ML20196H279

Transcript of 880224 Public Meeting in Chattanooga,Tn Re Util Operational Readiness.Presentation Slides Also Encl

ML20196H279
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/24/1988
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196H276	List: ML20196H272 ML20196H279
References
NUDOCS 8803100147
Download: ML20196H279 (173)

Text

-

sumtD STATES REGULATORY COMMISSION

' -, 7 l

i In the Matter oft Operational Readiness of TVA Sequoyah 2 l

1 Public Meeting

/

's 1

1 l

Pages:

1 through 133 Date:

February 24, 1988 j

Place:

Chatanooga, Tennessee i

i i

I a

HERITIGE REPORTING CORPORATION J

opw ne==r l

1220 L Serust, N.W., Sales 400 WesMegion. D.C. 20005 l

(202) 6*.8 4000 8803100147 800302 PDR ADOCK 05000327 j

j T

PDR i

!i I

Pcgo i r

__j i

BEFORE THE 2

U. S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

Il In the Matter of:

)

4 '

)

5, PUBLIC MEETING ON OPERATIONAL

)

Docket No. 50-328

{ READINESS OF SEQUOYAH UNIT 2

)

t,

~

i 3:

Tennessee River Room TVA Corporate Offices 1

1101 Market Street j

Chattanooga, Tennessee

)

t: j Wednesday, February 24, 1988

t l

I The above-entitled matter came on for PUBLIC l

l MEETING, pursuant to netice at 1:00 p.m.

's PRESENT WERE:

1

'5 i, 20 behalf 21 1h3 Nuclear Beaulatory Consission i

S.

EBNETER i

S.

RICHARDSON K. BARR F.

R. McCOY i

'l T. ROTELLA.

G.

G EARS

'i R. HERMANN K. JENNISON M. BRANCR 2'

9D behalf gi the Tennessee Valley Authority 22 C.

FOK T. JENKINS H. ABERCROMBIE M.

BLACKBURN

],

S.

SMITH N.

KAZANAS J.

BYNUM D.

MULLEE J.

HOSMER P.

POLK D.

GRIDLEY J.

KIRKEBO

5 j C.

MASON 1

o I

i I

i i

p Pcgo 2 J

1 INEAE 2,

Presentationet Page l

l' NRC Opening Remarks, S.

Ebneter 3

4-TVA Opening Remarks, C.

Fox 4

5, Technical Support Readiness, J. Hoemer 13 It ji Plant Readiness, S.

Smith 31

'!'lOperational Readiness, J. Bynum 69 I

I TVA Closing Remarks, C.

Fox 123 o

i 14 I

e il

2 1

a l

'4' i

e t

I, i

i*

f l

'l l d

'1 !

.S S.,

21 O

I f

4 i

)

i 5.,

i o

i

.I 1

l I

d

\\

i 1

l J

.___._.r____.,.__._

Pcgo 3 1

EB99IIEIE9S

j EEE OPENING RSMARKS 2.

MR. ERNETER:

Good afternoon.

I'm Stu Ebneter. the 4'

Director of the Office of Special Projects.

i We're meeting with TVA this afternoon to give them the opportunity to present to us their case that the Sequoyah Plant and the corporate structure of TVA is indeed ready for 3

restarting Sequoyah Unit 2.

p This is in preparation for a subsequent meeting 1

)whichwillprobablybeheldnextweekwiththeNRC l

l iCommissioners, and at that point TVA will again present their

! case.

The staf f will be prepared, depending on what we hear I

'2 ! today, to either support stactup or Sequoyah or recommend 1

'4 0 agains t the restart of Sequoyah, to the Commiseloners.

The I

l

5 f Commissioners will then vote on that and make a decision i

whether they think Sequoyah is coady to restart.

]

'l The way we'd like to conduct the meeting, TVA will

'i 1

l--

the burden is on TVA here today to present the case.

We will listen to TVA.

The staff, the NRC staff, will have the

i opportunity to question TVA as we proceed through the various 21 sections of the presentati,on.

Members of the public and the

2 presa. I would prefer you reserve your questions until the end

)

of the presentation and then we'll open it f or public comments and questione.

I 5

Anything else. Steve?

i i

i, i

i hv

i i

Pcgo 4 1

MR. RICKARDSON:

(Modding head negatively.)

2 MR. ESNETER:

That's all I have.

I'd like to turn 2

it over I guess to Mr. Pox this afternoon.

4!

TVA OPENING REMARES 5

MR. FOX:

Yes.

Admiral White is ill.

He couldn't

[

+

l t

be here today.

He very much would like to be here.

I'll be

'[standinginforhimtoday, j

9l I'd like to introduce the people that we have at the t i table here.

On my far right is Chuck Mason, Deputy Manager of Nuclear Power; next to him is Dick Gridley, our Director of

't Licensing ; John Noseer, our Project Engineer at Sequoyah; Joe

Bynum, our Assistant Manager for Nuclear Power Steve Smith, i

72 l Plant Manager at Sequoyah and Herb Abercroable. the Site l

's '

Director,at Sequoyah.

is]

MR. ERNETER:

I'd like to introduce our staff, if I h

't ' could have that opportunity.

Tom.

MR. ROTELLA:

Tom Rotella, Project Manager.

'l]Sequoyah.

I

I

';j MR. RICRARDSON:

Steve Richardson. Director of the 20 TVA Projects Division.

i 21 MR. ERNETER:

Stu Ibneter.

22 MR. BARR:

Ken Barr, Acting Assistant Director.

Special Programe,

,l i

MR. MCCOY:

Frank McCoy, I'm the Startup Manager for

5 lSequoyah.

l 1

i l

Pcgo S

~

j 1

NB. SEAR:

Jerry Gear, Office of Special Projects.

~

. ~_ p -

2 lag.

3

13. EERMANN:

Bob Hermann, Chief. Engineering.

4 MR. JENNISON:

My name is Xen Jennison. I'm the 5

TER REPORTER:

I'm sorry, sir. I can't hear you.

6 MR. JENNISON:

My name is Jon Jennison. I'm the

?

Resident Inspector, Sequoyah.

9 MR. BRANCM:

My nate is Morris Branch. I'm one of i l the Shift Managers at Sequoyah for restarting.

13 MR. FOX:

I speak for Admiral White in saying that TVA is very pleased to have the opportunity today to go over i

'2 i these operational readiness issues on Sequoyah Unit 2 with Olyou.

i

'd ;

..The purpose of the meeting today is to provide the i

NRC with the confidence that we can restart Unit 2 and operate 1

't it safely.

The presentation is going to be focused, as Mr.

I

'l Ebneter mentioned earlier, around both corporate and site 1

1 ] specific items that deal wi.th operational readiness.

We plan 1

a to cover management, organizational and programmatic issues

'8 that support the fact that we are very close to being ready to 21 support startup and safe operation of the plant.

4

2 The situation that was found by Admiral White in j

l January of 1986 when he came to TVA was best characterized by i

the fact that there were a myriad of issues, technical and 1

managerial.

There was no real sense of direction.

There was 1

)

I i

i i

l l

i 1

I l

C

n..

i j

e Pcgo 6 I

no centralized organization and there was no discipline 2

process to ensure responsibility and accountability and 3

authority for the key functions of the Office of Nuclear 4

Power.

5 These challengee led Admiral White to set five major 6

nuclear objectives.

These objectives form the basis for 7l Volume 1 of the Nuclear Performance Plan.

He submitted Volume 3

1 to you in March of 1986, and received your endorsement via 2

the Safety Evaluation Report in July of 1987.

O!

These key nuclear objectives set by Admiral White l

'1 l were:

f

'2 i (1)

To establish a stable organization.

We have

I established a very strong, centralized organization.

QA, i

'4 I Engineering, Licensing and mods in Construction report to a

'5, central annager to ensure that we do business one way out at i

the site.

The organization is set up to provide the necessary checks and balances.

For example, Admiral White established i

?! j the Nuclear Managers' Review Group which reports directly to i: i him and has played.a key role in helping us determine the operational readiness of Sequoyah Unit 2, and you'll hear more 21 about that later today from Joe Bynum.

22 Second, this organization that Admiral White 23 established has, in essence, been in place since June of 1986.

There have been a couple of uinor changes but the organization 25 j has basically been in place for almost two years now.

On the 9

i i

y..__-.,

..,,,.n.

w-w.

w.

Pcgo 7 i

i' second ites, on a strong management team, since January of 2

1986, TVA has hired some 47 senior nuclear managers.

The 2

experience of these senior nuclear managers totals over 1000 years -- very pertinent to fixing the managesent problems that J

existed at TVA Nuclear Power.

In addition to those top senior 6f managers, we've hired some 487 mid and lower level managers.

I I

'i We have come down substantially in terms of the number of lone S!

managers that are on that direct report chart.

There are only l'!

seven direct report lone managers and Admiral White has a plan I

in place to take that to three in the not too distant future.

il The third bullet: establish a procedura11:ed and 0

i disciplined way of doing business.

We have centralized the i

'2 ;

responsibility for those key functions that had to be there in i

a; order to ensure one way of doing business; namely, QA, I

5 Engineering, Licensing and Modificat ions.

We've also 3,

established a policy for each major program that we have in TVA.

We've also. set up a very deliberate nuclear procedures i

system.

That procedures system assures central control, technical uniformity and also uniformity of the interface 20 l between corporate and the situs.

21 In addition, we, Nave taken strong steps to ensure 22 the technical integrity of the plant.

Two years ago, the 23 situation could best be characterized as that TVA after obtaining the operating licenses for the plants didn't have an 25,

experienced, disciplined process in place to ensure that the i

,, -, - -.,, -,, _, - _ -,-_,,--~,-- _ -, -,,- -

!{

Ptgo 8 I

as modified condition of the plant was rationalized to the as 2

designed or as analyzed condition.

We've come a long way in 3

the Inst two years.

We've put the Division of Nuclear 4!

Engineering in charge of handling the technical responsibility I

5 for these plants.

We've also, as John Hosmer will tell you a little later in this presentation, set up a very disciplined

?l aanner to capture the design basis, particularly for Sequoyah 8I Unit 2, and to maintain that design basis.

I ti With regard to the final bullet, trust a confidence; I

aj two years ago, TVA had a serious problem.

There were some 11 6000 employee concerns, primarily arising out of Watts Bar.

!2 These were generically applied to Sequoyah.

We've dealt with

!] !

those as they deal with Sequoyah, both the generic I

applicab,ility and the Sequoyah-specific ones.

Ms. Tish u

i 15l Jenkins will speak to you a little later on about the 1

'e ;

Sequoyah-specific employee concerns a little later.

l We've set up a corporate Office of Nuclear Power

3 employee concern program.

That program has been in place for l almost two years now.

We also have a very strong policy

')

1 20 against intimidation and harassment.

Admiral White went back 21 and meted out the discipli,ne as appropriate in cases of 22 intimidation and harassment that he inherited and those which 22 occurred since he's been here.

In addition, we've worked toward establishing a

5 strong aanagement development program.

One of the keys to 1

i w.

e,,9 e--- - - - - -... - - -

-w ew

.w

-ee.-v-=--e--ve*w.rew-

'*w---e*-wee

-*ww--N-**m

i.

Pego-9 I

.J l

having good trust and confidence between the managers and the 2

employees is to properly train those managers how to 3

appreciate the resource that they have at their ccamand and 4

also to manage those people such that trust and confidence is 5!

built through the day-to-day operation of the various divisione and organizational entities in the office of Nuclear 7j Power.

3 I'm pleased to say that some six management i

development courses have been offered in the last year, some j

'O !

2000 people have passed through those, attended those:

l managers.

l

2 i Now with regard to these five items which constitute l

12 ;

the nuaiber of changes that have been made by Admiral White and j

i 24 I his tema since he came here.

These changes were all made with I

15 l permanency in mind.

The intent and every effort was made to i

institutionalize these changes to ensure they're not a one time snapshot and we don't evaporate them and go back to the b

'a' way things were prior to his arrival -- very important.

'3 MR. ERNETER:

Could I ask you a question on that?

20 MR. FOX:

Yes, sir.

21 MR. ERNETER:

you say you have done something.

22 Could you give me some idea what you did to institutionalize 23 this and make sure that there is a good transition and succession planning for Mr. White and the upper managers?

25 MR. FOX:

I cannot speak to the succession planning.

4 n

-v,..,,,,. -.

,,m.--m mn-nen,---,--nwr---~~,..n,--.

Pcgo 10 l

I seg p t we have set up a management development d

1 i

program 2

recently pointed out in the ACRS letter to the 3

Commiselon, where they feel like we've got a good method to 4

Adentify the key management talent, the up and coming 5

managers, and to create a pool of trained and proven managers 6

for the future.

That was in the ACRS letter that we just 7

received today.

a In addition, in the area of procedura11 zed control, 9

a specific example, configuration management.

Two years ago, to we had four sites whose change control boards were going four ti different directions.

The boards were cons".ituted

]

12 differently, the procedures were different, the things that i3 were being controlled by those boards were different.

We now a

have a corporate configuration management policy, which has 95 been put out from the top down, which we're well on our way to to implementing at Sequoyah and Browns Ferry.

Those are a couple

'- l of examples.

'3 MR. EBNETER:

Could you tell as what that procedure a

number is?

20 MR. FOX:

I don't have the number, but I'll be happy 21 to --

22 MR. EBNETER:

Could somebody on the staff tell me?

2:

(No response. )

MR. EBMETER:

The reason I'm asking, I have the

5 i perception that the corporate procedures are somewhat lagging

...-,m,

_,,~.4-m.__

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

,_,_,-,--y

il Pcgo 11 I

l with the rest of the development of procedures and station 2

directives, and we're particularly interested in the 3l configuration management scheme.

t 4i MR. FOX:

I'll be happy to furnish you a copy of 5,

that policy.

I'll get it to you this afternoon.

i 6l I'd like to now shift gears a little bit to the site specifically.

In July of 1986, we subaltted to you the l

3{ Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan, which we referred to as f

7j Volume 2.

This volume dealt with site specific issues and in 1

0l that volume were contained restart criteria which TVA used to

segregate the commitments that we had made to ourselves and to

'2-the NRC into those which needed to be done prior to the I

'3 l restart of Unit 2 at sequoyah and those which could be done I

'4 l pos t-res,t a r t.

Those requirements were passed judgment on by

5l the NRC last July -- I believe i t aas June, excuse me -- and 1!

we received your formal approval via memorandum last June

!"l June 4, Tom Rotella says -- backing the fact that you accepted

'i ;

those criteria.

1!

We have n6w received your preliminary Safety 20 Evaluation Report on Volume 2, this is January 21, and I 21 quote your statement "Subject to the resolution of identified 22 open items, TVA has resolved concerns that led to the issuance 23 of the staff's 50.54 F letter and that programmatic J

improvements are suf ficient to permit nuclear plant 25 operation."

__,_.._--,_._r,__.,.__,.-_,.-_,_.,y_,__,.,,_-,_,-,_y--

Page 12 1

i By my count, there are some 20 open restart items 2

that are listed in the attachment to that letter transmitting 3

your SER, your Safety Evaluation Report on Volume 2.

Looking 4

at that list, our people have done some analysis and I 5

understand that there are no major issues, that the ball is either in one court or the other, that the resolution of the

?l 1ssues is well understood and involves some final action by us i

3l to get it to staff for final staff review and approval.

Ii}

Now there are three technical issues that we have on i

0, e r plate, and those are some of the follow up items from the i

t l integrated design inspection.

There's continuing day-to-day I

'2 dialogue to resolve those issues.

There are also some

! questions on the part of KRC staf f about the diesel generators O

4l and it's my understanding that we'll have a meeting either 65 late this week or early next week to resolve the diesel

'e l generator question.

I We have brought in two additional outside consultants and they have looked over our shoulder and done of some additional calculations.

We've presented those to staff 20 earlier this week and we hope to sit down face-to-face and 21 discuss those, either late this week or early next week.

22 We're confident that the diesel issue will be resolved soon.

2,

With regard to Appendix R, the final area where we have technical issues, I understand that those issues are

s ll being provided to TVA today and that some time mid to late l

l

---

r si

--m

--w

--w-------

- ~ - -

---

m-i---t

-*w eT - - - - -

w--w

,w-t=-re~+1

1 1

[

Pcgo 13

,~

I next week, certainly before the March 4 Commission meeting, 2

we'll sit down and go over those issues.

Is that not correct?

3 MR. RICHARDSON:

(Nodding head affirmatively.)

2l MR. FOX:

With that as background, the rest of the 5

discussion today is going to focus on the readiness of Sequoyah Unit 2 and the common facilities of the plant, i

7l Our next speaker has the full authority of the i

3!

Director of the Division of Nuclear Engineering, John Kirkebo,

• l vested in him as the lead engineer at the site of Sequoyah.

'O l This individual is named John Hosmer, he's our Project i

'l j Engineer at that site.

He's the former Chief Mechanical and i

'2 l Nuclear Engineer for Bechtel.

He joined us back several i

?2, months ago.

He's had extensive plant experience at San Onofre 4

l Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, at Rancho Seaco in south

'2

'5!

Texas, and I feel like his experience is extremely germane to i

l what we're doing here at TVA.

i John is going to speak to you today on technical i

3 support readiness.

John Rosmer.

)

l TECHNICAL SUPPORT READINESS

')

20 '

MR. MOSNER:

Thank you very much, Charlie.

21 I'd like to spend the next few minutes -- my voice 22 is a little weak, I have a cold, so if you'll bear with se 23 the next few minutes talking about the technical support

~

organization's capability to support operation of Sequoyah.

25 I'd like to do it by covering three areas.

l l

i

^

i Pcgo 14 1

i We have made a major transition in the last two or 2

three years and I'd like to spend some time on that.

I'd like 3

to then give You a glimpse of what the support organization 4

looks like today and then last, I'd like to f ocus on what we 5

are currently doing today to support the plant.

6 For the last two to three years, the engineering 7

organization, the technical support organization, has made a 3

very major transition.

There were three issues related to 1

)

technical support of Sequoyah that are shown on this slide on

3 the left.

There was a concern about timeliness, t!

accountability, there were concerns about the design basis and

'2 design control process.

2 With respect to time, in the past we were an offsite l

u organization and we were available.

Today we are an onsite

5!

organization and we're in a real time mode.

e i With respect to accountability, in the past we were I

'l on call, we were a service.

Today we have technical ownership f

'3 ;

of the plant and we are a support organization.

Let me define I

nl technical ownership.

What that means is when my organization

\\

20 Assues design changes, it is my responsibility that they are 21 in accordance with our nuclear regulatory commitments.

22 Additionally, it means if there is a problem in the plant, 23 it's my organization's responsibility to ensure that it's resolved in accordance with our nuclear regulatory commitments

5 '

aAso, t

i Pega 15

~

i j

i

- t.;J.y.

_Sancerning design basis and design control, in the u

%quer hesign basis was weak since the operating license

~

2 3

tied frame.

