. The 18 understanding is getting there to the operators, 19 so theyre following along with the changes.
20 Theyre getting with the program. Theyre 21 internalizing that, and then theyre understanding 22 what the changes are were leaving occurred.
23 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. I guess just a 24 comment on that is that, you said standards and 25 expectations kind of go hand in hand. As you MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
86 1 develop standards, you develop expectations, and 2 just a comment, maybe its just left out after the 3 word expectations, I wonder why you talk about 4 standards and behaviors in the first bullet and 5 standards, behaviors and expectations in the 6 second. Maybe its just the way they worded the 7 slide, I dont know. It just jumped out at me, 8 expectations was added to the second one and not 9 the first one. If you dont --
10 MR. BEZILLA: Steve, on this slide what 11 were trying to do is use the Executive Summary 12 from the report. We just used the words from the 13 Executive Summary to help portray the thoughts.
14 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. So your 15 understanding of these two expectations would be 16 more like what Mr. Allen said that standards and 17 expectations kind of go hand in hand -- is that 18 what I hear -- I dont want to put words in your 19 mouth.
20 MR. ALLEN: Standards and expectations 21 would go hand in hand.
22 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay, thanks.
23 MS. LIPA: A question I have for you, 24 Barry, earlier Mr. Grobe talked about several 25 operator personnel type issues that happened in MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
87 1 August, I think there were three of them, and I 2 wonder if any of those occurred while this team 3 was on site? Sometimes if theyre on site when an 4 issue occurs, they might have a different 5 perspective of how they respond and what was done 6 at the site. Do you recall any of those on 7 site --
8 MR. ALLEN: Thats a good question, 9 Christine. If any did occur while the team was 10 here, off the top of my head I dont recollect. I 11 would have to lay those out and check. I would be 12 glad to do that for you. I may have that 13 information here somewhere.
14 MS. LIPA: The Resident Inspector 15 thinks maybe a line item issue occurred when the 16 team was here. Does that sound familiar? Do you 17 recall?
18 MR. BEZILLA: Can you speak up, 19 Christine?
20 MS. LIPA: Oh, Scott was recollecting 21 on perhaps the makeup of line item issue where the 22 line item was tagged out, and they tried to use 23 it; anyway, that occurred while that team was on 24 site and I was just wondering if that sounded 25 familiar from your team once you were assessing MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
88 1 your performance?
2 MR. BEZILLA: You know, I dont think 3 there was any operations significant issues while 4 the team was here because I would have expected it 5 to show up in the report, and I did not see it in 6 the report.
7 UNIDENTIFIED: Mark, on Page 11 of the 8 draft report, I think it said something about it.
9 MS. LIPA: Page 11 of the draft 10 report, somebody reported from the audience.
11 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
12 MS. LIPA: I dont happen to have the 13 draft report with me. I guess Ill have to look 14 at that later. Thank you.
15 MR. GROBE: Just to make sure I 16 understand the passing comment. 45 days after the 17 completion of the assessment, the order requires 18 you to submit on the docket to us, publicly 19 available, a report docketing the results and any 20 action from that. That would be due next week?
21 MR. ALLEN: October 9th, I believe, 22 Jack. Thats correct.
23 MR. GROBE: Okay. Any other questions 24 on the Ops Assessment?
25 MR. RULAND: Yes, I have a question.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
89 1 Its probably premature to ask this question, but 2 Im going to ask it anyway.
3 As you thought about the makeup of the team 4 and the way you actually conducted this 5 assessment, has it changed your view on how youre 6 going to conduct the other assessments at all, 7 and, in addition, have you yet thought a year in 8 advance, as you know youre going to have to --
9 the order currently requires you to do five 10 assessments for the next five years. I was 11 wondering if you thought yet how those future 12 assessments are going to look compared to the ones 13 youre doing now? Again, I think this is a 14 premature question, but -- if you cant answer it 15 now or its premature, we can, you know, talk 16 about it later.
17 MR. BEZILLA: Id say we cant answer 18 that now because were just generating the first 19 report for you all, but as we go through these 20 first four, I will take a look and see what kind 21 of adjustments we want to make for next year and 22 see if there is any difference in the makeup of 23 the team.
24 MR. REYNOLDS: On the 27th slide, the 25 second bullet, improvements noted; what are they MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
90 1 comparing? Last year to this year? Last month to 2 this month? Improvements from when to when?
3 MR. ALLEN: Im just trying to look 4 through the draft report here, Steve, I dont know 5 that I specifically see dates, so they would have 6 taken a look at least going back to startup 7 performance and comparing that performance 8 probably somewhat with what occurred, say, last 9 December and whatnot, but I believe more focused 10 on restart going forward and as Operations 11 performing and moving in the right direction.