No have re-established that design basic through 4

numerous program.

I'd like to touch briefly on two of them.

5 The design base line verification program was a 7000 6

manhour intensive program.

It took the as-built configuration 7

of sequoyah and compared it to our nuclear regulatory 9

commitments, defined differences and reconciled them.

9 Our equipment qualification program looked at 3000 10 devices and 60000 cables in harsh environments, defined those

'l that were not properly qualifled and physically made changes.

2 Those programs and other numerous programs re-established that 13 weak design basis.

14 There were concerns in the past about design 15 control.

In the past we were a staff organization in to Knoxville that issued designs by 1suuing individual drawings.

Today, we use the standard industry norm.

We issue design

• l change packages.

What is in that package are all mechanical,

'i electrical, civil drawings needed to build the product in the 20 field and before that package is released, there is an 21 integrated review to ensure that Appendix R commitments are 22 set and other regulatory commitments, it is an integrated 23 package.

So in two to three years, we've come a long way to resolve the issues shown on this slide.

S 1 MR. EBNETER:

Could I ask you something, John?

l f

I

Pcgo 16

'i 1

MR. HOSMER:

Yes, sir.

2 MR. IBMETER:

Would you elaborate on the onsite real 3

time, what does that mean in teras of station support.

If we 4i have an event on the back shift, what are you doing on that?

5 MR. HOSMER:

Can I deler that to the daily support t

side or would you like --

i MR. EBNETER:

Sure.

Could I ask you another 7j 3

question?

}

MR. HOSMER:

Sure.

l

'O l MR. EBNETER:

On design control what are you doing

[

in the area of design verification to ensure that packages to

': l get reviewed and verified independently?

i

?,

MR. HOSMER:

Two things; one, we have a very strong i

'4 engineering assurance organization different than what I'm is,

used to at Bechtel.

That group I have put in line so that any

's[ product that I issue to the field is checked in addition to

' - the normal engineering checks required by procedures.

Secondly, in.our matrix organization concept, I can turn to John Kirkebd,~who's out in the audience, and ask hia a

20 to come down and do independent technical reviews of our 21 product.

And about two weeks ago, we had a recent technical 22 design that went through just those kind of issues.

3 MR. EBNETER:

How often do you do that?

let. HOSMER:

I've done it once in the last two

5,,aonths.

It's either my decision whether to do it or John can 1

..,--__,,,,_...._.,r,y

,,...,,_..w....,w,,

,.,m..

tl

.i l

Page 17 I

1 impose it, either one.

2 MR. EBNETER :

This has been a continuing problem at 3

TVA.

How about Mr. Kazanas?

I see him sitting over there.

4' What is QA doing in this area of design verification.

I 5j MR. FOX:

Nick, stand up and give your name please, j

6; MR. KAZANAS:

I'm Nick Kazanas, I'm the Director of i

Nuclear Quality Assurance.

9; There's a couple of answers to that.

We have an 5

ongoing surveillance program, a monitoring program which comes

'O l out of the engineering assurance house that looks at these 1

packages, gets actively involved in breaking down these 12 packages and actually seeing how they're constituted and i

12 '

seeing that they're in fact following compliance with the

'J; requirements.

j 15 Secondly of course is the audit program which

'o oversees and overviewe and takes a look at the process itself and ensures that again the program is in fact being followed i

and is meeting the requirements.

i 4

MR. FOX:

I'd like to have John Kirkebo speak 20 '

briefly to design verJfication, about the in-line assurance 21 review.

22 MR. EBNETER:

I'm particularly interested in the 22 independence of the design verification.

I don't get the 2'

impression that EA really does do a lot of design 25 verification.

I suspect, John, that those should still be I

' ^

r

!f l

l I

l Pago 18 l

1 your responsibility, your engineers.

i l

2 MR. KIRKEBO:

Absolutely.

There are many aspects of i

3 design verification.

i 4l First of all, I'm John Kirkebo.

5 Independent design verification, the major change 6

that TVA has instituted in the past year or so was to cause 7

there to be a modification to the process for reviewing and 3

approving calculations.

In the past, calculations were not

?I subjected to an independent review prior to their approval.

10 We have modified our quality program within Engineering such

I that a calculation is prepared, it's approved and then it 12 receives an independent design verification.

This is a major o

change that was recognized as a result of the base line i

u!

program and the calculations program.

We had to change the

5 j way we're doing business to assure technical adequacy of our I

design basis documentation and primarily our calculations.

MR. EBMETER:

Would I find that in the DNE procedures?

'1 MR. KIRKEBO:

Yes, you would.

20 MR. ESKETER:

Which procedure would I look for?

21 MR. KIRKE50:

I think it's NEP 3.1, the preparation 22 of calculations.

And we can provide you this afternoon with a 22 modification to that procedure that's been Acaued, as I Indicated, in the last year, to clarify that.

And also

5 3results of training programs that we've instituted too across t

i w

,e

a. -,.,

,,o

~-,..,--.,,,,.,.,,,,----,,p.-a,-

e,n,yy

ll r

Pcgo 19 1

the valley so that people understand the res pons ibi li t ies for 2

independent design verification.

2l MR. EBNETER:

Thanks, John.

J!

MR. HOSMER:

Since we ' ve s topped, let me go ahead 5j and answer the second question and you'll see it again later.

I

${

You asked about the real time aspect of this slide.

6 7j The plant manager holds a daily plan of the day meeting and in i

!j that meeting he covers any events that occurred in the plant I

1l within the last 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

I currently have five full time i

10 l people that sit at the table as part of that meeting and I i

'l I have an Assistant Project Engineer who is basically a second

'2 level, the next most senior person at the plant that reports 13 to me, full time at that meeting.

I

,, hen problems are defined in that meeting, that ui W

j i

65 ;

group has one responsibility; that's to come back out to DME i

't !

and give the highest priority to the people that are in Alpine Village, which is an offsite -- which is a location on site.

's i where most of my engineers are.

They resolve the problem and Ml would be the major interface with Mr. Smith, the Plant I

20 Manager's system engineers.

21 Additionally, we have an Assistant Project Engineer 22 who is on the same duty roster schedule as all other senior 23 l plant managers, on a seven-day rotating schedule.

He's responsible to receive that call at 2:00 in the morning or 25 [ 8:00 at night or whenever appropriate when there's a problem.

i i

-,,-_.7

..__.,..~_,-,r.-.-..,

-,. ~.

Pege 20 I

[h[

M. ESNETER:

Nave you had occasion to use that duty i

1

,f

-4 2

samter yet?

3 M. ROSMER:

Yes, sir.

4 M. ERNETER:

Give me an example.

5

m. ROSMER:

I'm the duty officer this week and I 6

was called at 2:00 and I was called at 5:00 also this morning.

7 MR. EBNETER:

Very good.

8 MR. HOSMER:

So it's been used very actively and it i

?

works.

13 MR. FOX:

A specific example, a couple of weeks ago on a Friday night about 10:00 we had a problem -- a question 12 on EQ of temperature switches come up, and the duty officer 13 was called and a whole engineering team was on the site within half an hour to help us disposition that problem.

is 15 MR. ERNETER:

So it truly is real time and s

availability of engineering support as needed.

'l MR. HOSMER:

Yes, sir.

I

?!

MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

l ti l M. HOSMER:

Let me give you a brief glispas of what 20 we look lik.e today.

As I mentioned before, we are a project 21 tema now, we are not a staff organization, we're the typical 22 project team.

2,

I have approximately 1400 people reporting to me at this time.

Approximately 1000 of those are either on site or

5jwithinatenminutedrivingdistanceof the site.

Today, I a

i

,---,,e s

---

,,,,,,n,

,,-,-,p.-_,,--,--,g

-n

.<,~,,,m-

i i

y q-il Pago 21 j

)

I have three current responsibilities: daily support to the 2

plant some of which is the plan of the day support that I 2

mentioned previously, I have responsibility to do Unit 1 4l restart engineering and I have responsibility to do i

5i modi fications engineering.

What modifications engineering is i

t!

is the engineering needed to support future refueling cycle j

7l outages and any KRC commitments associated with that, i

4 r

3l Let me give you a flavor of where those 1400 people i

i are working right now.

In the daily support area, which is i

focused intensely on Unit 2 right now, I have approximately 300 people working to support daily operation of the plant.

l l

!? l In the Unit 1 area. I have approximately 700 people working, in the modifications area I have approximately 400.

i

'4 i In the future, with both units running, my job will

5 !

be daily support and modifications engineering.

'tl You will see throughout this presentation the word i

l

':l"team", I am part of the team at Sequoyah, that team of l

1; modifications, operations and engineering.

I am matrixed.

'; i What that means is Yhat' I have two bosses, it's a system I'm

0 '

used to working in.

Mr. Kirkebo is my boss for technical 21 direction.

He sets the et,andards and the guidelines, I as the 22 implementing organization for those standards and guidelines.

23 Mr. Abercrouble, who is the Site Director, sats schedule / cost i

guidelines.

25 Of the 1400 people that are currently working for I

t l

i l

l

n i

l Pcgo 22 I

me, approximately 50% of those are TVA employees and 50% of l

2 those are contractore.

The TVA employees are focused on our 2

long-term, our daily support of the plant and what we will be l

j doing in the future.

We're using our contractors for a longer 4

5 term engineering change and engineering design work.

e I have two components of TVA people, I have around 700 TVA people.

Around 500 of those are physically on site.

i 3

There are around 200 that are in Knoxville that work directly

)

for me, they report to a senior Assistant Project Engineer.

I 10 am in daily contact with that individual and that person is

?! i directly responsible to supervise those 200 people on my i

': I behalf.

'2, The two architect / engineering firms that are at my

\\

14l assistan,ce are Gilbert Commonwealth and United Engineers.

is -

Gilbert is doing civil type work, United Engineers is a l

l general contractor.

Those organizations, those two

\\

'jarchitect/ engineers are physically moved within ten minutes of i'!]thesite, the majority of their people are either onsite or within ten minute driving distance.

)

Let me focus on the daily support real time issue 21 that Mr. Ebneter brought up.

As I mentioned before, daily 22 plan of the day meetings are seven day a week meetings.

I t

i 22 l have five people there and a senior Assistant Project i

Engineer, and their job is to treat what comes out of the plan l

5. of the day with the highest priority.

l

(

i i

i f

~

-.,,-n..--

--n _.,-

.-.,--, n -,nn.,,-c--,

--v mn_----,-,-~an-,-we

,,-m.

I Pcg3 23 j

1 The Plant Manager has a system engineering group.

I 2

have provided ten of my people, mainly mechanical, nuclear and 2

some electrical people, to him for staffing.

Additionally, 4

when a problem is defined in the plant, they are the first i

5 focal point of contact.

They're the place I go to assist in I

problem solving and once the problem is defined, it's the I

communication link to ensure the engineering change t ha t ' s j

3l 1ssued is issued timely and correctly.

i; I have a role in the plant Operations Review 0!

Committee.

I am currently an advisor to that group.

I i

't j currently prescreen my people to ensure when they present

'2; before that group headed by the Plant Manager, that they are i

organized and can address root cause and licensing related

'2li commitments.

There's a Technical Specification change that's I

I 15 been proposed that will make me a full time voting member.

't When that is approved, I will then become a full time voting I

member.

MR. EBNETER:

What's holding that up?

')

MR. HOSMER:

Nothing, to my knowledge, it's been

2 submitted.

21 MR. EBNETER:

Why isn't Mr. Hosmer -- why can't he 22 get to be a full time member?

22 MR. FOX:

Does it not take a Tech Spec change?

MR. HOSMER:

Yes, sir.

25 MR. FOX:

Is the ball in their court or our court to

,y.,.

..~__..__.-..,--,,---,,,,,.-,__.,y

..w._,,__----,.__,,,,__.~w

f Pcgo 24 I

get the Tech Spec change approved?

2 MR. SMITH:

I just submitted a Tech Spec submittal, 3

MR. FOX:

So it's coming to you.

4.

MR. EBNETER:

We'll get on it.

i 5

MR. HOSMER:

I put the word "attitude" up here with e

respect to daily support because it's a very laportant part of my job to make sure that my people have the right attitude l

l a

supporting the plant.

I've listed four words on here.

I'm working very hard and my organization is working very hard to 10 be a part of the team, and I think you heard at the plant last il i week that the t eam i s wo rki ng and we ' re a pa r t o f t ha t team, f2, We're a support role, yet we are also responsible for I

I technical ownership.

My job is to support, yet ensure, that 12 i

the design packages that are issued by my organization and

's that problem solving gets done ir accordance with our

'e commitments.

Additionally, my organization needs to have a very

'3lstrongnuclearethicsrole, like all other parts of the team.

20 l We need to have a challenging root cause, employee confidence 20 approach that needs to be pervasive in this team, to succeed.

21 I'd like to ment,lon a few very positive trends.

22 I've been with TVA eight months and I've seen numerous 4

23 positive trende but I've chosen to talk about three.

In the corrective action area, we've been able to

3 focus very clearly on the Unit 2 restart condition corrective i

e

.l y

_ - ~. _,.,,,,.,.,,, _ - _.,

I i

Pago 25 l

I l

j i

to restart Sequoyah.

At one time there were g

+ - -

i 3._,

n 2

400' t were assigned to the technical support or

 ?

,a 3

eng$asering organization.

At this time, the majority of those 4

are resolved that require any technical support input.

5 MR. ESNETER:

How many are lett7 6

Det. ROSMER:

There are 30 overall for the plant.

I 7

personally have two that I have further work to do on.

The 9

majority then will be closed.

In essence my work is i

essentially complete.

10 MR. EBNETER:

How many will be left next week?

Il MR. MOSMER:

I can't answer that, although the

!?

number will be very small.

'3 MR. EBNETER:

These are just the ones assigned to I

18 EngineerJng?

15 MR. HOSMER:

No.

I

'o MR. EBNETER:

Total?

'i MR. SMITH:

I have a slide.

i

'3 MR. ESNETER:

Okay, Steve is going to cover that?

I Mr. Smith.

04 DEL. MOSMER:

Let me define the term "design change 21 notice".

Me have a short, form method of issuing engineering.

22 for minor changes, you can issue something called a design 23 change notice.

When I first came to Sequoyah, it took us up to a week to issue a fairly simple minor change.

We are now

5jable to do it in hours.

The larger, more complex packages, we i

4 i

I k

l

N i

Pcgo 26 j

i 1

issue in a form called engineering change notice.

When I 2

first came here, it took um approximately a month to issue a 3

medium sized package.

By medium sized. I mean a 1000 manhour 4,

total engineering work.

Today we can do i t.

in half the time.

5, MR. EBNETER:

How do you do this?

Are you bypassing

$i somebody?

l

?l MR. HOSMER:

No.

We've done two significant things i

3l to allow this to happen.

The most important one is that we've i

been able to have a stable organization onsite and learn.

I

'O j They've been able to issue packages and actually be required

't; to make the engineer product issuance.

So the learning curve I

is responsible for a very large portion of this improvement.

The second portion is that we have looked at the f

'4 !

procedures and cut out a lot of the redundant need-to-do 3

.5 things, we've streamlined it.

But the same requirements are

't !

in them.

MR. EBNETER:

Let me ask you something on the DCN's.

's The configuration changy board that's required by procedure --

-) ;

right?

Does the DCN bypass the CCB7 i

20 MR. HOSMER:

No, sir.

Everything I issue has to 21 basically be approved by the CCB.

22 MR. EENETER:

Are you on the CC57

]

MR. HOSMER:

Yes, sir.

MR. E8 METER:

Who else is on the CCB7

5 i MR. ABERCROMBIE:

Site Director, Plant Manager and a 4

o ll l

y y-

,-------,.. -,.,w

,e y

,,_,__.-,___-,.,,,,.%,y,,,,.,,..,p.,,_,,,,.,..,,.,,

.,,.vw

.a

3 Pege 27 1

~

l i

1 Modifications Manager.

2 MR. EBNETER:

So you don't bypass that?

3 MR. HOSMER:

No, sir, there's nothing different.

4 4'

MR. EBNETER:

I was just curious just good 5fmanagement, right?

MR. FOX:

Better management.

'i MR. HOSMER:

Better management.

3i NR. EBNETER:

Well I think that's good.

All right.

i' MR. HOSMER:

Let me summarise.

The technical support processes are in place at Sequoyah.

The technical support people I strongly believe have accepted their

l technical ownership of the plant and they are currently 13 supporting the plant.

1

'4' Thank you.

If there are questions?

5[

MR. RICHARDSON:

John.

't ;

MR. HOSMER:

Yes, sir.

MR. RICHARDSON:

How long is it taking to get updated drawings issued to the fleid, like the Tech Support

'i ;

Center and the Emergency Response Facility?

l DR. HOSMER:

We have been using a practice called 21 red-lining the control room drawings.

That process has been 22 cumbersome and has taken more time than the Plant Manager or I 23 want to take.

In addition there are more than one copy that need to be updated.

We have recently agreed to make a change

5 where we no longer red-line the drawings.

The work package 4

I l

i i

o Pego 28 r

I product from the field, once it's completed, basically is put 2

right on a cad sylar, copies are made and drawings are issued.

3 We just agreed to that change last Friday evening, we're 4

making appropriate procedure changes to put it in place.

We 5

believe that will significantly change the time lag between 6

putting the red lines an and removing them.

MR. RICHARDSON:

How do they go about getting 3

upstairs to the sixth floor from the site?

i i

MR. HOSMER:

I'm sorry?

to !

MR. RICHARDSON:

How do they go and get in the EOF, I do you have people that bring them down periodically and

2 ;

update the EOF 7 MR. HOSMER:

Yes.

l

'4 MR. RICEARDSON:

How often is that done?

isf MR. FOX:

I can't give you the specific frequency on that, but it's done quickly.

It's not just done at the site,

-3 it's not just done in the EOF, it's also provided to the

3 !

Training Center, so that we're training on a real time basis on the configuration.

Herb, did you want to add anything?

20 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

Yes.

Herb Abercrouble.

21 Steve, right now, we do not red line the drawings in 22 the EOF.

One of the reasons that we're improving this process 23 is so that we can in a very timely manner issue to the EOF the as constructed drawings for the plant.

I can't give you the

5 details of how often, I can only tell you that as a drawing is e -

_,.---,--,-,--n.-,---,

h Pcga 29 j

1 changed, it is also distributed to downtown and put in their

-2 racks.

But I can't tell you if it takes one day or two days 3

from the time we distribute it until it gets in the racks here 41

-- it's very short.

5 MR. RICHARDSON:

You answered my question.

t!

MR. FOX:

I'd like --

'l MR. EBNETER:

I'd like to ask another question, Mr.

I Bi Fox.

i MR. FOX:

Certainly.

'O MR. E8 METER:

I'm not going to ask John because he's

I

{ suffering.

i I

1 MR. FOX:

We all are.