12 MR. REYNOLDS: Could you just say that 13 again for me? I want to make sure I follow.
14 When do you think their improvements were, from 15 restart going forward or from December going 16 forward?
17 MR. ALLEN: I believe the main focus 18 of the team is looking at restart going forward.
19 I think if youll go back and look at some 20 earlier -- some earlier data information, but 21 since we were asking them to review our 22 performance today, which would be in more recent 23 times, would be more of the focus of their 24 investigation.
25 MR. REYNOLDS: If -- if you make the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
91 1 assumption they were comparing previous and post 2 performance -- I think thats what you said, I 3 guess this is a question again for Mr. Loehlein.
4 How is that -- it appears inconsistent with what 5 you said twice tonight that Operations performance 6 since restart stayed the same.
7 MR. LOEHLEIN: Well, Id clarify that 8 the only report you were quoting is from the 9 second quarter of this year.
10 MR. REYNOLDS: I was trying to repeat 11 back what you said, not what the report said.
12 MR. LOEHLEIN: Okay.
13 MR. REYNOLDS: If -- maybe I 14 misunderstood you, but twice tonight I understood 15 that you said in your assessment -- was that 16 Operations was not improving.
17 MR. LOEHLEIN: Lets be clear. I was 18 commenting on the second quarter report, which was 19 the last one that I signed as the Oversight 20 Manager before moving to my new position, so lets 21 go back historically. The fourth quarter of 2003, 22 Operations was rated as unacceptable. In the 23 first quarter of 2004, it was rated as marginally 24 effective. During that period there have been 25 several of these tech spec entry events. In the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
92 1 quarter thereafter, there were no -- in the 2 assessment period, there were no tech spec entry 3 events from that period. The next one occurred 4 in July just after the second quarter had ended, 5 so when we did a judgment in assessment how 6 Operations was doing in the second quarter --
7 MR. REYNOLDS: I need to stop you.
8 Did you say there were no tech spec issues 9 during the second quarter?
10 MR. LOEHLEIN: I didnt say there were no 11 issues, but the ones that were in the Collective 12 Significance Review before, I think the first 13 quarter, Steve --
14 MR. REYNOLDS: The reason I stopped you 15 was when I asked Mr. Ostrowski during the second 16 quarter I was under the impression, maybe 17 incorrectly, that there were tech spec issues.
18 MR. LOEHLEIN: There was one. There was 19 two --
20 MR. OSTROWSKI: Two in January, one in --
21 MR. REYNOLDS: We need to clarify, maybe 22 there were two or three during the time period.
23 I thought you said there was one per month, and I 24 have asked the question at least a couple --
25 MR. OSTROWSKI: The actual dates would MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
93 1 be -- for the five events would be January 6th, 2 February 13th, March 31st, June 7th, and July 6th.
3 MR. LOEHLEIN: I stand corrected, there 4 was one in the second quarter period. The point 5 of it is, though, that Operations Performance had 6 noticeably improved from the fourth quarter to the 7 first quarter, largely ineffective, and in the 8 second quarter, our overall assessment in 9 comparing the two quarters was that there had been 10 no measurable improvement and no measurable 11 decline from the first quarter to the second.
12 Now, the third quarter report is not issued yet 13 and it will be -- cause its in the third quarter 14 right now --
15 MR. REYNOLDS: No, I understand that, so 16 Ive heard it three times. I want to make sure I 17 hear it correctly, so your assessment for the 18 second quarter for Operations theres been no 19 measurable improvement?
20 MR. LOEHLEIN: On the items that -- from 21 the day that quality had for that quarters -- I 22 think what were getting hung up on is --
23 MR. REYNOLDS: No, you keep changing your 24 words here Im looking for. Im trying to repeat 25 back what youre saying, and you keep changing on MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
94 1 me, and Im having trouble following.
2 MR. LOEHLEIN: Well, what Im trying to 3 do is Im trying to make sure you get a clear 4 understanding, but I think where were probably 5 having a problem here is how the continuous 6 assessment process works. We will provide 7 insight to -- in summary fashion to your 8 organization based on the data we have for that 9 quarter; however, thats not the same as what we 10 did in the prior quarter where we did the roll up 11 for specific elements for a whole time period, so, 12 yes, we do that, but I think where the confusion 13 lies is that we didnt do the same level of effort 14 in the Operations area in the second quarter as we 15 did in the first.
16 MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate that. Im 17 just trying to repeat back every time what you 18 said and you keep changing on me, but I think I 19 understand now, but -- not to prolong this, I 20 wont repeat it back and get it changed again, so 21 well go on.
22 MR. LOEHLEIN: Ill be happy to try to 23 clear it up afterwards as well.
24 MR. REYNOLDS: Okay.
25 MR. ALLEN: In summary -- any other MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
95 1 questions?
2 MR. THOMAS: Let me follow-up with one 3 other question.
4 The Independent Assessment and Operations we 5 covered was done in the third quarter, correct.
6 MR. LOEHLEIN: I think in the third 7 quarter --
8 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
9 MR. THOMAS: Okay. The conclusion, let 10 me find it here, improvements noted in Operations 11 performance, I guess, Barry, or, Kevin, would you 12 agree with those assessments?