!? f MR. EBNETER:

I would like to know something about l

'4 the system engineering organization.

Who is going to address 15,

that?

't j MR. FOX:

Steve Smith.

I MR. ERNETER:

I'd like to ask you one more thing in l

'3i Engineering.

You used to use a waiver process and I know you 4

j used the waiver on some occasions on Sequoyah in the last year 20 or two, is that true?

21 MR. ROSMER:

Since I've been there we do not waive.

1 22 MR. EBNETER:

How long have you been there?

MR. HOSMER:

In the last year.

I MR. KIRKEBO:

This is John Kirkebo.

Since John

5/ Hosmer her been there, that was one of the things that John b

i i

i i

l Pcgo 30 I

l I

am6,1,had, g basic agreement on, that we would not use the i

e 5,r 2

as ffer as being able to prepare the change packages.

3 was used last spring and I think the last time it was 4

used probably would have been May of 1987.

3 MR. ERNETER:

Did you have -- what did you do, John, 6

to control that waiver procses?

How do we know at this point i

l 7

that that was in good control?

Did somebody do something to s

verify that?

That was a bypass mechanism --

9 MR. KIRKE50:

It was a vehicle to allow engineering 10 output to proceed ahead of consolid.iion <>f engineering 11 information.

We have to catch up at the tail-end, that was 12 what the waiver was about.

It's one of these pay me now or i2 pay me later.

Now we're in the process of cleaning that up I

'dl and that,is being cleaned up right now.

J 15 MR. EBNETER:

But it's not cleaned up yet?

a' Mr.. KIRKEBO:

Not completely.

MR. EBNETER:

When will that be cleaned up?

!! j MR. KIRKEBO:

I'll have to get back to you, Mr.

i l

Ebneter, on that specific thing.

20 MR. EBNETER:

I would like an answer on that.

21 MR. KIRKEBO:

Yes, sir, you'll have it.

2 MR. EENETER:

I'd like to know how many you did and 22,

what you did to control it and rahat your status is.

MR. KIRKEBO:

Yes, sir.

5q MR. FOX:

We'll provide that today.

I'd like to N

i l

1 Pcgo 31 1

correct --

2 MR. EBKETER:

I don't necessarily need it today, but 2.

we need to answer that question before we can --

I 4'

MR. FOX:

Well the questions you've asked so far 5;

today, I think we can all respond to today, and we're going to t

respond today if at all possible.

I'd like to correct one statement for the record, i' M r. Hosmer dropped three zeroes when he talked about the 3'

i number of manhours that we had spent re-establishing the 10 design basis and doing the design base line verification program at Sequoyah.

We spent almost 700,000 manhours on that

'2 program.

That's one reason why we don't want to let the 12 design basis ever get in the shape it was in two years ago,

'd q again.

i

5 Our next speaker is Steve Smith.

Steve is our Plant Manager at Sequoyah.

Steve has experience at four nuclear

.l

. ;d i plants spanning three NRC regions, prior to coming to TVA.

1 Most recently he was Assistant Plant Manager at the Davis-Besse station near'h ledo.

'1 Steve is going to speak to you today on Plant i

21 Readiness.

22 PLANT READINESS l

22 !

MR. SMITH:

Thank you, Mr. Fox.

My name is Steve l

Salth, I'm the Plant Manager of Sequoyah Nuclear P14nt.

5 Before I get into my discussion, it alght be good to discuss i

t I

4 t

---,--n.-

-a,---

t l

Pcgo 32 i

the current plant status.

2 We're currently at approximately 340 degrees l Fahrenheit, 550 pounds in the reactor coolant system.

We have i

4! completed all testing in preparation for entering Mode 3 with I

$l the plant.

We are currently completing one piece of repair 6

work and replacing some thermal overloads in the plant and Mr.

n

?' Hosmer's organization is conducting one evaluation against B!

those thermal overloads.

We feel that late this afternoon or i

ii early this evening, we'll be able to sit with Mr. McCoy and Mr. Jennison and discuss entry into Mode 3.

Thst's our next

.11estone.

': j As Mr. Fox stated, I've worked at several nuclear ai plants in the capacity of Assistant Manager, Maintenance

4 Manager and Project Manager.

I came to the Tennessee Valley

• !l Authority in July of 1987 as the corporate Maintenance Manager a

and subsequently went to Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in late

- 9 October to perform the duties of Plant Manager.

It's my

'!; observation in the past four months in reviewing the programs that are in place and the progrees that has been made and the 20 ongoing programs and improvements that are being made, that 21 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is fully prepared both administrative 1y

2 and organizationally to support Unit 2 restart.

MR. EENETER:

Would you admit you're a little biased on that?

5]

MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir, and damned proud too.

l l

l l

.._ _. _ _... __ _ _ ____..-.__,_ _.~.,... _ _ _. _ _. _

l j

Pega 33 1

MR. EBNETER:

What is the opinion of others?

2 MR. SMITH:

The opinion of others, as stated in the 2l KRC's SER, INPO, American Nuclear Insurers and other i

organizations such as our own Nuclear Management Review Group.

4 5

in reviewing the i ns pec t iore, the observations that they have i

made in the past three yerars, that we have corrected all those problems administrative 1y, organizationally and managerially, 9j to restart Unit 2.

t l

MR. EBNETER:

Is anybody going to address today the t

'l composite r=sults of all these operational readiness reviews?

I see --

MR. FOX:

Joe Bynum, our Assistant Manager for

')'

Nuclear Power, will do that during his talk.

'4 MR. ERNETER:

And that includes QA oversight?

is MR. FOX:

It includes a whole litany of issues including QA.

i l

MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

3

'! l The discussion that I'm about to make -- or present is the umbrella operational readiness for the whole plant 2

20 and not just the Operations organization.

This encompasses 21 all the organizations, depar tments that report to me.

22 As I said, in conducting reviews of inspections and observations that have been made at the Sequoyah Plant including the 1985 SALP report for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, we

5 complied a list of generic problem areas that have been g

l l

i i

I Pcgo.34 r

i I

addressed over the past three years of shutdown at Sequoyah.

2 The first area is that of management involvement.

3 Management involvement -- next slide please -- had been considered superficial and not directed to the plant.

One of 4

5 the things that has been done to help improve management 6

involvement is the reorganization at the site, and although I

?

know most people don't think reorganization is the way to a

achieve any improvements, it's just confusion; this particular i

reorganization did two things.

First of all, it reduced the to level of managere between myself and the craft support in the

'l ;

field.

One level of supervisors do not exist any more.

That 12 only puts two people between myself and the operators and the 13 craft in the field.

That helps to improva communications and u

it helpe,to bring the men out in the field doing the work

'5 closer to the top local management to communicate problems and

'e get resolution.

t' Additionally we broke up duties and responsibilities

)

1B ! and directly aligned them to functions; the operations

)

to function, the maintenance function, the technical support 20 function and the radiological control functions.

1 21 The Technical Support Superintendent, the 22 Radiological control Superintendent are new positions that

]

23 report directly to the Plant Manager and are accountable for those functional areas.

i

$l As I said -- or as John Noemer had previously said, I

4

Pcgo 3S I

, tod*a, management duty roster along with the Division of j

i u

~.,., ~ _

2

" N ineering and the plant Operations organization, i

3 oggemasations such as document control, quality awwur.ance.

d quality engineering and all those other primary organizations 5

or principal organizations responsible for supporting plant 6

activities now are on the duty roster.

The duty roster is 7

issued once monthly, the individuals are assigned for a period 8

of seven days and they are responsible 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day during that seven day period to respond to problems at the site in 10 their areas of expertise.

As John said, we tend to exercise 11 that about 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning almost every morning 12 lately.

It seems like problems only occur then.

But it has i3 been a very responsive organization.

Those individuals on the i

duty ros,ter are required to attend our daily plan of the day 4

15 mee ting and to participate in the discussion of problems and

e of course accept responsibility for taking action to solve U;

those problems.

I

'I !

We have a very strong walk your spaces policy at I

't Sequoyah Plant.

My managers and other managers are required 20 to be in the plant, observe work activities, discuss those 21 activities with the craft,and operators, listen to them, 22 identify problems and then take action to solve those 22 problems.

We also have fixed shift support at the site.

There 25. are a couple of additional handouts -- or slides in your 1

4 Pcgo 36 1

F I

handout -- that will show the numbers for evening and back shifts.

All the areas that are normally needed to solve 2

problems, perform corrective actions, on fixed shifts and 4

report either directly to the shift supervisor or through a 5

work coordinator, has responsibility to respond to the shift e

supervisor for any problems that should occur 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day,

?

seven days per week.

3!

MR. IBMETER:

Could I ask something on the fixed 1j shift?

1 10 l MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

I';

MR. E8 METER:

Would you give us some idea of what a

'2 typical shift complement, say on the back shift, would be?

O, You have the operations crew, and I would like to know if you

'a j have a maintenance crew, engineering support, chemistry 15 support, rad con -- would you just give us

't.

MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

Put that slide back up there.

l The shift composition is those required operators by

't lt I

j the Technical Specificatlon plus the other operators that are il n " normally on shif t, abo'ut 5 to 10 more, to conduct shift 20 activities and to prepare systems or components for any 4

21 maintenance work that should be going on.

4 22 There is a shift technical advisor who now reports 23 to the shif t supervisor.

That did not exist before.

The shift technical advisor rotated on a different shift than the i

l

5'ioperations shift. That individual now is a part of the shift l

i l

e

---

.,n.

ili Ptgo 37 I

,j i

component.

He goes to training with that organization and 2

serves on the same shift as that organization.

)

3 MR. ERNETER:

That's good I think, a good change.

\\

4!

MR. SMITM We have an on-shift work control group 5l and that group consists of from two to four individuals.

On

)

I

$i the day shift we have about four individuals, on the back l

1 7'

shift there would be one or two individuals.

They are senior l

1 8I reactor operator licensed individuals at our site. and tney l

il screen all work going into the plant and make the decinion of i

10 lwhat kind of impact it has to the plant operations and whether i

11 l or not the shift supervisor or the assistant shift supervisor 12 should review it before it goes into the plant.

This work 13 control group has eliminated'about 60% of the incoming workload,on the shift organization at this time.

It has been 12 is l very productive.

e With our -- the change to the Technical i

Specification that we just submitted, we are incorporating a fire brigade.

That fire brigade has a fire captain and a j five-member firefighting force, they're fully trained and 20 quellfied firefighters and paramedics.

Currently the shift 1

21 operations organization performs those functions as required l

22 by Tech Spec.

We feel that this will reduce the number of j

responsibilities and training requirements on the shift and 23 i

2 provide an additional resource at the site.

j i

25 We have a ches lab supervisor and four chemists.

We k

l, j

i

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

,.mm,._

i Pcgo 38 r

I i

had a radiological control shitt supervisor and anywhere fron l

2 6 to 20 radiological control technicians, depending on the 3

amount of work that's going on on shift.

Those individuals 4

six is the base shift.

The individuals who aren't on the back 5

shift are generally on the day shift for additional work loads.

7 Of course we have the operations shift crew.

We 9

have one work coordinator, a maintenance manager.

Underneath l

2l the maintenance manager are general foremen in the three 10 distinct disciplines electrical, instrument, maintenance and n

mechanical.

That shitt component is around 30 individuals normally.

Right now it's somewhat higher than that because we a

have a number of work activities that are going on.

a:

The technical support component is two engineers on l

each shift in the system engineering organization and I believe 15 j o

-- John, you have to help me on this -- how many engineers on the back shift from design engineering?

MR. HOSMER:

Five.

ul M. SMITE:

Five engineers from design engineering.

20 M. ESNETER:

Okay, that's good.

I notice some of 21 the changes you've made apparently were made in response to 22 the INFO ORR review.

]

M. SMITE:

Yes, sir.

M. ESNETER:

Now could I ask you something else?

25 MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

. - - _ _ _ _, _...,. - _. _.. _,. _ _ _.,, _. _ _ _ _ _.,,. _, _ _... _ _,.. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _,..,.,,.. _ _, _,, _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -,,,,.. _,.., _ _ _ ~.,..,

Pcgo 39

?

j 1

MR. ESNETER:

How many -- in your position as Plant 2

Manager, how many supervisory positions are you accountable 3

for?

4 MR. SMITH:

Approximately 250.

5 MR. ISNETER:

How many of those are open?

6 MR. SMITH:

Thirty.

7l MR. EBWETER:

Thirty.

That's over 104.

8 MR. SMITH:

Those are in newly created organizations i

auch as the expanded shift coverage for chemistry and 10 radiological controls, plus the systems engineering 11 organization.

He've only about 504 staffed the systems

'2 ;

engineering organization at this time.

i 12 !

MR. ESKETER:

Mhat are your long-tera plans, when 24 would we expect to see a relatively complete staff of

5 !

managers?

s MR. SMITH:

It is our intent to fully staff the site O

this year.

'l MR. ERNETER:

This year --

11 MR. SMITE:

Before December 1948.

20

13. ERNETER:

December 31st?

21 MR. SMITK:

yes, sir.

22 MR. ERNETER:

That's a long ways away.

23 MR. SMITK:

Finding good pecple takes time, plus we have a number of individuals that we're making offers to, but 25 to say that they're in the position and performing the r

i

Pcgo 40

(

l 1

Mgmi anguires training also.

r p.

7 "J '.jy

'M.

EBBETER:

You don't think that will ispair your 2

3 ability to operate?

4 ISt. 8082T5:

No, sir, I do not.

IR. ESNETER:

Does staff have anything on the 6

organization?

\\

7 (No response.)

j 1

e tet. ESNETER:

One other question on that.

You may 9

answer it somewhere else.

Who makes the operability calls on l

10 the back shift?

i Il tet. SMITE:

We have a plant operations review staff i

l 12 and the plant operations review staff has an on-call duty 13 individual.

No works with the shift technical advisor and the 14 Division,of Nuclear Engineering representatives to make 65 operability calls for the shift supervisor.

They provide the 4

operability call to the shitt supervisor.

t

'?,

DEL. ESNETER:

Ne's on call?

l 5j b5L. SMITN:

Yes, sir.

Of course the STA is there i

I ni full time and he's the one that initially screens and then 1

i

o gets ahold of the plant operations review staff member.

21 bet. ERNETER:

one other question on your crews.

22 What sort of overtime are you running now and what do you i

)

22 expect you're going to be running once we get -- assuming we start the plant sometime in the future?

q MR. SMITN:

Currently the staff averages about 50%

I i

i

)

i l'

4 l

l i

4 Pcgo 41 I

j 1

overtime.

It has been for about two months.

It's my intent 2

to reduce that to approximately 25% overtise within the next 2

two months and keep it at that level through Unit 1 restart 4i and the refueling outage, l

a 5

MR. E5NETER:

Even 254 is pretty high, don't you 6'

think?

7 MR. SMITH:

Relative to other industries, yes; but I B

don't believe that 254 is high in the nuclear industry.

1 MR. ERNETER:

One question you may not be able to

'0 l answer for me.

How do you think this shift staffing that you l

'l

have here compares with the nuclear industry in general?

And i

1

'2 i I know Joe came from Palo Verde and you have been at several I

a plants.

Now would you compare this type of a shift staffing i

'4 i with the, plants that you're familiar with?

l 15 MR. SMITM:

This shift staffing is very

's representative of the staffing that I had at my last plant,

l with the exception of the expanded numbers to cover two units.

'! i There is a further enhan'coment to that shift staffing that I intend to make over'the next year to two years and that will

')

i 20 provide a shift plant manager and a shift technical manager to 21 fully represent the day-to-day management team that should be j

22 there to run the plant 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, seven days a week.

22 There are a number of utilities in the industry that are I

moving in that direction at this ti w.

We intend to be one of

5 j the forerunners in providing that additional supervisory l

l

)

1 l

Il 1

l Pcgo 42 t

I i

1 emportise to the plant.

2 MR. EENETER:

Mr. Bynua, could you comment on that?

3 MR. SyNUM:

Yes.

Stu, from my experience. It's very 4!

comparable to what we had at Palo Verde.

I think the 5,

enhancements that Steve's talking about with regard to annagement on the back shifts will be an improvement and it'll

?

be an improvement over what we had at Palo Verde.

But number-a wise it's very comparable, i

NR. ESNETER:

I would have liked to have heard you 10 say it's much better than any you knew of.

11 MR. SMITM Joe and I are fairly proud people, we 12 l both feel that we came from pretty good plants.

I I

MR. ERNETER:

Okay.

12

4

,,MR.

SMITN:

With the realignment of the is ! organization, we felt it was necessary to ensure that we

'61 defined accountabilities and responsibilities for the l individuals and the organizations in which they work.

We are i

i

! i creating a set of site administrative instructions called I

o Conduct of Operatione Procedures.

The ones for the operations

'o organisation was approved about a month and a half ago and 21 implemented and all the st;aff were trained on it.

This i

1 22 Conduct of Operations Procedures outline the responsibilities, 23 accountabilities, inter and intra-departmental interf aces for 24 the organizations and it goes from the top to the bottom of 25 the organization from the superintendent right down to tho l

l t

I I

Page 43 i

t i

j 1

craft level person in defining those.

Position descriptions 1

2 are included.

2l We have periodic meetings with all personnel and in 4l those meetings we re-emphasize the res pons ibili ties that are i

5l outlined in these procedures.

i e

We also are developing a set of corporate and site goals and objectives, they are being proceduralized under the 3i Site Director and progress against those objectives will be l

tracked.

I believe the number of that procedure is SQA-129.

t0 In the area of housekeeping and asterial --

MR. KENETER:

Could I stop you?

i 1 ;

MR. SMITN:

Yes, sir.

13 MR. ERNETER:

Accountability.

I

'ai

..MR.

SMITN:

Yes, sir.

l

'5 MR. ERNETER:

Do all of your supervisors have i

!6 j position descriptions?

i i

j MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

'3l MR. ERNETER:

And they're all in a performance I

6 Ml appraisal program?

20 MR. SMITM:

Not yet.

As I said, we're developing 21 the rest of the Conduct of Operations Procedures.

Everybody is

2 in a performance appraisal program.

It's difficult for thea l

2 right now to pull all the things together that they should 2

2 know that they're accountabis for.

That's why we're creating 05 '

these procedures so that it embodies all the areas of

)

i

1 i'

Page 44 r

i I

responsibility and accountability for each of the supervisors.

2 MR. ESNETER:

Well have ar.y of them had a 3

performance appraisal in the past six monthe?

1 MR. SMITH:

That I couldn't say.

I haven't given 4l i

5 them one.

I generally give them daily assessments of their 6

performance but that isn't documented.

f 7

MR. FOX:

Herb?

1 3

MR. ABERCROMBII:

Norb Abercroable.

We have just i

completed the annual MAS review of all of our managers.

I I

Ol think that was completed in October, Stu, the best I recall.

MR. EENETER:

Okay.

So you're in the process but 1 l you're not there?

q MR. ABERCROMBIE:

That is an annual requirement.

J MR. FOX

That's for all managers in the Office of

's Nuclear Power.

Me appraise their performance annually.

l

'e l MR. ESNETER:

Could you tell as one other thing?

'l '

How many of the station isanagers under Mr. Smith have participated in at least one management development course?

n DEL. SMITM:

Do you have the numbers on that?

20 MS. BLACKBURN:

211.

21 MR. SMITE:

211.

22 MR. ERNETER:

(Laughter.)

MR. POX:

Not 12, not 10, 211.

t MR. ERNETER:

Mell I --

25 j MR. FOX:

The speaker is Marilyn Blackburn.

Page 45 f

.'ww.,.* z.y l

.j i

M. 7

..'M.

EENETER:

And I can count on 211.

I'm not 2

W to trick you, Me. Blackburn.

3 M. BLACEBURN:

I wanted to clarify that the j

4 difference between managers and attendees in course is =

5 little bit different.

The 211 is the number of attendees at 1

6 coursee that belon0 to Sequoyah site.

7 M. ESNETER:

Thank you.

s BGL. SMITH:

Any other questions?

I 9

MR. FOX:

Me can follow up and get you the --

i 10 MR. ERNETER:

Mell my concern is if you're going to

'l tell me you're accountable, I would like to know how you're 12 accountable.

And you obviously can't be accountable if you

)

13 don't know what you're accountable for.

u

.MA.

FOX:

That's right.

'5 MR. ESNETER:

I was just trying to determine -- you It have position descriptions and you have requirements to

)

appraise people and I would assume part of the appraisal

'8 fallout would be to do some training.

I was just trying to n

tie the three together.

j l

20

15. FOX:

Absolutely.

Admiral White determined that 21 one of the key and major missing ingredients in the management I

22 programs at TVA in the past was management development and 22 that's why he put Ms. Blackburn in charge and set out to establish the courses and to maximize the training of the l

25i sanagers as soon as possible.

This program started last April l

l 1

J l

i 1

f I

Pcg3 46 l

t and since that time there have been some 2000 attendees 2

through the six courses.

There's a supervisory development 3

course, a managing for excellence course, an orientation to 4

nuclear supervision, a skills assessment course.

In addition 5

there's also a time management and you've done a Ketner-Trego 3

(ph) pilot I believe for Browns Ferry, have you not?

7 MS. BLACKBURN:

Yes.

3 MR. EBNETER:

Who appraises Mr. White?

1 MR. FOX:

The Board of Directors.

10 MR. EBNETER:

Is that right?

We had a good meeting it with Mr. Runyon, by the way, last week and discussed a little 12 bit of that.

13 Could I ask you one other thing?

Corporate goals l

Nl they have some very nice charts around the plant, they look i

i is very pretty, blue and white, which says they are being y

trapped.

Could you comment on how you're attaining those ei goals.

1

3 i MR. ABERCRO4SII:

Stu, one of the things that we i;

have to do in my corporate procedures is to translate those

o goals and objectives down to the lowest levels of the 1

21 management system.

And we're in the process of doing that,

2 it's not complete yet, but that's all part of the appraisal 1

22 system, to ensure each manager knows his specific objectives and is weighed against his performance in achieving those r

25 objectives.

l

]

l I

i

__y____.

_, _, _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _..... _.. ~ _, _, _. _ _ _ _ _.. _,,, _ _

!}

l Pcg3 47 T

l

,j l'

MR. E8NETER:

Who would I go to in the corporate to j

2 ask if they were checked?

How about Ms. Jenkins?

2 MS. JENKINS:

I can address certain of them.

I'm 4*

going to speak to Goal Number 6 in a few moments.

5 MR. EENETER:

Okay.

$f MR. SMITH:

To add to that a little bit.

We do I

't currently track against the NUMARC and INPO performance 9l Indicators and those are tracked through Mr. McAnally's group 2l and in Mr. Kazanas group.

1:

MR. EBNETER:

Yeah, but they're mostly not i

l translatable to these individuals.

'2 i MR. SMITM:

Those are mostly zero.

I O!

MR. 55NETER:

I'm interested in those too, we might i

l

'4 ;

discuss some of those, but they don't get down to the 15 ! Andividual guy that I'm interested in.

'e j MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

I t'

t Although the status of housekeeping and material

'3, condition at the plant has been judged by a variety or i

'i' organisations, including the NRC, INPO and others, to be i

i 0

adequate and even above average in the case of some 21 individuals' inspections,,I did not personally feel and 22 neither did Mr. White or Mr. Abercrombie, that the i

22 housekeeping was at a level that we would consider above i

2 average and working towards excellence.

The housekeeping l

5 program itself at the site is one area that we feel we can use 1

i i

4 l

i I

Pego 48 i

I I

1 as an example to all of our individuals, all of our employees 2

at the site, of the progress that should be made towards 3

excellence in the appearance of the plant, the way the plant is operated and the way that it's maintained.

4 5

We've laplemented a housekeeping and material 6

upgrade program.

That program has been in effect for 7

approximately five sonths.

There are currently about 200 3

people employed in this project.

It's our intent to complete 1l the project by December 1988, and follow hat up with an l

10 ongoing maintenance program, which will assure the continuing it high level of cleanliness and material condition in the plant.

12 As I said, this program isn't just a housekeeping 1]

program.

It's an object lesson.

a

' Administrative controls; while administrative

.i 15 i controle are considered adequate for restart again by a a

variety or organizations, the controls at the site are somewhat cumbersone and overlap.

Also, we didn't feel that we

'tl had a direct communication path between the corporate n

policies, directives and standards and the procedures that 20 were being generated at the site.

We now have a single 21 organization at the site responsible for the generation of i

22 procedures and they directly interface with the corporate 23 procedures organization under Mr. McAnally.

That organization j

i currently is charged with at the plant incorporating the j

i

^

5 policies, directives and standards that are being created on a i

~

l Pcgs 49 I

,J 1

corporate level to reduce the overall number of administrative 2

procedures at the site froe-about 1100 to approximately 150 to 2

200.

Those procedures will be used to clearly define all 4

responsibilities and interfaces at the site.

)

5 As I said, this program is ongoing and will conclude 6

this year.

The one thing that I would like to point out is 7

that we don't necessarily create a corporate standard or 3

directive before we write the procedure at the site.

As a matter of fact, part of our charter at Sequoyah is to work

'O l with Browns Ferry and Watts Bar in developing the me thod in

'i which we want to perform a particular activity, such as root I

!?

cause analysis, create the procedure at the site, work the i] !

bugs out of it and then develop the standard and the directive a

that are.the results of using that program and gaining

'5 experience with it.

'6 So where it may seem that the corporate standards l

and policies are not out in front of the procedure l

'B l development, in a lot of cases that's intentional and they're

'i waiting for us to finish up with the procedures we currently 20 are developing.

21 MR. ERNETER:

So the tail is wagging the dog.

22 MR. SMITM In some cases, yes, sir.

But the people 23 who are the dog are involved --

MR. ERNETER:

You could probably get rid of that 5

corporate group I would suggest.

4 1

Ptg3 50 y[i;fy.BYuuM:

well stu, I still think though that even 1

2 eusse me escolop the standard, we want that standard to apply.

3 yee'hmen, eemeistently across all the plants.

So once we've 4

developed something that works and works well, then we want to i

5 use the same standard.

6 DEL. EENETER:

I understand but I don't like to see 7

Sequoyah be in an experimental role here -- I use that work a 8

little bit loose there, but on these procedures, when we're i

getting ready to start up.

10 Bet. ABERCROMBIE:

Well I think, Gtu, what we're 11 alluding to here is for example, the conduct of operations i

12 that has just been revised extensively, that really sets the 13 discipline that we expect to see throughout our plant

'4 operatione group.

That will be taken and used at Browns Ferry Is as their conduct of operations.

That's the type of thing 4

we're talking about here.

"l MR. ERNETER:

I understand, I always have a little

'l l problem though because the corporate policies, directives and o

standards apparently are lagging, and they're depending more

0 or less on the station.

That's what I'm hearing, is that 21 true?

1 1

72 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

I think in some cases, it's who i

)

has the lead and who appropriately has the lead, j

MR. EBNETER:

Well I can tell you what's going to

]

5 ' happen.

If you've got the lead at Sequoyah, once you start up ll i

i 1

Pcgo 51 i

r j

i you guys aren't going to be developing procedures, you're 2

going to be running the station.

3 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

That's correct.

4 MR. E8 METER:

And then those corporate procedures 5l will never get done.

$j HR. FOX:

Hey, we have a major policy for every program we have going on and I think you have some 5

misconceptions about where we are on procedures.

We'll get l

?!

Bob McCay over here in a minute and give you a rundown.

I 10 think we're in a lot better shape than you apparently think we

'I are.

12 l MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

I can tell you that this is one l

'3' of the questions that the Chairman asked me specifically, what u!

is this relationship between the corporate and the station, j

'5 i And it sounds to me like it's not very firm at this point.

it MR. FOX:

I think it is in a number of key areas.

MR. ERNETER:

Well then you have to package it a

'l little better to convince me.

4 i

i Mj MR. FOX: 'Okay, we'll take that as a challenge, to 20 do a better job of packaging.

21 MR. ERNETER:

Okay.

22 MR. P0X:

We've prioritized procedures and the ones 23 that we feel like are critical to get out to the stations and to get the guidance to perform at the stations to an 25 ' acceptable level, I think we've gotten out to the stations.

(

I l

I i

i 3

l

\\

l

4 Page S2 i

We'll repackage this.

2 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

)l MR. EMITH:

In the area of maintenance, a number of i

~

4 areas have been identified previously as being weak and 5

requiring improvement.

As I said, those areas are currently ei considered adequate for restart.

?j Some of the improvements that have been made are the establishment of a corporate maintenance program.

That 1j program includes a corporate maintenance manager and his i!

staff.

Those individuals are involved with the generation of

l the directives and standards, which laplement the maintenance programs at the sites.

Those individuals also have a I

'2 considerable site involvement and periodically attend my staf f j

7 mee t i ng s ' a't the site.

They attend the POD periodically, I

's they're currently involved with the' generation of the Unit 2

'e !

refueling schedule and through their assessments organization

' qi provide periodic overview and assessments of ongoing 1

5.' activities at the site and make recommendations for n

J o-improvement.

1 No have had an ongoing procedure upgrade program for i

t the last several months.

That program is scheduled out

2 through 1991.

We'll upgrade all existing procedures plus create approximately 1500 new procedures.

That program J

l includes a writer's guide.

The writer's guide is currently 1

! j acknowledged by INFO as being state-of-the art.

They've i

i l

'l Pcgo 53

,i F

,J i

recommended it to a number of utilities for use.

2 MR. EBMETER:

When did you do that?

3 MR. SMITH:

That was done this past fall. sir.

I 4l MR. ESNETER:

Because INPO or someone noted that you i

5-didn't have one.

4 MR. SMITH:

I believe that was prior to their i

'l review.

8 MR. ERNETER:

Is that true?

I know their ORR i

specifically said they recommended you have a writer's guide.

l 10 {

MR. SMITH:

The writer's guide I think you're n;

talking about was for operations, wasn't it?

"I 12 MR. ERNETER:

It was a procedures writing guide, I'm I

a not sure which one --

41 MR. SMITH:

Each of the major procedure areas either

'5l has a writer's guide or a writer's guide is being developed i

's ;

for implementation.

l MR. ESNETER:

I was just picking at you to decide if I

2 3

you were implementing the INFO findings.

That's what I'm --

4

'i MR. EMITR:

This writer's guide is based on the IMPO l

0 guidelinee for maintenance procedure writer's guide.

21 Also, the validation program for those procedures, 22 which requires a rield validation of the technical procedures, 1

22 is based agalnat the IMPO standards for those areas.

]

2 In the area of preventive maintenance, we have an I

25 '

pgrade program in progress.

u That program, along with the I

i

~

~-

i q

l Pcgo S4 1

1 standard review of safety related equipment, is looking at 2

equipment that's critical to plant operations, such as the 3

feed water pumps, condensate pumps, et cetera.

l 4l Recommendations are made for periodic saintenance and 5

predictive maintenance.

Those recommendations are reviewed by I

6l Mr. Noemer's organization and receive their concurrence prior

?l to implementation.

sI We have restructured the maintenance organization to i

i provide shift coverage, as we said before, plus to enhance the i

ul planning and scheduling organizations, bring them cloner l

!1 together and to provide a solid engineering support I

i ul organization.

I'll talk about engineering support here in a i

O;

minute, i

14 i

, Jk have a new program for the prioritization of

'5 ;

work activities.

That involves the participation of the three I

't senior reactor operators or the unit managers at the site f or j

L Unit 1, Unit 2 and common equipment.

They screen all incoming j

l

'l, work in the mornings and prioritize that work for that day.

}

u That's based on top of the standard work schedule for l

j i

f l

20 preventive maintenance and surveillance testing.

21 No have a proced,uralized post-maintenance testing 22 program which provides a testing matrix for routine,

)

repetitive work activities to help the planner identify the appropriate testing to assure the correct operability of the

5jcomponent.

Additionally it provides guidelines for an

]

i 4

I i

l 3

i t

i l

i

i i

PCgo 55 r'j l f

. ' M review of infrequently performed or one-of-a-kind u

2

'eo that the engineer la able to establish the a.

3 types of testing to be performed to assure the operability of 4

the equipment.

5 MR. ERNETER:

Would you comment on the changes that 6

you just made in the control room on maintenance and control 7

room staff?

8 MR. SMITN:

Yes, sir.

Actually we've done three i

things.

Mo've created the unit manager position and that was 10 done with the reorganization.

The unit manager screens l

11 incoming work and assigns priorities to that work so that the 12 planning and scheduling organization knows which work activity O

to put into the field first.

4

,, e have an individual stationed at the entrance to W

15 the control room that does not allow free access into the 4

control room unless they have an approved work activity on our i

daily work list.

8 Our work control group prescreens the work before it 1

goes to the field.

This is to prepare scheduled work 23 activity.

They evaluate its lapact to plant operations and 21 plaat operational status and they also determine whether or 22 not the shift supervisor should have to review it.

If the 23 activity does not af f ect plant operational status and has no plant lapact, then they send the work directly to the field.

i 4

)

5 As I, said before, this has resulted in a considerable 4

l

l Pcgo 56 i

__j 1

reduction of the amount of paperwork that the shift supervisor 2

and the assistant shif t supervisors are required to look at l-,

3 during the shift, and allowe them to direct their energies to 4

the primary function, which is the safe operation of the 5

plant.

t MR. ERNETER:

One of the INFO findings commented on

?

the fact, sort of the lack of discipline in the maintenance 3

department; doing maintenance without the control room I

t i operator's knowledge or going beyond the extent of this.

What i

I 10 have you done to correct that?

Joe, are you going to talk to

'l that or should I ask Mr. Smith?

i

' 1 MR. BYNUM:

Steve can respond and I'll respond also

'2; when I get up.

l u1

..MR.

SMITH:

Well the work control group plus the l

f5 work order process establishes very rigorous control of

?$

activities being perf ormed in the field.

Guidelines and

'n procedure which establishes work controls has had considerable

!l change to identify ty the maintenance personnel what their 6

': 1 limitations and resirictions are on the performance of work 20 activitise in the field.

t MR. EBNETER:

But I guess the problem essentially l

22 wee one of lack of compliance or discipline of the workers.

i j

)

Nave you done anything to control that?

MR. SMITM:

I think you just hit as with a new one i

1 1

5,j because I don't remember anything about the lack of compliance l

ll

l Page $7 j

1 or anything --

l 2i MR. ESNETER:

Well they didn't follow the 3

maintenance procedures.

That was pretty plain.

4 MR. SMITH:

There were observations made of 5f individual cases where personnel did not follow procedures.

I t;

and that wasn't just maintenance personnel, it was operators.

7j There has been considerable work with all personnel, both in i

ll the area of training and of gatherings, discussions to discuss i

i!

procedural compliance.

Our most recent history during heat-l 4

2: !

up, we've seen two events where the procedure wasn't l

i

'l rigorously followed.

Upon identifying that as being one of 12 '

the root causes of the probles, lack of strict procedural l

l 0

adherence, we stopped most of the work activities in the plant

'4 and brought all the people together, took them through the

's events that had transpired and explained to them just exactly a

]whathadhappenedtocauseeventstotranspire, and indicated l

very strongly to those individuals that str;ct compliance with 1

'l [ procedures is mandatory to assure '.he proper performance in l

l 1

the plant.

1

~

20 M. ESNETER:

What that effective?

21 M. SMITN:

I believe so, sir.

We haven't had 1

j 22 another incident since those events occurred.

That's a i

i l

}programthatyouhavetogiveconsiderableattentiontoall the tles, continuous monitoring --

5!

MR. EBNETER:

That's what I would expect and that's l

4 f

1 I

i i

i

o i

l Page 54 i

1 the type of answer I'm looking for, is that hey, we're working 2

on that day in and day out.

I 3

MR. BYNUM:

I think another thing too, Mr. Ebneter.

4 as Steve indicated, we've developed a new conduct of shift 5

operatione procedure basically for the control room people, e, We're also developing a conduct of maintenance procedure which

'l sets out the same types of standards for the maintenance ll people that we've developed for the operationa people, i

?!

MR. ERNETER:

When will that be done?

i 10 l MR. BYNUM:

Once that's disseminated and we've tt !

trained people on that, you know, that's another up front l

j 1: !

example of exactly what we expect, t3 l MR. ERNETER:

When will that be done.

4 :

MR. SMITN:

The conduct of amintenance procedures is I

'5 going through its final review cycle right now and should be

'e ll losued within the next 30 days.

1 I

4 MR. ERNETER:

Well I think the things you've done in 1

I

't there are significant.

I think they do enhance the operation i

1

]

and I'm glad to see you doing them, but I think you still have to j

20 to keep working at it, as Joe says.

21 MR. SMITM:

Yes, sir.

1

)

22 In the area of work performance, it's significant to J

J 22 l note that in the last two years since January of 1986, over 1

40,000 work orders have been completed at Sequoyah Nuclear

5. Plant.

Currently there are a total of 1749 work orders l

j l

i i

i i

J J

4

____.___m_,__,-____-,.

t d.

Pcgo $9 I

.j 1

against Unit 2 and common equipment.

Those work orders 2

encompass everything from moving a desk to painting a floor to 3l repairing a broken auxiliary feedwater pump.

Those which we 4l consider to be corrective maintenance work orders, they 5l actually repair equipment out in the plant, there are 380 2

$i approximately for common equipment and approximately 300 for a 7!

total of approximately 640 for Unit 2 and common.

Of those.

l tl if I recall correctly from this morning, approximately 100 of l

il those remain to be completed for Unit 2 restart.

'O MR. ESNETER:

I didn't understand those numbers, Mr.