13 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
14 MR. THOMAS: As an overall or in 15 specific areas?
16 MR. ALLEN: Overall Operations 17 Performance and whether you go back to restart or 18 go back to -- either.
19 MR. THOMAS: Third quarter, during the 20 time that the assessment was being performed?
21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, in fact, as I 22 mentioned earlier, Scott, in fact, we had several 23 clock resets earlier in the year based on 24 Operations performance, and today were at 86 days 25 of no site clock resets for Human Performance, so MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
96 1 weve seen some improvements. Are we where we 2 want to be? No, we have issues. We have things 3 we want to work on and be aggressive, but, yes, I 4 do believe its performance improvements.
5 MR. THOMAS: Go ahead, Im sorry.
6 MR. ALLEN: Summary of the independent 7 assessment team. Independent outside assessment 8 in line with their own internal assessments 9 thereby validating their own self-assessments.
10 Continued improvements were noted within 11 Operations, and action plans are being developed 12 to address the continued areas for improvement.
13 Next slide, skip that.
14 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, well skip to slide 15 29.
16 MR. ALLEN: Backlog Reduction, this 17 section of the presentation, Ill show the 18 progress were making in reducing our backlog at 19 Davis-Besse. Well continue to focus on and make 20 significant progress in reducing our backlogs of 21 work at Davis-Besse.
22 At the station we track all work documents in 23 our site workload backlog. As this graph 24 illustrates, our workload peaked at approximately 25 18,000 items in restart. Since restart, weve MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
97 1 reduced our backlog by approximately 3,700 work 2 items, which is approximately 20 percent 3 reduction, and that went down from approximately 4 18,000 items of restart in the 14,000 range now, 5 so, on average, over the last 20 weeks, were 6 typically reducing our backlog approximately close 7 to 200 items per week, 765 -- 170 issues resolved 8 each week, and thats what the reflection is on 9 all documents.
10 MR. REYNOLDS: This graph shows the 11 reduction, but it doesnt show your -- your 12 expectation or your goal.
13 Could you answer the question whether this --
14 where you are now in the rate of reduction meets 15 your goals or expectations of your standards or --
16 MR. ALLEN: Thats a good question.
17 Were not where we want to be in terms of backlog, 18 and were targeting spring of 06 to have our 19 backlog down to what wed consider normal levels, 20 and were working within the departments and doing 21 some benchmarking to determine what those steady 22 State levels should be for us in our threshold and 23 our Corrective Action program, so, right now, what 24 we do is, we just try to make sure that our 25 backlog is going down every week, and were MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
98 1 working to benchmark to determine where we feel an 2 acceptable place to land is. In the meantime, 3 the curve downward is what were focused on.
4 MR. THOMAS: You may be incorporating 5 this question into your next couple slides. I 6 didnt see it specifically mentioned, but if 7 during, you know, your discussion in the next 8 three or four slides, if you could incorporate it 9 into that a discussion as to where youre most 10 challenged -- where you feel you are most 11 challenged in working off a backlog in a certain 12 area, whether it be Engineering or Operations, 13 whatever, if you could discuss that during your 14 discussions of your backlog.
15 MR. ALLEN: I understand, will do.
16 MR. WRIGHT: Barry, do you have a feel 17 on that reduction, how much was actual items 18 worked off as opposed to possibly just 19 consolidation where you found duplicates or 20 triplicates where you consolidated those as 21 opposed to actually working them off, is there a 22 difference?
23 MR. ALLEN: Geoff, I dont have a 24 percentage, but I believe we found very few items 25 to consolidate. One would hope to find some MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
99 1 duplicates, but primarily its just individual 2 documents and actions that weve just gone and 3 resolved and worked off or dispositioned.
4 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.
5 MR. ALLEN: The next slide, please, 6 Preventative Maintenance. One of the categories 7 that weve closely monitored and youve 8 experienced past interest in is in the area of 9 Preventative Maintenance tasks deferred beyond 10 their late date, so as you can see, we have made 11 significant progress in implementing the seen 12 impacts. Of the 312 items identified at restart 13 in this category, we scheduled and worked 242 of 14 those tasks to date as of when the slide was 15 prepared, and our deferred PM backlog will be 16 essentially worked off before the end of the year, 17 there may be some exceptions like some test 18 equipment which is not required until next outage 19 or equipment which is out of service, be a handful 20 of items, which make sense, but, essentially, 21 weve had a tremendous curve. Weve had a lot of 22 focus on Preventative Maintenance tasks, and if 23 you look at our daily work schedule now to help 24 key the organizations significance of this, those 25 activities now are in the daily work schedule or MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
100 1 words do not reschedule, so anyone that picks up 2 that work schedule can see those words and will 3 recognize that theres PMs that were holding to 4 those two items.
5 MR. GROBE: Barry, I think I asked 6 this question at the last meeting and my 7 recollection isnt exactly clear.
8 Is it your expectation that Preventative 9 Maintenance tasks will be accomplished by the due 10 date, or is it your expectation that they will be 11 accomplished between the due date and the delayed 12 date?
13 MR. ALLEN: Jack, it may depend on how 14 long it takes to perform the field activity. We 15 would typically target at the due date, okay, just 16 for rough scheduling, plus we have to look at what 17 training week is it. What else is going on, so 18 we see that as a target and we apply some 19 intelligence and then the expectation is we work 20 it before the late date, but as long as its 21 working before the late date, thats acceptable.
22 Again, well re-target based on the due date.
23 MR. GROBE: Has the number of 24 maintenance activities between the due date and 25 late date been going up or been going down, do you MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
101 1 know?
2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we have that.
3 Its -- I would say pretty stable, pretty steady, 4 and we can share the graph you, if youd like, 5 but, in that interval, not much change. Were 6 really focusing on once its been evaluated and 7 deferred, and were not losing ground on the 8 others.
9 MR. GROBE: Okay. So youre knocking 10 down the Preventative Maintenance activities that 11 are beyond the date due, and based on your 12 expectation, the target, the due date, you would 13 expect then the beyond the due date would be 14 knocked down on a regular basis as you get back 15 into the routine operation of getting them done 16 generally at the time theyre due?
17 MR. BEZILLA: Jack, our goal, once we 18 get through, Ill say, some period of time in 19 cycle operation, the goal would be to be at 9 in 1 20 to 10 percent range on the due date. Now, we 21 realize as we bring equipment up to work on it, 22 those things will move around some, so well 23 monitor those things, Ill say, deep into the 24 grace period, and were monitoring things into the 25 deferred past or late date, but once we get the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
102 1 deferred past the late date, well just keep an 2 eye on deferred even in the grace period to make 3 sure were not challenging any late dates, and 4 well just work that into our work management plan 5 and work that appropriately.
6 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, Jack, were 7 monitoring that closely now because it could be a 8 potential threat to put more in the deferred mode, 9 and were trying to make sure that doesnt happen.
10 MR. GROBE: What impact, if any, do 11 the recent staff reductions have on your ability 12 to continue working on these backlogs?
13 MR. ALLEN: Actually, were seeing no 14 negative impact; in fact, the upward -- one of our 15 very best weeks that we had was the week that we 16 actually rolled out the new organization. We had 17 over 200 items resolved that week.
18 MR. GROBE: How many people -- was it 19 40?
20 MR. BEZILLA: There were a total of 64 21 reductions at Davis-Besse. 44 of those were then 22 offered opportunities or jobs and there was 23 another 20 that we have on our temporary 24 assignment because we felt that we needed their 25 skills anywhere from three to, say, 12 months MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
103 1 looking in the future.
2 MR. GROBE: I understood your statement 3 that as far as backlog reduction the week the 4 staff reductions occurred was one of your best 5 weeks. I dont think what you meant to do was 6 equate that with the staff reductions or infer 7 that there was a relationship there. Those 44 8 people had to be doing meaningful work, just not 9 in the area of daily backlog reduction.
10 MR. BEZILLA: It was just a fact.
11 MR. GROBE: Just a coincidence, right?
12 MR. BEZILLA: (Nod indicating yes).
13 MR. ALLEN: Preventative Maintenance 14 backlog, very pleased, good track, good progress.
15 MR. RULAND: Just one more question on 16 backlog.
17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, yes, sir.
18 MR. RULAND: I think Im on. Now --
19 thats okay. Given -- given the backlog, what 20 staff are you using to work this backlog? Are 21 you using overtime? Are you using contractors, or 22 is it standard staff that you have without 23 overtime?
24 MR. BEZILLA: Bill, we have a number of 25 tasks on our backlog, if you will, in the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
104 1 maintenance area, elected maintenance area and 2 there are some directives in there also, our 3 strategy was to bring in some additional resources 4 of a planning nature, have those guys go through 5 that backlog and plan out the jobs, and weve had 6 good results from that activity. Weve currently 7 started bringing additional craft resources down 8 to work those jobs, and our plan has us working 9 off, its about 2,600 items through, Ill say, the 10 spring of 2006, and were pretty pleased with the 11 results to date. Were ahead of our game plan 12 currently.
13 In regard to the Corrective Action items, we 14 have a few additional resources in engineering 15 that are helping us with those items, and we have 16 a system review that were working through where 17 weve laid out the systems from a risk 18 perspective, started with the most risk 19 significant system and then were working our way 20 through those. Our plan is laid out through, I 21 believe, the beginning of 2005 currently, and, as 22 an example, auxiliary feedwater was the first 23 system review that we did and we saw about a 70 24 percent reduction in the volume of things that 25 were associated with aux feedwater in about a MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
105 1 four -- it was about a four or five week period 2 where we put the team together, and they just went 3 through and addressed the issues. Some were 4 worse, some were consolidated, a number were 5 resolved, and we felt pretty good about that.