9 Salth.

MR. SMITN:

Okay, our work order program, every

'3 ;

activity that anybody wants someone to perform in the plant is l

'2, requested,through the work request system.

i

'5 MR. ESNETER:

That's the 104S?

1e !

MR. SMITN:

That's the 1749.

l l

MR. ESNETER:

Oh, you're adding them together.

i 1,

MR. SMITH:

The dotted line you see there is common

'2 equipment or common things.

Any area that's considered common 20 to Unit 2 is identified as a common work order.

Unit 2 is the

]

j 21 dark line which is 704.

22 MR. ERNRTER:

Okay.

\\

23 MR. SMITH:

And as I said, those work requests span 4

the entire spectra of activities at the plant, including s

1 i

51 replacing a broken window glass or moving a desk, painting a 1

ll i

i i

i l

1 l

l l

1 l

l Page 60

,., k -

(J d 'my through and including disassembly of a i

turbine

- s :-

2 eptes feodanter pump.

And as I said, there are approximately 3

'660 of Unit 2 and common which we consider corrective action.

corrective maintenance type work requests to do repair 4

5 activities in the plant.

6 Those activittee are prioritized in categories 1.

2 7

and 3 and category 1 being those work orders which are e

required for entry into Mode 2.

And as I said, there's 1

approximately 100 of those at this time.

10 MR. ESNETEM:

May I ask you a question?

And I guese 11 the same question was asked of me.

How does that backlog i

l 12 compare with the industry?

l 12 MR. SMITM The current backlog that we have of that l

ff some 700 -- 680 if you will, approximately one-third of those 1

'5 ;

work orders are more than three months old, and the remaining I

i te are in the neighborhood of 30 days or less.

The number 600-700 is about two months worth of work at Sequoyah Plant with l

8 the existing work force.

Most utilities have anywhere from two to four months of backlog at all times.

o The plant I just came from, we had about a sir. month 21 backlog at all times because we had a very detailed work order j

program also.

The plant that I just came from was a single unit utility, we ran around 7-800 at all times.

I feel that the 680 for Unit 2 and common is a very good number, a very

5 low number for the number of activities being performed.

d i

I i

1 i

POgo 61 i

MR. EBWETER:

Mr. Synua?

2 MR. BYNUM:

It's really difficult, Stu, to compare 2j total numbers because you really have to look at the types of I

4!

work orders that are in that backlog.

And at Sequoyah this l

5 includes everything from, you know, paint this wall to fix

$l this light switch to, you know, major pump repairs.

From a j

total number standpoint, those numbers again are comparable I with the numbers that I'm faalliar with at the station I lett.

i l

i i

but again we had all of those types of work included in there j

l 12 !

also.

' ' lI MR. ESNETER:

Okay.

You'll probably get asked that again.

)?

MR. FOX:

Me'11 answer it again.

'a ;

,,MR.

ESNETER:

A little bet ter I hope.

i

'l ;

MR. FOK:

Presumably, j

't MR. SMITM:

As both Mr. Mosmer mentioned and I 4

1

)

I'[ discussed before, we've established a systems engineering i

ti i That organization reports to me organlaation at the site.

ii i through the technica'l support superintendent.

Their primary i

20 responsibility is the assurance of the proper systen j

21 performance.

They do that; through a variety of things.

They f

22 observe system performance through trends and the results of i

I 23 predictive maintenance and tests.

They observe the types and i

number of corrective maintenance activities being performed on

)

25 J those systems and they make roccamendations to both

.i i

i 1

i l

s l

1, 1

'l Pego 62

?

I engineering -- that's Mr. Hosmer's engineering group, the DNE 2

group -- and the maintenance organization for laprovements in 3

maintenance activities and in preventive maintenance for the 4l plant, systems and equipment.

5 They also help to coordinate problem resolution in e

the plant and that's one of the newer activities that we've

?

laplemented.

Whenever there is a major equipment probles, a a

component failure and the inoperability problem, the system I

il engineer acts as the team leader, if you will, to develop the l

'0 l action plan and to help coordinate the resolution of the

'l problem.

12 They also are involved in the review of test i]

results, the surveillance tests that are performed, to assure ul compliance with Technical Specifications.

And they're l

s '

involved with the verification of proper installation of

's modifications to their systems und components.

They perform t'i walkdowns and drawing reviewe.

They look at preventive l

'a :

maintenance requirements established for whatever the new i

nj thing is that's installed or the revised thing that may exist 20 and they participate in the poet-modification testing both in 21 helping develop the testing and in the actual conducting of 22 the testing.

23 We feel that the systems engineering organization adds a very, very good facet to the plant.

They serve the 25 j function of acting as the communicator between the operations l

Pcge 63 I

I J

l organization and the design engineering organization.

They 2

help translate problems that are field problems into problems 3

that are understood technically on the drawing board and they d

facilitate bringing the people into the plant and assuring 5

tha t they adequately understand what the problem is, so that 6

they can be productive in recommending resolution for those 7

problems.

3 As I said, that organization consists of about 30 people, around 10 to 15 of those people are matrixed to the t0,

organization from Mr. Hosmer's organization, they're it permanently assigned.

That adds a flavor of having design

'2 background in our observation and system performance.

t) j MK, EBNETER:

7 hat's a good feature I think.

I i

a think that's one area that consistently TVA tckes knocks on 15 and we've done it, we've done it numerous ways and INPO again i

to I think had that same comment.

I think that's good that l'

you're taking action there.

Who's in charge of that group?

13 MR. SMITH:

An individual that reports to my n

technical support supervisor, his name is Rick Mooney at this 20 time.

He reports through Mr. Fortenberry to myself.

21 MR. ESNETER:

Sd you have how many on board out of 22 307 23 MR. SMITH:

We have 30 on board, the organization will grow to be about -- between 60 and 70 people strong.

25 l MR. EBNETER:

And they are all degreed type I

.n.

. -. ~.

Pcgo 64 I

engineers?

i 2

MR. SMITH:

About 60% of them are degreed engineers.

3 MR. EBNETER:

I'm not implying that they should be.

4 I"a just trying to get acae idea what you have.

5 MR. SMITH:

No, sir.

About 40% of them are very 5

experienced individuals from the nuclear industry, most of 7

whom have participated in several plant startups as system a

startup engineers, doing very much the same kind of work that 1

they're doing here.

10 MR. EBNETER:

Well I think that's a good feature.

11 MR. SMITH:

Another area that had been considered 12 historically weak and requiring improvement were the areas of 13 root cause analysis and corrective action.

We have developed 14 a procedure for the performance of root cause analysis.

We

'5 have established an incident investigation team at the site.

'o The incident investigation team is brought together i' i immediately following any event at the site which requires root cause analyelm and corrective action.

We've exercised to that team several times over the past few weeks in analyzing 20 some of the thinge that have occurred at the site in the 21 varioun evolutions and activities that we've been performing.

22 We have provide 3 them detailed root cause training.

23 One of the benefits of this tema is it provides lamediate management involvement following an event.

The shift 25 l technical advisor is part of the incident investigation team

Page 65

(

{ QQh?

~

a d tis eats to quarantine any equipment that may have been 1

.;.:e 2

offected la en event.

He coordinates the real time interview 3

of any individuals involved in the event and he calls the d

incident investigation team together.

5 Generally that team consists of the systems engineer 6

and a member from my plant operations review staff.

If they 7

feel that additional expertise is necessary on the team, they 8

have the authority to call that in.

9 MR. E5NETER:

Does this correspond to the procedure 10

-- and maybe Mr. Mason can tell me -- that you used at Browns 11 Ferry on the fire?

Is that a similar procedure?

t2 MR. MASON:

I'm Chuck Mason.

The serious accident 13 investigative team procedure is a lot more formal, a lot more 14 proceduralized and has people not necessarily all from the

'5 office of Nuclear Power, on a serious accident investigation, to which is what we used at Browns Ferry on the fire.

MR. ERNETER:

So the difference would be incident 13 investigation versus serious accident?

'i NR. MASON:

Right.

20 let. SMITH:

Many of the principals 21 MR. MASON:

My colleague at Browns Ferry has a 22 similar incident investigation process to what Sequoyah has.

23 :

MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

MR. SMITH:

The corrective action end of the root 25 cause and corrective action leads me to our condition adverse I

i

--~

Pcga 66 I

to quality program.

In February of

'87, the existing program 2

was combined with the new corrective action program.

The new 3

program was devised to provide more direct and immediate management attention to bring about resolution of problems.

4 5

Currently in those two combined programs, there have been 3000 6

-- over 3200 condition adverse to quality reports generated 7

and we have closed over 2000 of those.

Of the existing, 3

approximately 30 total relate to Unit 2 startup.

A number of

?

those will be closed in the next few days with entry into Mode to 3.

11 MR. EBNETER:

I don't know what that chart tells me.

12 MR. SMITH:

It's a very basic chart, it just says 13 how many we've created, how many we've closed and those that 14 are remaJning open. It's hard to characterize --

15 MR. EBNETER:

What should I get out of that, that 4

you're doing a great job on CAQ's?

U MR. SMITH:

Just that we're paying attention to it

't and it's working.

i 19 MR. EBNETER:

Are you generating more than you're 20 closing?

21 MR. SMITH:

I don't believe so, no, sir.

22 MR. EBNETER:

Yes, no, maybe?

23 MR. SMITH:

Nick?

MR. KAZAWAS:

At this point we're running --

5 i MR. EBNETER:

There's quite a fe4 open yet, right?

,.e-

1 i

Page 67 I

MR. KAZANAS:

There are quite a few open.

2 MR. EBNETER:

It looks like 1000-1100 of those guys 3

are open to me.

4l MR. KAZANAS:

That's correct.

And selectively, as 5

Steve has been pointing out, if you look at those which are specific to Unit 2, in particular those which impact restart, that number is way down.

l 3,

MR. FOX:

Stu, when we have the meeting tomorrow to l

2l discuss schedule, we'll have John LePointe here and we'll give Q

you his rundown on the CAQ's.

He told me that we are not

'l generating them nearly as fast as we're closing it.

j

'2, MR. EBNETER:

What's your average time of closure?

!?

MR. FOX:

I'll have to have John answer that.

'2 !

' MR. ABERCROMBIE:

You know, Stu, when you look at j

5 that breakdown, you know, the majority of those that are still i

's ! open are in engineering -- that's first of all.

Second, you i

I':

have to remember that we have taken a very hard look at each fi, and every one of those CAQ's to determine which of them may I

': ' seet the restart criteria.

So we know those that are required 20 for Unit 2 restart.

21 MR. ERNETER:

How many?

22 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

Of those open, I don't recall what 23 ; we still have, 30 or -- about 30 as I recall still open.

2:

MR. SMITH:

Keep in mind that a large number of the 25 ] open CAQ's were written against both Unit 2 and 1 and are open 0

i l

I i

Pcge 68

- ?

i 1

because we haven't completed work on Unit 1.

2 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

3 MR. FOX:

We'll get you the specifics on the Unit 2 4

closures of CAQ's.

5 MR. EBNETER:

How is that working in relation to the 6

50.59 reviews?

7 MR. SMITH:

I guess I don't understand.

Everything 8

identified on a CAQ gets a 50.59 review.

9 MR. EBNETER:

And how long does it take you to get 10 through 50,59 reviews?

MR. SMITH:

Currently --

12 MR. EBNETER:

One day, two days, a week?

i3 MR. SMITH:

-- the average time from generation 14 requires,that the CAQ get a review for operability within --

65 and for 50.59 within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> --

's '

MR. EBNETER:

Within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />?

MR. SMITH:

-- of generation, yes, sir.

That's when 13 I the manager signs i t.

to MR. ERNETER:

The staff says no.

I only want to 20 make sure that any of these things laying around don't have 21 mafety leeuas in them that,I'm going to get stuck with and 22 you're going to get stuck with.

23 MR. SMITH:

Well I would say most recently, since my association with the CAQ program, I would have to take 25 ;

exception to Mr. Jennison's statement because I think it's I

i e

--g

-s, w,m- - - - -. -, -, -,

-,,>,,g r------

.--n-,

,---r.

,--.,w--

,n,-

---m--gm-w----,,

Pago 69 1

less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

2 MR. FOX:

This is John Hosmer.

3 MR. HOSMER:

Let me shed some big picture light on a

it.

5 MR. EBNETER:

Let me go a little bit further, this 6

QA stuff, you know, TVA was probably one of the worst in the

?

industry on QA until Nick and some people did something.

It 3

was the focus of the 50.54 effort.

The SALP reviews, QA was 9

always a 3, and this is central to the QA program.

And you"re O

not going to get off the hook easy because I want answers to it what you're doing with the CAQ's, period -- in relation to the 12 ! 50.59 reviews, and how long it takes you to close them.

13 l Thirty may not be bad for restart.

I guess I want

'a to have pose feeling that this program works, works well so

'5 that say next August when we get ready to look at another unit

's in conjunction with this one, that I don't have or you don't

'i have a backlog of 3000 CAQ's.

3!

MR. ABERCROMBIE:

Well I think we've made a lot of 1

4

'i l progress, Stu.

I think there's a major achievement in you I

20 being able to look at one piece of paper and understand what i

21 still lies out there in front of us.

22 MR. EBNETER:

But I don't understand.

23 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

Before Mr. White implemented this program, there were at least five different programs out 25 there, so that you really never kne* if there was something

I Pcgo 70 i

l 1

that:mes about to bite you.

We have established, I think, a i

2 actoss the Office of Nuclear Power, all CAQ's

??

3 arer ^ reported through that one program, they are all evaluated 4

against specific criteria.

We know which are required for 5

Unit 2 restart', we know where they all lie and whether there 6

are any in there that should concern us.

7 So I feel like we have come an awful long way in the 8

corrective action.

7 MR. EBNETER:

Well I agree you've come a long way, 10 but you know, what I'm interested in is have you arrived.

11 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

I think we have arrived.

Yes, I 12 think there's some backlog work that we have to do because our i3 threshold le so low that we have created a fairly large

)

u backlog, especially when we initiated the program.

But I is believe we've arrived.

1s MR. FOX:

We may, in Herb's opinion, have arrived t'

but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

Recently il Admiral White appointed a corporate corrective action manager, n

Ernie Condon, to focus additional attention.

We're not 20 satisfied with our ability to have timely corrective action.

21 It's much improved, it's sufficient we feel for restarting 1

22 Sequoyah, but there's a log way to go and we're still 22 continuing to put one heck of a lot of management attention on this.

I think Ken Jennison would agree.

I believe we have a 25 lot of room for improvement in this area.

Admiral White feels

I i

Pcgo 71 I

j 1

very strongly there's a lot of room for improvement, as 2

evidenced by his recent management attention in appointing a 2

corporate corrective action manager: not just CAQ's but 2

employee concern corrective action as well.

5 MR. EBNETER:

I agree.

That indicates there's still 6

a problem with it and he's trying to cope with it.

Is his coping with it effective, I guess is what I'm looking for.

8 MR. FOX:

The answer to that is it is effective, it S

has improved substantially in the last few months.

10 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

11 MR. FOX:

But there's still a lot of room for 12 '

improvement.

To call it adequate, maybe yes, maybe adequate, 13 certainly not good.

12 "M.

JENNISON:

I think your own audits dispute what

'5 you'r-isevi;.

We did an inspection week before last and gave to Mr. Abercrombie six specific things we needed to see in order U

to call the system adequate: three of which were specific i

19 corrective actions,.;three of which were prograamatJc 11 corrective actions.

The program does not generate operability 20 determinations in sufficient turnaround time, specifically for 21 Matts Bar and in some cases, from the nuclear experience 22 review program, to support the operation of the plant right 22 now.

You have implemented short term corrective actions to fix those things that were identified by both your auditors and j

25 ' our auditors and we're going to look at them next week some 2

e a

._,-.w-,..,-,e

,,.--,..--,.e,.-

--.-e,

Pcgs 72 i

i u_,j 1

time, but right now you don't have a system to support the 2

operability call you need to support the plant.

3 MR. MCCOY:

We think there's significant improvement 4

that has to be made in timeliness before you're ready to 5

restart the plant.

6 MR. ABERCROMBIE:

In the generic review area?

7 MR. JENNISON:

Yes, sir, in the Watts Bar area 3

generic review area, in talking to LePointo I think the number

?

is one generic CAQR shows up on his desk every day.

We have to j issues with the qualifications of the people doing those generic operability calls at Watts Bar, the timeliness at I

12 which they're arriving at Sequoyah and the applicability I oj guess of the CAQR's to Sequoyah.

We've discussed those with a

Mr. Kazanas and Mr. LePointe on your staff.

The solutions is!

look to be relatively simple from your point of view and I a

think when we do the inspection next week or the week af ter

• j that, that you've implemented sufficient corrective action I

3 ! that we can say the programs are acceptable, but we've not

'; i seen that now.

20 MR. EBNETER:

Mr. Kazanas, are familiar with this?

21 MR. KAZANAS:

You know, we have addressed these 22 things, we have gone back and looked at these issues.

I think 23 if you look at the Unit 2 aspects of this, and don't forget when you see the CAQR as being open, it is because there may 25 q be some aspects of the CAQ which pertain to Unit 1 and it's l

d

_r, r-. - -.

l Pcgo 73 1

not going to be closed until such time as both aspects are 2

closed.

3 As far as the operability issue, Mr. Jennison's 4

remarks are, you know, as he's reflected them.

We have been 5

following up to ensure that all of the operability issues are on the plate, they have been identified, they have been going 7

through.

We welcome your critique on it, to look at the 1

9 operability issue again.

The issues that we raise, that my QA department 10 raised, were the fact that all of them weren't on the plate.

l' And I think, you know, that process has in fact -- we've gone 12 back and ensured that this item has been included.

13 Ken, would you agree?

14

, JGt. JENNISON:

Yes, sir, I would.

15 MR. EBNETER:

So we agree that you're looking at it t6 but the staff still has some concerns.

MR. FOX:

And we'll be reinspected next week on 13 this.

Okay?

n MR. ERNETER:

Okay.

20 MR. RICHARDSON:

Steve, in your organization who is 21 it that has the responsibility for determining which events 22 are reportable to the NRC7 23 MR. SMITH:

The shift technical advisor works with the core organization and the shift supervisor to determine 25 reportability.

.m-. _.. _,

i Page 74

,_J 1

MR. RICRARDSON:

Do they have written criteria for 2

that call?

2 MR. SMITH:

Yes, they do.

4 MR. RICKARDSON:

And they're in the regular 5

compliance procedures?

6 MR. SMITH:

Yes, they are.

7 Ons of the benefits we feel about this controversial a

program is that it provides a better means of establishing

?

communications and trust between plant management and to employees.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. FOX:

Not necessarily with the NRC.

12 MR. SMITH:

To discuss one of the facets of the improved' communications and trust, I'd like to introduce Ma.

4 is Tish Jenkins.

She is currently our Director of Personnel and

s up to just a few days ago was the Manager of the Employee t?

Concerns Program since July of

'87, and she's going to discuss

! l some of the employee concerns facets.

i

!)

MS. JENKINS:

I said earlier I would address one of 20 the corporate goals, Goal Number 6 is to restore esployee 4

1 21 trust and confidence in the management in the Office of 22 Nuclear Power.

22 What I'm going to do and paint a picture of is use

2 employee concerns, the data from both the old and new programs 25 as a barometer of how I think you can assess whether or not i

_ _, _ _ _.. ~ _ _ _. _ -. _

Pego 75 I

j i p [ 'lasp larfect increasing and whether or not communications g

% yv -

2 M

.if.

3 NR. ERNETER:

Could I interrupt you for a minute?

4 MS. JENKINS:

Sure.

5 MR. ERNETER:

I want to congratulate you on your new 6

job.

7 MS. JENKINS:

Thank you.

9 MR. FOX:

For those of you who don't know, Ms.

9 Jenkins is now our Manager of Personnel in the Office of 10 Nuclear Power.

That's what Mr. Ibneter I presume is alluding il to.

12 MR. E5NETER:

Yes.

13 MS. JENKINS:

To define how you build management 14 trust, 13, develope each time managers listen to and then fix

'5 an employee's problem, whatever arena that problem is in.

'S Upon his arrival to TVA in January, 1986, Mr. White

'?

was confronted with a backlog of employee concerns, problems 3

that had been on the minde of employees, that backlog as we M

alluded to was in excene of 5000 concerns.

20 On February 1, 1986. Mr. White created two programs 21 to deel with employee concerns.

One I refer to here as the 22 old program and the other the new program, of which I have i

22 been manager since July of

'87.

The old program, because it i

I had the vast magnitude of concerns, grouped those concerns 25; into issues.

I think you're very familiar with the process i

l l

i

\\

Pago 76 l

i I

that we went through there.

Those issues were evaluated, 2

corrective actions developed, specific Sequoyah corrective 3

actions were developed for any concern where the plant named 4

was Sequoyah and for all those employee concerne from Watts 5

Bar or the other facilities that could be determined to be 6

applicable to Sequoyah.

7 At this point, all Sequoyah Unit 2 restart 3

corrective actions have been implemented.

That effort, the i

old program, was a reactive effort.

We had to do something to with the backlog, we had to eliminate the wrong or the problems of the past.

And that is the past.

How I think we

!?

can measure how we've improved in two years is mostly from the l

13 ongoing program.

)

'4 In the two years since the creation of the new

'5 employee concern program, we've had more than 11,000 contacts is with the employees in the Office of Nuclear Power.

The e

process is pretty simple.

Employees can come through that program in one of three ways.

They can send us a mailer.

On 1;

every official TVA bulletin board and every Office of Nuclear 20 Power facility, we have mail-in forms so that they can report 21 concerns.

We have staffed offices at all six sites, the four 22 nuclear plant sites and the two corporate locations in 23 Chattanooga and Knoxville, so employees may walk in at any

4 time.

We also do an exit interview with any employee who is j

5 !

transferring between sites or any employee who is leaving, h

4

li i

l Pcgo 77 j

i even if it's an hourly craft employee who leaves and comes 2

back, we exit them each time because they might have worked 3

for somebody different, might have worked in a different area 4f that time.

i 5;

In the program to date, we've got about 800 t

concerns.

You can see just from the gross trend in the numbers, 550 of those reported in 1986, about 250 in 1987.

3, You're more interested in Sequoyah and these are the same i

numbers you were given I guess a couple of weeks ago in your O!

visit to there, Mr. Ebneter.

'l In 1986, we recorded 106 concerns for Sequoyah, in G

1987, we recorded 28.

We haven't recorded any concerns from U:

Sequoyah esployees in the last three months and we've only 1

'4 !

reported, f our since last July.

And I want to dwell on why the u

numbers are low.

I think possibly we have a little bit of te' euphoria from the Christmas season and obviously morale is up i

I because we're getting closer to restart.

)

'S Our objective in employee concerns is not to get the j

'S !

number to zero, the objective is to provide an alternate path 1

20 for people to report problems.

So I think it's somewhat 21 coincidental that the numbers at Sequoyah are better.

22 Just by way of information, for the program as a 23 whole, we're going to report 44 concerns in the month of January from five individuals.

So it shows you again the l

5 j trend in overall numbers of people who are bringing that

!I i

f i

I

Pcgo 78 I

l i

program concerns is still down, averaging three to four a 2

month who come into it.

3 Exit interviews, I mention those because it's a 4

valuable source of data.

As I said, we've done close to 5

11,000 employee contacts, about 8,000 of those aire exit 6

interviews.

Any time we meet with an employee and they 7

identify a problem to us or a concern, the first question that 3

they're asked is whether or not they have reported that to i

their supervisor or to their boss.

If the answer is no, we to ask them if they're willing to.

It's impo r tant to note the II improvement in that area.

That's another way I know the 12 process is working, I know the trust is building.

1)

In 1986 for every one concern that we recorc'ed at 14 Sequoyah,,two employees agreed to take their problem back to is their supervisor to see if they could get it fixed there j

e through the proper channel.

In 1987, for every one concern we 17,

recorded, nine employees took their problem back to their i

'3 supervisor to get it fixed.

I also know that they're getting ti fixed when they're taken back there.

I track those as open 20 flies rather than concerns.

The cumulative total for Sequoyah 21 is 446 issues were taken back to the boss or back to the line 22 to get solved.

Today 79 of those remain open, so I know by 23 closing the loop, by going back to the employee and asking them did your supervisor resolve your problem, I know that 25 that is in fact working.

e y

,,--,y

---.7

-em,,,

m

.--- m

,-m--

_m,_

,e,-

o Page 79 iLj 1

Another thing of significance to see, I guess, the 2

validity of the program,teelf: 874 of the recommendations 3

that come from the employee concerns program reports and investigations are implemented by the line without change, 3

5 another 74 have been isolemented with some modification that's 6

negotiated between the program and the line organization.

So only 64 are still somewhat open to debate.

None have been i

escalated to the level of Mr. White for resolution in the two i

years of the program.

!O The process itself, it's important for us to know the employee concern program and all the mechanisms of how it i

i 12 l works, is functioning correctly.

We've had numerous audits 13 l and inspections that tell us that the process is working, two I

'4 !

comprehensive audits by the NRC, in addition to adding it on is routine monthly inspections.

We have two audits by the office

'e of Inspector General, we're on an annual audit cycle with them, comprehensive every two years, follow up on action itess

'i on the alternate years in between.

We've also had a number of M

audits by the Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance, most 20 recently an audit of the corporate, Chattanooga and Knoxville 21 operations.

We have receivrtd no violations in our program.

22 We have written isolated CAQR's dealing with specific flies, I 23 think all threp of those that we've gotten in the program to date were on Watts Bar flies.

25 j This effort is proactive, it's there to get results, i

4

1 Pcgo 80 i

i I

(thy ~right thing, and it is ongoing.

In the two years 2

6 I've been associated with thic program, I've seen it go 3

from a complaint department where we got every gripe that was 4

on everybody's aind to seeing us instill what I would call a 5

healthy skepticism oa the part of our employees.

If they see 6

hardware that looks questionable, if they're asked to follow a 1

procedure that isn't clear, if something doesn't seem right, e

they report it.

More importantly, they predominantly report 9

that problem to their boss.

Most importantly, their bosses 10 are getting it fixed.

I think what you'll see is that we have 11 begun to develop a true nuclear ethic, if you will, among our 12 employees and we can in fact quantitatively measure how well 13 we're doing in achieving that corporate goal of restoring u

employee. trust and confidence.

f5 Questions?

16 MR. EBNETER:

Yes.

I MS. JENKINS:

Certainly.

'3 MR. EBNETER:

One basic one that I would like to 10 know, on the old program, when are you going to implement the 20 procedure of making them available to the employees?

21 MS. JENKINS:

I. hope this is correct, the last 22 schedule I saw was that we planned to open the trailers I 22 believe April 4, all of the documents and reports are to be printed, available in bookahelves I believe in corporate i

25 i facilities on March 22.

II I

l Pcgo 81 ij 1

MR. EBNETER:

April 4,

trailer and March --

2 MS. JENKINS:

That's just at Sequoyah, correct.

2 MR. EBNETER:

And March 22,_ corporate.

4 MS. JENKINS:

I'll verify that and let you know if 5!

It's different from that.

I 6!

MR. EBNETER:

Do you need anytning from us on that?

7l MS. JENKINS:

I think we are still awaiting Safety Bl Evaluation on some of the engineering element reports.

I 1

MR. EBNETER:

I am concerned -- not concerned, but I C

an interested that we get that feedback to the people i

!! l implemented as soon as possible.

I Ci MS. JENKINS:

We are as well.

We have the prccess i

12 i ready to go as soon as we get those, 12

..MR.

EBNETER:

Okay.

'5 MS. JENKINS:

With that, I'll turn it back over to to Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH:

Thank you, Ms. Jenkins.

j

'S i In concert,with Ms. Jenkins' discussion about

'o improved communicat'lons, I'd like to discuss briefly some of 20 the things that we've taken -- r4ctions that we've taken to 21 laprove those communications a.nd to enhance the relationship 22 between the employees and management at the site.

23 As I previously said, we have a daily plant status 22 seeting.

We also producw a daily plant status report.

That 25 report lists the current status of both Unit 1 and 2 and any

l l

Pcco 82 1

problems associated with those units, including any limiting i

1 2

conditions for operations which may be in because of equipment

]

problems.

4l We have a series of structured periodic meetings 5'

with all plant employees.

I meet with my senior supervisors, e

those who report directly to me and the individuals who report 7i directly to them, three times weekly at 7:30 in the morning.

B In there we discuss personnel problems, administrative 2

problems, organizational interface type problems and assign i

Mi responsibilities for correction of those problems.

I

l I meet with all 250 plant supervisors monthly.

'?

Again we discuss problems which they are involved with, we

)l discuss the previous month's activities and our plans for the l

'4 ;

oncoming month's activities.

l

'5 l Once per quarter I seet with the entire staf f that l reports to me, approximately 1200 people, it takes about seven i

' h days because our assembly areas only holds about 200 people.

N

3 ;

In those meetings, we discuss the previous quarter's progress and our plans for progress in the forthcoming 20 quarter, plus those areas that we feel require laprovement in 21 the plant, areas such as procedure adherence, interface, 22 preplanning of work activities.

23 Periodically we hold meetings with plant staff organizations which may have been involved in an event at the

s plant, to assure they understand what things transpired to l

i i

1

II-l Page 83 e

1 j

1 cause the event and where areas of correction are required,

?

what those areas of correction are.

3 We require our managers to meet daily in the plan of i

a!

the day meeting, again where we discuss plant technical and l

5 ';

administrative problems, where we assign responsibility for i

I t

those corrections and hold the people accountable for meeting the schedule for making those corrections.

B We have required the operations management to be in if attendance at training sessions with our plant operators.

We 10 l will further be requiring other management individuals to attend training with their plant employees.

This helps to 12 ;

enhance the communications between the manager and the u,

employee and gives him a better observation of the l

u individual's performance.

He also can observe the quality of 5{

i the training itself and make recommendations for its i

'e improvement.

'l We have management attendance at our daily shift 3l turnover meetings for operations, not only management that I

!? :

reports to me, but management on a more senior corporate level i

20 periodically attends those meetings and makes observations and 21 even participates in discussions in the shift turnover 22 meetings.

22 We have formalized communications between operations and maintenance personnel, that includes the testing 25 organizations that are not a part of maintenance.

Those i

,.-,,,,,--,n,-

,-.,n-

Page 84 i

i i

formalized communications are intended to improve the dialogue 2

between the individual in the field performing an acil ity and 3

the operator in the control room to help assure that both l

4 Individuals understand what the other individual is doing and 5

that the performance of activities in the plant are well 6

understood by the operator and he understands the effect on 7

the plant.

e, some discussion has been made about the term 7

"nuclear ethic".

I'm sure that if I were to canvass this 10 room, I would get as many definitions for that term as there 11q are people in the room.

We at Sequoyah collectively 22 approached the problem and we feel that a number of areas are

'? ] part of the nuclear ethic.

d ud

' "W e feel that safety consciousness about plant 1

'5hequipment, its operations and the way we perform our U

ahactivities is essential to the nuclear ethiu and that we

O should instill a high level of safety consciousness in all h

'3 plant personnel.

h We feel that there should be a strong willingness to 2

Identify, admit and fix problems: not just plant hardware 21 problems, but we're talking about individual personnel 2: jproblems in performance, organizational performance problems,

!! organizational interface problems such as 2]

the interface between Mr. Hosmer and myself in our organizations..

We feel 25 a that we've bridged that gap with the systems engineering U

'l 1

1 i

I l

1

l l

l Page 85 4

i j

1 group.

L 2

We're looking for ways constantly to improve 3

operations, not just on an operational basis but operations 4

such as the repair of components in the plant, calibration and 1

5 testing activities, the design review and the design output 6

function itself.

The term not accepting the unacceptable aligns itwelf tc our daily activities and observations of 8

performance in the plant.

I now have a janitorial service

^

that will make you pick up a cigarette butt should you choose

)

l 1C to stomp one out on the floor.

They wouldn't have done that

)

t' before.

That's unacceptable.

' h We feel that a clear definition of expectations of 1.'

all personnel and the accountabilities for those personnel is m

h uyessentialtoestablishinganuclearethic.

Clearly defined goals and standards and responsibjlities and being personally d

1 Oaccountable for meeting those expectations.

We feel nost of

.l all that good communications and trust between management and 0employeesarethe foundation to the nucivar ethic and we feel 9

M h at the Sequoyah Plant that is the area we excelled in most, 20 that of communications and trust between management and 21 employees.

22 Gentlemen, with that, again I feel the Sequoyah I

is fully prepared both administrative 1y and l Plant 23 organizationally to restart Unit 2.

a 5q MR. EBNETER:

Could I ask you a question?

Page 86 I

i i

MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

2 MR. EBNETER:

Would you describe your drug program 3

for us?

4 MR. SMITH:

We have a fitness for duty program that 5

consists of a training and a drug screening process.

That 6

program aligns itself to all individuals who are both employed 7

by TVA in the Office of Nuclear Power or perform services to 8

the Office of Nuclear Power.

That program on your employment physical provides a screening, there's a four hour training 10 session for all employees and a one day training session for 11 management personnel which includes training in behavioral 12 observation to help detect a change in the attitude and i

u behavior of the individual that might align itself to the use

'4 d of a contr'olled substance or alcohol abuse.

i S

i That program has -- I'm sorry -- the program l

1e ; consists of that, the training plus an employee -- help me i

i UI MS. JENKINS:

Assistance.

)

i isj MR. SMITH:

-- assistance program.

Okay, I lost the liword, I'm sorry.

c MS. JENKINS

Rehab.

1 21 MR. SMITH:

Shift employees --

22 MR. EBNETER:

You should turn it over to Tish.

i 23 (Laughter.)

2 MR. SMITH:

She talks better than me.

25 MR. EBNETER:

I know some of the features and I'm

i i

Page 87 i

i t j 1

interested, I guess what I'm primarily interested in is what 2

is your history in the past since June.

I know you had some j

3 difficulties some time ago.

j 4

MS. JENKINS:

I'll have to verify this officially, 5

we're getting ready to issue it, 882 people have been through t

the program to date, right now our testing positive rate is 7

.07%.

Industry average for people who have that I understand S

is about a 1%, so we're testing at below --

L' MR. SMITH:

Does that come out to five people?

O MS. JENKINS:

Pardon?

'i MR. ABERCROMBIE:

That8 m the number I had.

11

'?

MS. JENKINS:

Okay, it's a statistic.

o O

!? a MR. FOX:

I think the number today is more like u[eightpeople.

We've had two or three in the last week or so t

n Mllthat tested positive.

It wasn't mentioned and I want to point e h'l i

out that our program, not at Sequoyah, this is all of Office il F

" n of Nuclear Power, our program is based on an entry screening u

E

's ti and a random program.

i MR. EBNETER:

I recognize that.

M 20 MR. SMITH:

This program iu very similar to what I'm 4

21 familiar with from at least two other nuclear facilities.

22 MR. BYNUM:

I can comment also on that a little bit 23 more.

I'm a member of the oversight group that oversees the 24 fitness for duty program and as Charlie indicated, there's a l

25

, random screen and there's also n for-cause screen, that if i

- ~

Page 88 i

L_j 1

some some reason there's some allegations that can be 2

relatively well substantiated then we may bring an individual i

3 in for cause, or if there's some performance problem out in

)

1 4

the plant that might indicate, we bring them in for cause.

I 5

believe our for cause percentage is about 4% and our total is 6

a little less than 14.

7 MR. EBNETER:

I think that's a good example, the B

approach you've taken of the drug program.

The positive I

1 l!i approach af ter we had the incident with the security forces.

EaI think that's good.

Would anybody like to take a break, o

o 0J MR. FOX:

Let's take a break.

It's now roughly l

0C 3:00, let's be back by 3:15.

d

'ah MR. EBNETER:

Yes.

(A short recess was taken.)

i u(

MR. FOX:

Let's go ahead and get started.

Our next "q speaker is Joe Bynum.

Joe is our Assistant Manager for Nuclear Power.

He joined us last fall, came from Palo Verde, a

4 which is a three unit station, the largest nuclear station in 20 the country.

Joe was Plant Manager there for all three units.

l 21 He is a former TVA employee, he has experience at both Browns 22 Ferry and at Sequoyah and I guess his last assignment at 23 l Sequoyah was as Assistant Plant Manager.

l!

Since he joined us last October, Joe has been fuli 25 time at the site working on operational readiness of Unit 2.

j

'l E

i o

,~-

Page 89 i

t _

1 His topic today is Operations Assessment.

7 OPERATIONAL READINESS 3

MR. BYNUM:

Thank you, Charlie.

I, like John 4

Hosmer, may have to apologize for my voice.

One thing 2 hat 5

tells you though is we have a close knit management team, when 6

Mr. White gets sick, we all gut sick.

As he indicated, my 7

topic --

8 MR. EBNETER:

Tich does not have a cold.

if (Laughter.)

1 1: 1 MR. SMITH:

That shows she has good taste.

't MR. HOSMER:

We're working on that.

': q (Laughter.)

^h MR. BYNUM:

Steve Smith has just discussed overall u{,planreadiness and I'd like to focus for a few minutes on what

!l if0 I cal) operational readiness assessment.

That's really

'i

'thfocusingaroundtheactivities in the main control room and i

 !! t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s intertecing directly with the main control l

II room.

4 As we've discussed a little, there are many inputs 20 to this process.

I've listed 3 few and I'd like to discuss 21 them for a moment.