6 MR. THOMAS: Have you been able to 7 maintain that type of performance, if you will, 8 with other systems where you had focus efforts in 9 the backlog reduction?
10 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, we seen a -- Ill 11 say good performance, Scott, not necessarily 70 12 percent reduction. I believe, on the second 13 system, we got around 56 percent.
14 MR. ALLEN: Actually, Mark, Ive 15 got -- I have a little bit of the data. As far as 16 overall completion on auxiliary feedwater was 72 17 percent in four eight mode distribution reduction. Again, 18 started later, so you would expect smaller numbers 19 as you would improve, 55 percent on another, 49 20 percent on surface service water and so --
21 MR. THOMAS: These are continuing?
22 These efforts are continuing?
23 MR. ALLEN: Correct.
24 MR. BEZILLA: Yeah, we got a schedule 25 that shows --
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
106 1 MR. RULAND: So you can expect some 2 time, sounds like early 2006 is about the time 3 when you think youll be ballpark at the level 4 that you figured that most of the backlog will 5 be -- youll be at a point where the backlog is 6 acceptable, is that --
7 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
8 MR. BEZILLA: Thats what I believe.
9 Were currently seeing about 550 to 650 incoming 10 things, and were working off between 1,100 to 11 1,200 things, and I project down around the first 12 of 2006 we should be in a 4 to 6,000 items, which, 13 I believe, when we get done with our benchmarking, 14 well be in the area that we think is appropriate.
15 MR. RULAND: Right, thats what Im 16 looking for, about when you think youll be at 17 that point. Thank you.
18 MR. ALLEN: Okay, in the Corrective 19 Action arena, we also continue to make steady 20 progress in working off our open Condition reports 21 and Corrective Actions. We have reduced our 22 Condition report backlog by approximately 65 23 percent since the beginning of the year, which is 24 the lower bar there, the Condition reports on the 25 graph; however, since Condition reports typically MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
107 1 generate multiple corrective actions, all right, 2 we also closely monitor all of our open corrective 3 actions, and since January we have reduced our 4 open Corrective Action backlog by approximately 38 5 percent, which is indicated on the upper curve 6 there, so, in summary, from a backlog perspective, 7 as Mark said, we continue to generate 8 approximately 600 new action items, work items 9 every month. Our current rate, were resolving 10 approximately 1,200 items every month, and then, 11 in addition, as we discussed, were benchmarking 12 with the industry to determine what normal steady 13 State backlog progress would be for us.
14 Scott, you asked about what were particularly 15 concerned with. Maintenance backlog was of 16 particular concern to us. We came up with a 17 specific plan to get elective maintenance backlog 18 so we could monitor and measure our performances 19 in regard to that. Done the same thing with 20 engineering consistent perspective and we 21 discussed earlier from a procedure backlog 22 perspective, the effort this organization is 23 working with me to develop backlog production to 24 go make some progress there. Those would probably 25 be our main focus in the areas of my mind today.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
108 1 Thank you.
2 MR. BEZILLA: Are we doing okay? Okay, 3 want to go to organization next, Jack?
4 MR. GROBE: Sure.
5 MR. BEZILLA: That would be slide 14, 6 Kevin? Very good, okay. This slide represents 7 Davis-Besses key management positions and 8 players, but before I walk you through there, just 9 let me share a little bit of background 10 information.
11 We have been working on the development of the 12 new organization for about a year prior to this 13 August. We conducted benchmarking on a number of 14 fleets. We looked at, for example, Hexalon Exelon 15 Energy and Progress Energy. We then created a 16 FENOC organization that has, Ill say, a fairly 17 lean Corporate structure and one that has a strong 18 Corporate or fleet Government role. We aligned 19 the site structure to match up with our processes 20 or desired processes, and we went through a 21 selection process that was designed to choose, 22 Ill say, the right people for each job, and we 23 took into account what was required for the jobs, 24 as well as the individuals knowledge, skills, 25 abilities and attitudes. We believe that the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
109 1 effort, the development of this new FENOC 2 organization will help us achieve our goals of 3 safe and reliable plant operation while achieving 4 top speed operating performance, and, with that, 5 let me sort of walk you through this slide. What 6 I tried to depict here was the blue boxes and 7 individuals are essentially in the same role after 8 August 23rd as compared to prior to August 23rd, 9 and the yellow boxes, Ill say, are new players in 10 a role in most cases, okay, so just briefly, you 11 got Barry Allen as Director of Operations and 12 Plant Manager, and Ill say thats the same.
13 You got Dave Kline, our Security Manager, that 14 remains the same.
15 We got Steve Loehlein as Director of 16 Engineering, and Steve was previously the Manager 17 of Nuclear Oversight, has a good background in 18 engineering, both external to nuclear as well as 19 in the nuclear environment, and we thought Steves 20 experience previously in engineering as well as 21 oversight would help us in that role.