In the management area, as Charlie Fox has 22 discussed with you, we have a broad base of commercial 23 experience in the TVA nuclear program, both at the corporate 2

level, site director level, plant manager level, project h

25 engineering level.

Sole of those you have heard from today li 1

..m._.

7, -..,, _ _

l Page 90 t

L_

1 already.

This broad base of experience has givua us very guod 2

assessment, not only of TVA's improvements, but how in fact it 3

compares with other plants in the industry.

The NRC needs no 4

further words said about that.

5 INPO, we had a plant evaluation in late 1986 but 6

more luportant, we have assist visits in October of '87 and i

7 November of '87 where INPO came in on an assist vis!st and e

completely evaluated each operating crew on the simulator.

0 Nuclear managers' review group is a permanent staff i

10 t experienced in various disciplines.

There are approximately 25 permanent employees in this group and to date they've i

bconductedninesomeoddreviews.

i:

l These reviews being in the u]areaofoperations, operations training, maintenance and other ai areas.

15 Operational readiness review, there have actually hc been two operational readiness reviews conducted at the a

"t request of Mr. White.

The first one was conducted in early a

1 '1987 and to be quite frank, that wr.s just not tough enough.

n n

It wasn't thorough enough for Mr. White, the standards were 20 not high enough.

Also that review was really premature, 21 premature as far as where the operating organization wan with

2 respect to taking control of the unit.

That's a subject that I

Iwe'll be talking more about in a few minutes.

There atre many others.

The other operational 251 readinees review team was chartered by Mr. White in August of

)

l ry m_.

.,.c y

, ~... _

y.___

page 91 f

1

'87.

At that time he selected eight senior management level e

2 individuals with a wide variety of experience both in the 3

allitary and commercial and with nuclear steam supply system 4

vendors.

That group began in August and continues today.

5 They issued an interim report in October of 1987.

Upon 6

issuance of that interim report, we immediately began taking 7

corrective actions.

9 The final report was issued January of

'89.

In i

evalunting that report, which was my primary charge from Mr.

4 White, we evaluated that report in conjunction with the two i

'I g INp0 assist visits that I indicated that were done to ovaluate

2 [!

each operating crew.

Out of those, we selected those items 1 :- !! that were required for restart.

We have reviewed those items, lj u

ve have, responded to them and a response has been submitted to f M.. White.

There will be an addendum to the ORR report based 15

?

1 4 on current observations that are now ongoing by the ORR team.

I 3

There are also many others and we've heard about a p

13 couple of those today already.

The employee concern program, O

nil the conditions adverse to quality program, of course the i

i Ki nuclear safety review board is another organization that gives 1

21 its assessment of operational rec.diness.

22 Let's look for a minute at what we've learned.

To 23 begin with, I'd like to discuss first general improvements l

I i

n

' 'that are really in the areas that management must address.

l

.5i And again, I'm generalizing here, but you'll see the themes

)

Pcg3 92 f

i i

l 1

that are on this slide carry into all the specific actions 2

that we'll be discussing in a few moments.

3 In general, management must set the climate for a 4

critical self-assessment.

I think we'll all agree, those who l

5 have looked at TVA in the past several years, that this was 6

one of the primary fallings, the lack of critical self-7 assessment.

So we must emphasize this from a management point 8

of view.

l We must also provide clear precedural guidance.

We 10 have discussed the procedure aspects and the nted to have 11 standards and the needs for those standards to be consistent.

L

'?

We also must expect procedural adherence.

People 13 need to understand and must understand from management that we 14 expect them to adhere to the procedures that are provided.

5 We must emphasize the operating focus.

As I a

indicated, the first ORR team was premature, basically because we were still in the engineering, evaluation, modification 13 ;

phase.

We have completed that phase, we're now into the heat-N

+

1;{upphase, the operators are clearly in charge and management 20 has made it c16Tr to all support organizations that opeantions 21 is in charge.

I think John Hosmer's presentation a few j

22 moments ago indicates the focus that's been put in the lengineeringareaonsupportingoperations.

23 i

I In addition, we muss upgrade specific knowledge 25'iareas.

Based on the detailed assessment given by the I

i e

.---mw-<-r----r

--nwo-,o--.-r,r--e-

Paga 93 p

t J 1

organizations that I showed on the other side on the previous 2

slide, there were some detailed specific knowledge areas that 3

were shown to need upgrading.

We've upgraded those.

4 Now to be more specific, I'm going to address 5

operationa readiness assessment in three major areas:

6 management involvement which as I said to begin with we

?

consider the most important aspect, the administrative 9

controls and the standards of performance.

i In the management involvement we will look at

0 observation of work activities.

I don't think there's anybody ib in this room that doesn't appreciate criticality of effective Ghcommunicationsandhow that communications must be made to the

': [ observation of work activities.

u]

Also, the involvement in operator training.

This 15ilwas again an area that was looked at very critically.

This is l

't j absolutely necessary for management for two reasons.

One is

" lih not only to assess the training, but also to assess the staff I!

'sviin their performance.

!l My The third areas is plant operations review 1

20 committee.

We must very carefully look at the effectiveness s

21 of the plant operations review committee in the overview of 22 safety.

23 l

Let's look at some of the improvements we've made in a

J M

these areas.

Steve Smith has already indicated our emphasis I

Sjonthewalkingspacesphilosophy.

Not only are we telling

I Page 94 l

iL _j i

supervisors and managers to get out in the field and observe 2

activities, but we're also training them how to effectively 3

walk your spaces.

Effective walking the spaces is 4

observation, evaluation and feedback of what is indicated.

5 Observation and critique of training.

Here we have o

established a schedule for management observation and critique 7

of operator training, both in the requalification cycle and a

with special startup training which I will address in a few

?

minutes.

There is a specific schedule for managers up to and 10 including the site director to periodically go and evaluate operator training, and not only evaluate it but critique it at

': l that time.

l I

'.(

Periodic meetings with personnel obviously are importan,t to emphasize our goals, to emphasize our standards u

15 and our expectations.

Steve Smith has already indicated how I

3 we have used this on at least two occasions to take lessons

" ji learned from incidents in the plant that could be applicable I

tiilacross t

the board, and to sit down with all of the employees on U

n!I the operating shift in separate groups and diacuss the 0

specific activities and specific problems that were 21 encountered so that each worker can see how those same type 22 problems might apply to them.

2]

l We've revised the plant operations review committee 1

responsibilities.

We revised Section 6 of the Technical 25 iSpecifications to get away from the traditional procedure i

Page 95

~

i t _

1 review and approval process which has been historic for the 2

plant operations review committee, and go to an overall 2

assessment of safety and overall assessment of interfaces between organizations and disciplines.

4 5

The next area we'll discuss is administrative 6

controls.

Again, a critical area, the maintenance and l

)

7 operations interface.

As we've already discussed in here, 9

it's a very important item to look at the balance between the i

operators need to know exactly what's going on in his plant l

Dlland taking some of the administrative burden off of the U" operating crew

't it's a very critical area.

So we have formed li til what we call the work control group and the unit managers to e

address these and I'll discuss those in a moment.

1 3

I

'd The other areas I have listed; temporary 15 ] modifications, night orders, operator aid posting, tagging, itL system alignment and independent verification; are all very h

i

" ll specific areas which have historically been problems at other a

l I

(

M plants.

Steve Smith can verify and I can verify that the Ml plants that we just left had problems in all of these areas, 2c so we put a lot of attention in each of these areas.

21 MR. EBNETER:

Could I ask you something?

Give me an l

22 example of an independent verification.

What did you do to do

] lsomething about it.

I l

24 MR. BYNUM:

Okay, if we'll go to the next slide 25 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

g l

Page 96 I

i l

1 MR. BYNUM:

-- I'll go through this slide, Mr.

\\

2 Ebneter, and then at the end if I haven't answered your 3

question, we'll try it again.

4 MR. EBNETER:

I'll ask you again.

5 MR. BYNUM:

The improvements as I mentioned and 6

Steve Smith has already discussed this: the establishment of a 7

work control group.

Here we took activities out of the main a

control room such that we could get operational impact review, i

such that we could get coordinated activities outside the main 10 control room and such that we could provide prioritization

'l j

based on operations' input.

As we indicated, we have a unit t

i 1:

l manager who works with the work control group to specifically 0]prioritize those items that operations needs.

We've taken the I

14 j activity and located it outside the main control room to c

I

'.!( minimize traffic into the control room.

We've also given it i

1 1 j another level of operational impact review.

" b; Those items that are brought to the work control h

E ' group that don't requiro specific knowledge by the chif t isupervisor are approved in that group for work in the field.

D Administrative procedure changes, I've indicated 21 four of the administrative procedures that we have changed:

22 l conduct of operations, here we clearly spell out our stand 2rds 4

l 22 lofoperations, standards for communications, procedural i

adherence, shift turnover, log keeping and other items.

And 25 as I indicated, this program is going to be carried en ov=r i

1 l

I

Page 97 I

1 into the maintenance area, rad control area and other areas.

u.

2 Configuration status control, what we've done in 3

that area to address your question, is we've revised our whole 4

procedure on configuration status control to better aid the 5

operator in establishing and maintaining that control.

For 6

instance, on valves that are control board indicated and 7

operated from tne control board, rather than having to put a B

separate sheet in the configuration log for each of those i

valves, we have deleted those from the procedure, from i

M j! administrative viewpoint.

t

'l a/

We have also establishe.2, when we did initial system

'; ] alignment, the valve alignment group which went into the

.'jfield,verifiednotonlyonthedrawings that the as-built a

configuration as reflected on the drawings, but also verified h

if f the position of the valves in the field.

In looking at the configuration status control U

" i: procedure, after the initial difficulties we had when we Y

Hh initially began system allgament, we actually went to INPO and l

ii M]askedthemwhointheindustryisagoodperformerinthis 1

1 M ! area and we got several of their procedure and our procedure J

21 in fact is a hybrid of those.

22 Those are some of the things we've done.

Any I

22p further questions in that area?

l d

i 24 MR. EBNETER:

Yeah, that was an INPO finding and I'm I

5hgladyoudidthat, but I -- I guess what I really want to know

]

P I

Pcg3 98 l

i L_J 1

is Mr. White's group did a large study and they gave you maybe 2

4 to 7 pets on the back and 13 negatives.

INPO did a study 3

and gave you 4 good guys and 26 bad guys, four of which should 4

be done before restart.

I guess what I would like to know is 5

that you took these studies, took the negatives one by one and 6

addressed them and particularly those that they said are 7

restart issues, which some of these are not.

The one I asked a

you about was independent verification where they recommended 7

that independent verification be done by someone other than a 10 person who accompanied the man doing the work.

'1 MR. BYNUM:

Yes.

1

'2 MR. EBNETER:

So what I'm asking you is I have two l

a basic reports from INPO, one from the ORR, Mr. Kazanas has a

a ! group of people who I have never seen their reports, I assume i

u there are some reports and I assume there are some negatives

'e in those.

I would like to be able to say that TVA told me

jyes, I looked at every one of those and the ones for restart Uji have been corrected and the others are in the mill.

il i; li MR. BYNUM:

And that's correct, Mr. Ebneter.

l I;

2D MR. EBNETER:

Is that true?

21 MR. BYNUM:

Yes, it is.

22 MR. EBNPTER:

So if I pick one at random and ask you 23 about it, you can tell me what you did.

22 MR. BYNUM:

Yes, it is.

What we did specifically in 25 ithe area of second party verification is we wrote a procedure i

-A

i Page 99 i

j 1

that specifically identified the method fo.' second party c

2 verification, for valves, breakers and other things like that.

3 We instructed each member of the verification team, he had training on that specific procedure.

Now one crea that was of d

5 some controversy war do the' individuals go together or do they 6

have to go independently.

That particular item we centinued 7

to allow them to go together with specific instructiona on B

what second party verification maant, how each Individual S

would have to physically take a valve -- for instance, to D

verify that a valve is open, you know, run the hand wheel in l'slightly and then run it back out full open.

So we gave that 12 ll specific instruction.

Since then we have looked as a long N

'?p term corrective action, we have concurred that we will send in 12 the futu,re, people out Individually.

But this requires a 15 0 number of procedural changes.

This not only affects system h

't alignment but it affects tagging and many of the other

'[ procedures, some of the instrument procedures where you have 0

M d root valves and things like that.

il

';h MR. EBNETER:

I recognize and that one was not a 5

C restart item as defined by INPO.

But let me g.8,ve you one that 21 I would really like an answer to.

22 NR. BYNUM:

Okay.

22 MR. EBNETER:

Mr. White's team omid we recommend I

i 2

that a program --

how did they write it, let me read it to e

t i

25 h you -- a formal plan should be developed regarding completion H

I c

Page 100

(

t 1

of actions on remaining ORR concerna.

And it should be 2

demonstrated a commitment to the plan by site management.

3 MR. BYNUM:

Right.

4 MR. EBNETER:

Do you have that plan?

5 MR. BYNUM:

Yes, sir.

What we did --

6 MR. EBNETER:

Could I see that plan?

l 7

MR. BYNUM:

Yes.

And I think --

8 MR. EBNETER:

And I can see everybody's tracking?

MR. BYNUM:

Yes.

Mr. Zach in fact has a copy of the 10 i responses that we made for restart.

I specifically gave Mr.

t

!!Zech a copy and that is signed -- that response, which gives 0jall the corrective actions and due dates for those corrective d

'4 actions for restart, that response is signed by Steve Smith, i

d I

14 Herb Abercrombie and myself.

1 l

15[

MR. SMITH:

And if I may -- this is Steve Smith --

i Joe is the' corporate individual that is assigned lq

",; respor-sibility for those responses.

There is a site

!! individual that reports directly to me that's full time

'i i

llinvolvedinassuringthat the individual organizations are 20 [1 meeting their commitments on those responses also.

1 21 MR. EBNETER:

Does that plan contain Mr. Kazanas' 22 findings?

i

)

i MR. BYNUM:

There are not any specific findings in t here unless they overlap the ORR findings or the INPO i

5

, findings.

Mr. Kazanas' findings, there is a mechanism for 1

1 l

Pcga 101 f-1 those to be dealt with, you know, through its own process.

We g.

2 did not include that as a part of the ORR/INPO findings.

But 3

there is a program to address those.

4 MR. EBNETER:

Did Mr. Kazanas have any findings?

5 MR. BYNUM:

I'll let him address that.

6 MR. KAZANAS:

The way our program is designed, as we 7

find the problems, we try to resolve them and resolve them as 8

quickly as possible.

So when we find a problem, for example, i

you know, with valve alignment, we will see that the problem L

M y is resolved on the spot if possible and then we will be i!

h tracking it to provide management the overview that this kind

??jofaproblemis-- in fact it may be a recurring problem.

So

" [ we'll have regular management reviews, which we do with l management twice a week whereby we sit down and go over these 1

5h things to ensure that the actions are in place and the llL corrective actions have been taken.

I

'7 MR. EBNETER:

But did you have any findings?

n

'id MR. KAZANAS:

With respect to what?

'i MR. EBNETER:

My understanding is you had a special n

'QA group that was studying operational readiness and reviewing f

21 the control room and these various operational readiness

(

r 22 aspects.

Is that not true?

i MR. SMITH:

If I may -- this is Steve Smith --

l MR. BYNUM:

I'm going to address that, you're 25 y talking about --

h i

f i

nn.,,,,-.---n-.

l Page 102 r

g__

1 MR. EBNETER:

The QA group I'm talking about.

2 NR. SMITH:

The organization that was put together 3

is actually called a shift operating advisor and it's a 4

combination of quality assurance representatives who have 5

senior reactor operator license and other individuals who were 6

qualified senior reactor operators at other utilities.

That 7

activity is ongoing. I have morning debriefs with those j

e organization -- or those individuals.

They as an organization 9

are currently putting a report together, they have not issued t

10 l!

that report yet but my preliminary information is that there I

11 h are no restart issues, only recommendations for improvement in b

1: 1 overall performance.

h aj MR. EBNETER:

I'm glad you've improved that much, u[ but I guess I'd like to see what they're finding before we go 15 ll to the Commission next week.

L h

MR. ByNUM:

If you look at their daily reports, I

',there are some specific, you know, things that they point out.

l' MR. EBNETER:

I guess we can look at this a couple

\\

o

, of different ways.

One of them was your first ORR report u

i

] covered October through December, right?

l i

21 MR. FOX:

It actually started back in August and the t

22 interim report was in October.

22h MR. EBNETER:

I know.

And they had some d

I recommendations really, the INPO report came out in November i

25 j! and December, two separate reports.

I guess what I would like

\\l a

l l

J i

Page 103 f

1 to see, particularly this group that Nick's people were L

2 involved with, this integrated group, they should be able --

3 somebody should be able to feadback that these things that 4

were discovered in the initial time phase and the corrective 5

actions that were implemented since then are working.

6 MR. FOX:

Joe's going to speak to that later in his 7

talk and Dick Mullee is also going to have some comments.

B MR. BYNUM:

Yeah, I'm going to address that.

I i

I

^

didn't realize you were talking about the shift operating Cladvisoryprogram.

I will discuss that, h

]

MR. EBNETER:

Well I had talked with Mr. Kazanas a

'l ii

!?

couple of times on it and I like the concept of it, but I was 3

13 really interested if it did anything.

uh MR. BYNUM:

Okay.

In the area of tagging, we 15[ established a tagging crew and again that was to take the

't

1. burden out of the main control room.

i d

/

Control of temporary modifications, we've emphasized i

p 5 ' reducing the number of temporary modifications and in addition s

' 0to that controlling very closely those temporary modifications 22 that in fact we do approve ensuring that the proper safety 2t evaluation is made on those.

22 MR. EBNETER:

Could you tell me, Mr. Bynum, just

3 roughly how many comp measures are in effect out at the plant at the present time?

MR. ByNUM:

If you define coup measures, you know,

Page 104

(

i i

1 as we did in the report that we issued to you where we talk 2

about those things that take the place of an automatic action 3

4 MR. EBNETER:

That's essentially what I'm talking 5

about.

6 MR. BYNUM:

I think it's on the order of 20 or so 7

right now.

?

MR. SMITH:

I believe about 22.

5 MR. EBNETER:

Twenty two, so if I asked you how many 1

Appendix R exemptions you have that you had to have a comp

'l measure for, you would essentially say zero or just one or

??p two?

13 MR. BYNUM:

I don't know specifically how many-of

4 those are Appendix R.

I don't know the answer to that, how 15 many specifically are Appendix R.

't MR. ABERCROMBIE:

We were at zero at one time, I i think the recent issues that have been developed regarding dl Appendix R have caused us H

to put a couple in place.

I Mq MR. EBNETER:

Okay, so you have a total of about 22 9

20 that require coup measures?

21 MR. BYNUM:

Yes, sir.

22 MR. EBNETER:

Those comp measures might range 22 anything from a special procedure instruction for a man to do something in an event or it may involve a fire alarm?