22 Bob Schrauder is the Director of Performance 23 Improvement, and Ill say new in role -- sort of.
24 Bob was Director of Technical Support, has been a 25 director of a number of our sites, so Ill say MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
110 1 really not new but Performance Improvement is a 2 new role in the organization, so well say Bob is 3 new in his role.
4 And then from an oversight perspective we got 5 Ray Hruby, and Ill just spend a minute on -- Ray 6 graduated from Penn State in the early 80s, BS in 7 nuclear engineering, started work shortly after 8 that in the nuclear industry at Beaver Valley.
9 Spent about 18 years in the engineering arena, had 10 involvement on NCFR 5050 for veteran, etc., was a 11 member of the Off Site Review Committee, now we 12 would called it Company Nuclear Review Board.
13 Spent time as the Manager of Reactor Safety 14 Engineering, was the Chairman of the On Site 15 Review Committee, Plant Operations Review 16 Committee, spent some opportunity with INPO as a 17 host peer, was a Senior Reactor Operator licensed 18 at Beaver Valley. Actually had come over to 19 Davis-Besse and helped us in the January time 20 frame when we did our immediate investigation of a 21 performance issue in Operations. That was, Ill 22 say, for our significant emergent event in 23 Operations at the time, and then I worked with Ray 24 for about a year plus at Beaver Valley when I was 25 there as the site Vice President, so Im familiar MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
111 1 with Ray, comfortable with him, and I think hell 2 be a good replacement for Steve in that role.
3 Looking at engineering, John Grabnar remains 4 the Design Engineering Manager -- I think youre 5 all familiar with John.
6 Brian Boles remains the Plant Engineering 7 Manager. We did adjust some of our roles and 8 responsibilities and we created a new Manager of 9 Technical Services Engineering.
10 I think you all are familiar with Bob Hovland 11 who had previously been an acting -- in an acting 12 capacity as the Plant Engineering Manager at 13 Davis-Besse. We promoted Bob, and we think Bob 14 will do a good job in that role for us.
15 Moving over to Barry, your Plant Operations.
16 Pat McCloskey is Manager of Chemistry and 17 remains so.
18 Radiation Protection Manager, Lynn Harder, he 19 remains as the Radiation Protection Manager.
20 Mike Stevens, Ill say, in the same role. We 21 had that as a Director position, and it was 22 Maintenance and Work Management. In the new 23 organization we broke the Work Management piece 24 away from Maintenance. We felt that that was 25 better, Ill say, served as a manager level, and MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
112 1 Mike remained in that capacity as our Maintenance 2 Manager.
3 From an Ops perspective, Kevin Ostrowski 4 remains the Ops Manager.
5 Bill Mugge, Ill say, remains the Work 6 Management Manager, and Bill has the on line work 7 management process and activities.
8 In the area of Outage Manager, we have Bill 9 Bentley, who, under Bill Mugge, has been our 10 outage guy, and Bill is currently in an active 11 capacity there. We are doing some external 12 searches for some Babcock and Wilcox experienced 13 individuals that -- in the outage management 14 arena. For now, Bill is serving that function 15 for us, and I believe is doing a good job in that 16 function.
17 And then under Bob Schrauder in the 18 Performance Improvement arena, were pleased to 19 have Mark Trump as our Manager of Training. Mark 20 is new to FENOC, but not new to Davis-Besse. He 21 came here during the extended shutdown, helped us 22 in a consultant role to a couple of other 23 individuals we had in the Training Manager and the 24 Ops Supervisor arena, felt that based on Marks 25 experience that hes been in a number of plants MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
113 1 that have either been in extended shutdowns and/or 2 have had challenged training programs. We 3 brought him on board, and we thought Mark would 4 make a good addition for us in helping us 5 reinvigorate our training programs and help us 6 improve our performance through training.
7 Clark Price, who you all are familiar with, 8 will be in a new role as Manager Regulatory 9 Compliance. We currently have Dale Loco and Bob 10 Schrauder, Ill say, attending to that function.
11 Mark is off attending a Senior Reactor Operator 12 certification program, and he should be back at 13 the end of November full-time under this new role 14 for Clark.
15 And then Chuck Hawley is our Manager of 16 Special Projects, and, Ill say, in the same role, 17 although the reporting relationship is a new 18 organization, has changed previously, and it was 19 in the engineering organization, and, now, Chuck 20 is reporting to Bob in the Performance Improvement 21 arena, so Ill say that provides an overview, and 22 what I want to leave you with is, Ill say, the 23 Davis-Besse team is pretty much intact since the 24 August reorganization, and, as you all know, we 25 have made extensive changes, Ill say, through the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
114 1 two year shutdown. We do have a couple of new 2 players, but we think they will be a -- Ill say, 3 an integral part of the team, we believe theyll 4 help strengthen our team.
5 MR. GROBE: The first member you had, 6 the VP Oversight, who does that position report 7 to?
8 MR. BEZILLA: VP Oversight reports 9 directly to Gary Leidich, and, currently, thats 10 served by Ralph Hansen, who I believe you all are 11 familiar with, and then theres a VP elect, if you 12 will, named Ms. Renkle, Jeannie Renkle, and, 13 briefly, Jeannies been with FENOC for a number of 14 years, has a BS and Masters, I believe, in 15 Nuclear Engineering, most recently was the 16 Director of Fuels, Reactor Engineering and Fuels 17 Management. Jeannie is currently in the SRO 18 certification program, and then we have a -- Ill 19 say mentoring and a development program setup with 20 her, and Jeannie would be looking to enroll in 21 that VP Oversight role sometime next year, 22 probably in the second or third quarter.
23 MR. GROBE: Okay, thank you.
24 MR. BEZILLA: Okay. Just a little 25 summary, I believe that this mix of talents MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
115 1 represents a strong management leadership team for 2 Davis-Besse. I believe the teams knowledgeable, 3 experienced, skilled, and has the ownership to 4 drive continuous improvement at the site.
5 With that, Jack, thats all I thought we would 6 present based on your request.
7 MR. GROBE: Questions?
8 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, I have some 9 questions.
10 You talked about benchmarking utilities, I was 11 looking for a little more detail. Did you 12 benchmark organizational structure and/or the 13 number of people in any given organizational 14 department, and was your goal to have it -- so 15 that youre -- Im assuming you did both, and Ill 16 let you clarify whether thats correct or not, 17 that organizational structure and a number of 18 people in this department, was that based on your 19 goal and desire to be top, quote, performance and 20 thats the structure and the numbers of utility 21 that operates at that -- at that level, that 22 current level? If youre not clear, I can go 23 back and restate the points to my question.
24 MR. BEZILLA: Okay, there was a lot of 25 stuff in that question.
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
116 1 MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, there was.
2 MR. BEZILLA: Okay, so in our 3 benchmarking, did we look at organizational 4 structure? I believe our answer is yes. All 5 right.
6 Did we look at resources within the 7 organization? I believe the answer is yes, okay.
8 Did we look at resources as compared to 9 process, and did we look at resources as compared 10 to our specific situation at Davis-Besse as well 11 as the other two FENOC plants? I believe the 12 answer is yes, all right, and when we went through 13 and -- we also looked at fleet in a Corporate 14 governance and said, okay, what do we want to 15 resemble, and, as I mentioned earlier, we talked 16 about being lenient, but have a strong Corporate 17 governance, so the answer is yes. We took all 18 those things into consideration as we put the new 19 FENOC organization in place.
20 MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate your 21 answering -- answering all those different parts 22 of the question, that was good. I think I 23 followed all that.
24 Now, Davis-Besse, I think your discussion was 25 on top performance yet. Obviously, thats a goal MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
117 1 of yours.
2 When you did the benchmarking, did you look at 3 utilities or sites that have been shut down for a 4 long period of time and gone through recovery or 5 performance improvement situations, same as you, 6 and seen where they were as far as structure and 7 resources and how that compares to a plant thats 8 top core -- core top performance and does it have 9 those improvement needs.
10 MR. BEZILLA: Okay. Theres a lot in 11 that, too, okay, so when we did our benchmarking 12 and we came up with what our structure was, did we 13 also look at other plants that had been on, say, 14 extended shutdowns or not in top performance --
15 MR. REYNOLDS: Thats correct.
16 MR. BEZILLA: The answer is yes, and the 17 number of players that we have either from our 18 senior executive team or our senior leadership 19 team at the sites have been to some of those 20 plants ourselves, okay? Weve experienced some of 21 those and have gone through the extended shutdown 22 to recovery to improving performance to, Ill say, 23 the pack and beyond, okay?
24 From a Davis-Besse perspective, not only did 25 we look at, Ill say, the resources from a people MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
118 1 standpoint, but we also looked at the funding 2 required and for this year, we had additional 3 funds of about 10 million dollars. Next year, we 4 have an additional funding of about 12 million 5 dollars to help us with our Operational 6 Improvement Plan and to help us with our backlogs 7 both in the maintenance arena as well as a 8 Corrective Action arena and the procedure arena.
9 MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate that. Let 10 me see if I can tell you what I think I heard.
11 Your organizational structure and your 12 resources will get you through your performance 13 improvement and your top core performance. While 14 you are making that transition or your goal for 15 that transition, you also added additional 16 money -- I think you said like 10 million dollars 17 a year or so, for your organizational structure 18 and resource staffing records, in other words, 19 where you think they need to be to improve and 20 sustain with the addition of just the 21 additional amount.
22 MR. BEZILLA: Ill follow-up with 23 feedback. We believe we have the right staff.
24 We believe we have the right amount resource; 25 however, we will do check and adjusts and continue MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
119 1 to monitor our progress, and if we need to make 2 adjustments to any of our staff and/or our 3 dollars, we will do that.
4 MR. REYNOLDS: So some people ask, you 5 know, a plant thats going through a recovery, how 6 can they have the same structure, same staff, 7 resources as top before performance as a 8 performing plant would be. How would you answer 9 that? Youre trying to improve, but you set 10 yourself up, staffing, No. 1, how would you 11 address --
12 MR. SCHRAUDER: We would say we did not 13 staff to top core numbers. We are still higher 14 in numbers at our plant than top core numbers, so 15 our numbers are approaching industry average 16 numbers, but theyre not near the top worked 17 numbers in the industry now. Our goal is not to 18 be at the top core tile numbers at this time.
19 MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
20 MR. GROBE: Other questions? Id 21 like to, if we could, go to slide 36 just quickly 22 okay. Thanks. The way this slide is presented, 23 I presume that this assessment, results were from 24 assessments conducted on September 21, so just a 25 few days ago?
MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
120 1 MR. BEZILLA: Correct.
2 MR. GROBE: One of the things thats 3 on this slide that kind of jumps out at you is the 4 direction of all the arrows, and theres very few 5 improving arrows, and thats similar to the focus 6 of what we talked about earlier in Operations 7 area. I think Id like to -- to have us talk 8 about several things at the next meeting. You 9 always add to this list as we go on, but were 10 currently contemplating our next meeting for 11 several months from now -- probably about two 12 months from now. Id like to have a more 13 thorough understanding of why there arent more 14 improving arrows on this chart, and that goes much 15 more broadly to plant performance and what youre 16 doing to ensure improving performance in the area 17 of Human Performance, which is what this Safety 18 Culture is underpinning, and the second thing is 19 that Barry indicated that youre benchmarking your 20 backlogs. Id like to focus on what youve 21 learned from the benchmarking, what you expect to 22 be your minimum level, routine level of work 23 activity and what the problem areas are, 24 particularly focusing, and I believe as to 25 managerial area, the easiest activities to MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
121 1 accomplish are ones that are -- where youre 2 knocking them off the fastest and what your 3 projects are. I believe its realistic that we 4 expect those curves to be straight lines, so Id 5 like to get a better sense of where youre at, 6 where youre going with respect to backlog 7 reduction, what your expectations are. Youve 8 expressed tonight that you hope to be or you want 9 to be in early 06, but you dont really know 10 where youre going to be at in 06, so its hard 11 to say when you hope to get there, so if we could 12 flush that out a bit. Other thoughts or topics 13 for the next meeting?
14 MS. LIPA: Well, the Corrective 15 Action program continues to be important every 16 time we talk about it.
17 MR. GROBE: Excellent! And maybe 18 well let Ray talk about his first quarters 19 assessment by that time. Okay, great! I feel 20 this has been a very productive meeting.
21 Christine and I were chatting during the break 22 about the context of the next meeting. I believe 23 we had one member of the public comment this 24 evening.
25 Are there any members of the public in the MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
122 1 audience? County Commissioners are here, I see 2 them back there -- are there any others? We may 3 be thinking about changing location of the 4 meeting, but well be getting back to you on that.
5 Any other thoughts or comments before we close?
6 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE).
7 Okay, very good. At this time we would 8 normally take a break and ask if theres any 9 questions, but why dont we just roll into that.
10 We have a number of FirstEnergy employees here.
11 I assume the rest of you, you didnt classify 12 yourself as members of the public, which is who 13 you are. You must be FirstEnergy employees.
14 Any questions or comments or thoughts?
15 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE).
16 MR. GROBE: Quite a group. You must be 17 working hard during the day. Okay, anything else, 18 Christine?
19 MS. LIPA: Just a reminder, were 20 looking at the next Davis-Besse 0350 Panel Meeting 21 about two months from now and trying to schedule 22 the FENOC performance meeting approximately 23 November time frame, so those are the upcoming 24 meetings.
25 MR. GROBE: Okay, very good. Thank MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
123 1 you very much.
2 THEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned.
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900
124 1 CERTIFICATE 2
STATE OF OHIO )
3 ) ss.
COUNTY OF HURON )
4 5 I, Marlene S. Lewis, Stenotype Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State aforesaid, 6 duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby certify that the foregoing, consisting of 123 pages, was 7 taken by me in stenotype and was reduced to writing by me by means of Computer-Aided 8 Transcription; that the foregoing is a true and complete transcript of the proceedings held in 9 that room on the 28th day of September 2004 before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 I also further certify that I was present in 11 the room during all of the proceedings.
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 13 hand and seal of office at Wakeman, Ohio this day of , 2004.
14 15 16 17 Marlene S. Lewis Notary Public 18 3922 Court Road Wakeman, OH 44889 19 My commission expires 4/28/09 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARLENE S. LEWIS & ASSOC. REPORTERS (419) 929-0505 (888) 799-3900