5 ll MR. BYNUM:

That's correct.

l

Page 105 f'

I MR. EBNETER:

About 22 of those.

I don't need L

2 exactly, I just wanted some idea what range it is.

3 MR. BYNUM:

Yes.

4 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

5 MR. BYNUM:

Okay, in the area of standards of 6

performance, I chose the term standards of performance and 7

really what I want to discuss now is a look at the bottom line B

of how does the operating shift perform.

And in this Sldiscussionwe'llbe talking about licensed operators, non-RJ licensed operators, shift technical advisors, chemistry and h

l radiation control.

Obviously, maintenance is an important i-1

jitemandMr. Smith has already discussed some of the i

0 l assessments we've done in the maintenance area and i

'4j improvem,ents we've made there.

(

t! !!

In looking at the improvements to improve actually P

't the standards of performance, if you look at the operating c

0[ crew, we are now training as an operating crew.

We're n

h training in many different areas, some of those are conduct of (l

operations.

We had a one-day seminar where we discussed

C professionalism, where we discussed conduct of operations and l

21 the new conduct of operations procedure, with each and every 22 crew.

In this seminar, we had already trained each shift supervisor and in this seminar, the shift supervisors 22 themselves trained their own crews in the new conduct of shift

5 operations procedures.

When I say crew, that includes the ti i

Pcg3 106 r

i I

1 shift technical advisor and through the assistant unit i

2 operators.

3 The startup training, we have completed a three day 4

special startup training course for all the operating crews 5

for Unit 2.

This three day course included specific training 6

on startup procedures, with emphasis on formality and the 7

conduct of operations.

6 During heatup, this of course will give us a chance i!

to allow the operators to refamiliarize themselves with a hot I

plant.

We're planning specific evolutions such as taking the 1

?? i main feed pump and placing it in service and taking it out of service, rolling the main turbine and other major evolutions L that we will take each shift crew though.

>2 a

' 4 [i The team work and diagnostic skills is an ongoing h

1 isl effort.

We emphasize that in the startup training that we a

had, the three day training, it's also being emphasized in

'p week one of requalification cycle which is currently under

' way.

Again, that will be an ongoing effort, j

i u i We evaluated the non-licensed operator proficiency.

.I

l In this area we've taken some dramatic steps.

Prior to this I

i 21 l evaluation we had approximately 12 auxiliary unit operetor

{statione and each individual rotated through the 12 stations.

i i

3 : Since the evaluation, we have now split that up into two major l

' groups.

We have a water and waste processing group that has I

l 25 approximately six stations and then we have a power block, so I

l r--

i Page 107 r

1 to speak, that has roughly six stations, including the u

2 auxiliary building, turbine building and control room.

3 By reducing the number of stations responsible for, 4

of course makes it much easier for an individual to remain 5

qualified on those stations.

In addition to that, we have 6

independently evaluated the joint team from the operations 7

staff of the plant and the training center, each individual B

AUO on each station that he is in fact qualified for.

In S

effect, we have recertified all of the AUo's for those 4

stations that they are qualified for.

This is a formal il jexamination that was given, again in conjunction with the a

j training center.

U 124 We have integrated the shift technical advisors into a

ulltheshiftcomplement.

As Mr. Smith indicated, we have gone d

150awayfrom the fireman concept where you had an on-call shift b

e h technical advisor within ten minutes of the control room, to O

Pllan actual on-shift, as a part of an integral shift complement.

d!]

Chemistry shift assessment and radiation control l

shift assessment, here we assess the extarience level of all b

2C the individuals in these groups.

We currently have two ANSI 21 qualified chemistry techs and four ANSI qualified radiation 22 protection techs on each shift.

In addition to that we put a 22 supervisor on each shift to give better interface with the N

control room and to give better accountability.

5 Now I'll go into the implementation verification.

Page 108 1

In the area of management involvement, we have seen good 2

response in our tours of the control room -- and when I say 3

our tours, I'm talking everywhere from of course the plant manager and the operations group management all the way up to 4

5 and including Mr. White.

We have seen good response f rom the 6

operators in the control room, we've seen a willingness to 7

learn, we've seen a willingness to do what is expected by 8

management.

In the few areas that we have had problems, Steve j

Smith indicated we've stopped work, we've evaluated the root 10 j cause of those problems, we've met with the people, met with i-

'ih all of the people not just those involved, but we've met with ll 3 h the entire plant staff and we've gone over those events for 1

0 aHlessons learned.

i u il The shift operating advisor is a joint effort as we l

is d indicated, between quality assurance and operations.

I just 1

t[ recently reviewed essentially all of the daily reports from the SOA's.

They give specific observations in the areas of l

5 procedural adherence, in the areas of questioning attitude,

'; l knowledge of plant conditions, shift turnover, log keeping and 1

other items.

By and large, those reviews have been positive.

t They of course did point out some areas and some specific 22 l cases that required further attention.

By and large those.

b i

2: P those reviews have been good.

I.

C

]

In my discussions with the shift operating advisors, 4

,9, yesterday I discussed with two of them what their bottom line 25 i

j d

=

Page 109 i

t I

conclusions were.

Both of them indicated that the people are 2

ready for restart.

3 Nuclear managers' review group has been given 4

specific responsibility by Mr. White to follow up on the ORR 5

findings.

Mr. Dick Mullee, the Director of the Nuclear 6

Managers' Review Group is here with us and he will comment on 7

his findings.

MR. EBNETER:

Could I ask a couple of questions?

7 MR. BYNUM:

Yes, sir.

10 MR. EBNETER-The AUO's, the reports were not very favorable to the AUO's regarding training and --

o l,

MR. BYNUM:

They were not.

d MR. EBNETER:

-- discipline and attitude.

It

'J indicated that they were serving two masters, they were 1

15 y working for the shift engineer but yet taking direction from e

the rad waste supervisor.

"[

MR. BYNUM:

That's right and'that's --

l MR. EBNETER:

What have you done in this area?

MR. BYNUM:

That's primarily the reason we went to

0 the waste and water treatment.

We have separated -- thowe 21 individuals now work for a, supervisor that is in charge of 22 waste and water treatment.

t

l MR. EBNETER:

So he no longer works for the SE?

i N

MR. BYNUM:

He does not.

25 I MR. EBNETER:

There were some negative comments with i

1 Page 110 L__

1 regard to aggressiveness and leadership qualities of the 2

control room crew leaders.

3 MR. BYNUM:

In one specific crew, INPO pointed out 4

that there was indicated a lack of leadership and a lack of 5

communication.

In fact, we have restructured that specific The shift supervisor that was on that crew is no longer 6

crew.

7 with that crew, we've restructured that crew.

We have s

retrained that crew on communications and on assertiveness.

We've taken that specific shift supervisor and he is in

^

I 10} ongoing training as we speak.

O

!1q MR. EBNETER:

Have you done anything long term to h

'?[give those shift engineers management and leadership training II u d or anything of that nature?

O u ll MR. BYNUM:

Yes, we have.

Again, not only as a part I

n5 ! of the program that Ms. Blackburn discussed, but also we are 1

a ]! including some elements of it in the requalification training.

I a

I might indicate that INPO's evaluation of the shift crews it 1'

!!!!though, their botton line was that our operations crews are at i

n lor above average, that was their conclusion.

t 20 MR. EBNETER:

I recognize that was their general 21 conclusion, they were above average, but the second time they 22 came back, they had these negative comments.

22 MR. BYNUM:

Well that's because there were only two crews remaining, so those were the two crews and they only had 1

251 the problem with the one crew.

PC'o ill i

L 1

MR. FOX:

Is that clear?

?

MR. EBNETER:

But one crew out of six is still a 3

pretty high percentage.

4 MR. BYNUM:

But that one has been fixed, that crew 5

has been fixed.

Not only that, but INPO came back last week 6

and in fact Frank Beard -- Pat Beard, who is the Vice President of the Evaluation and Assistance of INPO brought i

several other members with him to look specifically at our

^

corrective actions based on the two reports that they made.

4h MR. EBNETER:

Did they give you a formal assessment li i of that or a letter or something?

O MR. BYNUM:

They gave us an exit, an informal --

l actually a formal exit and then they will be following that up

?J q with a letter.

Their bottom line was there are no restart

'.!d items.

3 o

ej MR. EBNETER:

Okay. I'd llke to see that -- the Commission would like to see that, not me particularly.

l

f MR. FOX:

Okay.

MR. BYNUM:

Now Mr. Mullee will give his j

o observations from the Nuclear Managers' Review Group.

21 MR. MULLKE:

There were a number of questions 22 l relative to the close out of the ORR team issues.

I should p

22 say first of all that I was a member of the ORR team and I'm j

24 also Director of the Nuclear Managers' Review Group.

Upon a 25 L charge from Mr. White to review the effectivenere of 2

d 0

l 1

l

\\

J

Pcg] 112 i

L__

1 corrective action, we started developing our plans and we had 2

m team of eight people plus myself that were on site from 3

January 15 until yesterday.

We used the same methods as the 4

ORR team: that, is we reviewed documentation, we conducted 5

interviews and we did performance based observations.

6 In the area of performance based observations, we 7

used the same performance objectives and criteria as the ORR 9

team, primarily the INPO good practices, the INPO performance i

criteria.

We looked at all areas, we monitored classroom 10 training, we looked at all crews in the simulator and we did a 4

11 d' good sampling in the control room, i !!

We found that our bottom line was that in all areas, H

N

" we looked at all areas that the ORR team did plus the restart l

14 '; issues that INPO did, and in all wreas we judged satisfactory h

is for restart.

We did find some areas for further improvement

'e!!as other folks have talked about, but those are ongoing, I:

"$ longer term actions to achieve excellence.

I will sr.y also that in looking at this result, you n

have to understand that it didn't just come that way when we

c were first there.

We had daily debriefings, we found that the l

21 management attitude as' wel1 as that of the workers was 6

excellent toward improvement and that as we made suggestions i

i

I and comments, they were readily picked up and improvements f

j 2: ' were made.

5J I heard the AUO situation -- question -- and I will 11 4

N

Pcg3 113 T

i say that I was very pleased with the change in the attitude of

,j 2

the AUO's from when the ORR team was there before -- that was 3

a dramatic turnaround.

4 MR. EBNETER:

What do you attribute that to?

5 MR MULLEE:

New management.

6 MR. EBNETER:

Do you have an official report that 7

you issued?

9 MR. MULLEE:

We will have a report out on March 5 S

by March 5.

1 MR. EBNETER:

March 5, that's just in time for our Fjmeeting.

11 U

!! !j MR. MULLEE:

It may be before then but that's my 11 niicomaltaent. to have it out by then.

il

'a lj MR. EBNETER:

Charlie Fox, you ought to change that l.

15 l! commitment.

li a

MR. FOX:

We'll try to move it up a day.

I MR. EBNETER:

I think you ought to have that --

MR. MULLEE:

Consider it done.

l MR. EBNETER:

Well I think we did notice that and if M

it's truly a change, I think that's good.

21 MR. MULLEE:

Is there anything else before I sit 22 down?

I 3

MR. EBNETER:

No, that's fine.

1 MR. MCCOY:

Joe, I have one question.

25 ;

MR. BYNUM:

Okay, l

l

)

i 1

Page 114 i

1 MR. MCCOY:

Both you and Steve have spoken to some i

2 of the recent operations events that have occurred during the 3

course of this heatup and the corrective actions that have l

4 been taken with regard to those events.

5 MR. BYNUM:

Yes.

6 MR. McCOY:

I'd like to know if you have been able to draw conclusions with regard to how these fit into the 7

a grand scheme of things for readiness for restart and if you i;

have, what your basis for those conclusions is.

tc l

MR. BYNUM:

I'll give you my personal observations I

j after reading the -- at least the draft reports on all the H

' L events.

I think they're the type of thing that given the fact d

that we've been shut down for 30 months and that people n

a haven't,really been in the operational mode for so long, N

u!ithey're the type of events that you might expect to have F

'ed happen.

But what we've tried to do is when they happen, you

"" know, immediately stop, assess what's happening, get the u

'a message to everybody.

Say look, these are the kinds of things l; that are happening, you know, in terms that the other people ti

l In other organizations can understand and appreciate.

The

1 meetings that Steve Smith had with all the employees, first after the ice condenser inspection and then after the main

2qsteamisolationeventsandthe reactor trip events, I think 8

a just extremely beneficial in getting to the people, nere

s ' letting them hear firsthand what kinds of things that we had i

o i

I i

I 1

=

~v-

Page 115 I

eJ l

gotten into and how we had gotten into them.

It's really an 2

attitudinal thing and I see again as Dick Mulles pointed out, 3

the attitude for people upgrading their standards and 4

understanding and really working hard to do better is 5

excellent.

e So I think in the overall scheme of things, we're at 7

the point where when things happen, things are going to happen

!, and when they happen, the way we respond to them, the way we

^

communicate the lessons learned to the people in the field should then start to cause those events not to happen as L frequently.

So I think when ovr initial response to it, our n

getting the lessons learned out, pointing the things out, then l-I think we'll start to see a trend of events and we won't have 7llas many.

But I think they're the kind of things that you e

I M? would expect. from my experience it's like starting up a new

't

, plant, very. very similar.

So these are the kinds of things l

that I've seen before.

Steve, do you want to comment?

5!

MR. SMITH:

This is Steve Smith.

I think the most li

gsignificant thing to me that has been learned by the U[operationsstaffandthemaintenancestaffis that again, they

1 2 [ aren't as highly honed, experienced people as they were three h

years ago.

They don't have the feel of the plant like they a

2:

did three years ago when they shut down.

And the recent 2

5qevents I feel have produced a note of caution in how they I

e s

i 1

Page 116 i

t__

1 approach their activities in the plant now.

They do double 2

check things as I requested them to.

And they question -- the 3

work control group, we had an indi11 dual come down to a 4

meeting the other day and said they'd been put through an f

5 inquisition.

And that's exactly what we expect those people to c

do, is to give the people who are taking tests to the field or l

7 complex work activities, to give them an inquisition co that 9

we can thoroughly understand the impact to the plant and what

^

the plant configuration will be required for those.

1; The operators themselves aren't just pursuing a j procedure or living a belief that even though I say take your

'I I

12jtaae. there's an underlying need to surgs forwned and rush

l 0 N into activity.

They're being slow and cautious and methodical

'4jllindoing,theworkthat t

they're doing, and I think that's the ll j

>!hmost significant lesson learned and one thing that I intend to il

'e ; keep as a theme throughout our restart effort and our i

"jl operations phase of the plants.

I i

l I

!]

MR. MCCOY:

So you're recognizing positive feedback?

a n {I MR. SMITH:

Yes, sir.

I i

20 MR. MCCOY:

In recent weeks.

i i

21 MR. SMITH:

Definitely.

(

i i

2:

MR. BYNUM:

Okay.

The other thing I'd like to add j

,lonimplementationverificationis I

that in fact there are 2: " ongoing things that will ensure that we maintain, you know.

25 the ability to be self-critical and that we maintain our l

t i

I 1

]

l I

Paga 117

]

1 management involvement.

Obviously we have a continuing 2

management involvement, that's a theme, that's a way of doing 3'

business now for Sequoyah and for TVA.

4 You've already heard from Dick Mullee of the Nuclear 5

Managers' Review Group and as he indicated, he was the i

6 IDirector that was a member of the ORR team.

So there's a tool 7

for Mr. White to continually assess operational readiness.

tl Quality assurance, you've heard from Nick Kazanas.

4 ii As we indicated, the shift operating advisor program is a C

joint program.

Mr. Kazanas is going to take elements from that program in which to evnive into a continuing QA monitering program.

]

I might add that three of the four individuals that

's h are shif,t operating advisors have SRO's from other power 15hplants, are in his group.

They work in the QA organization.

p MR. SMITH:

To further point out the qualifications h,

' [ of those individuals, two of the six individuals, ten years

' ago participated as shift operations advisors at the startup jofSummernuclearstationandhaveactedinthose capacities O

for the past ten years.

They're very experienced individuals.

Of MR. BYNUM:

Okay, the botton line.

All the areas of I

operational readiness have been assessed, both from the broad i

l i

22h perspective and the detailed procedures and detailed knowledge i

h areas.

They have been very thoroughly looked at by 25jexperiencedpeoplewithveryhighstandards.

1 1

Page 118 E

1 The programs are in place to assure the continuing i

i 2

improvement and self-assessment.

Again, the emphasis here iv 3

management involvement.

4 And the last item, Sequoyah is safe for restart.

5 This is the fourth time in three and a half years that I've 6

made a presentation to the NRC staff on the operational 7

readiness of a plant.

And in that three and a half years, I 8

have never been any more confident of the abilities of an 7

operating organization to start up a plant than I am today for 10 Sequoyah Unit 2.

11 MR.'EBNETER:

That's a good testimonial.

Could I

!?

ask you a question?

MR. ByNUM:

yes, sir.

u!

14 MR. EBNETER:

And maybe you shouldn't answer, but 15 one thing that hasn't come up here is the NRSR and the a

replacement of that NSRS.

And what I'm talking about is the jsafety oversight.

U I

Hj MR. SMITH:

The Nuclear Safety Review Board?

l 17 MR. EBNETER:

Yes.

The way it's structured today, 20 there's no independent channel to the Board, and this question 21 recurs.

Is the present st,ructure equivalent to the old NSRS?

22 MR. FOX:

Let me start off by answering that to say 23 that the NSRB is the group that has the safety conscience 2

today.

NSRS was created by the Board of Directors after Three 25 Mile Island to do investigative work, to look at safety issues

- ~ - - - - -, -

.w..

~

. ~,,,. -.

,,.,m..,_.......yo-

I Page 119 I

for them.

That didn't work at all.

They would carry issues t.

2 back to the Board, but they could not get the respect and 3

attention of the line organization.

There was a major failure d

of the concept of the Nuclear Safety Review Staff reporting 5

directly to the Board.

6 When Admiral White came in, he established the 7

reporting of that, the group that replaced that, directly to 8

him and when that group comes to him with an issue, I can i

assure you that the line organization not only acts, they U

react, and quickly.

So what we had in the past with the old I]NSRS reporting directly to the Board was they were getting h

12 their issues apparently up there, they were dealing down at a 0

very low level in the organization.

It was very ineffective, d

u 'i What we have today is working, with both the Nuclear l

15 l Managers ' Review Group under Dick Mullee and under the Nuclear il 4

Safety Review Board, Dr. Bill Hannon.

We feel what we have is

' ;! acceptable.

d U !)

Now let me point out to you, the new -- the old NSRS M

was staffed with fairly low level people.

It wam staffed 20 internally with TVA people, M-6, M-7 level people.

The NSRB 21 today is staffed with plant manager level people, site I

l 22 director people, people of that stature internal.

In addition 22 there's an external group that's with the NSRB Bob Urag, 4

2

' Henry Stone, and I could go on, a number of very senior people 25 ll that have outstanding credentials from around the industry.

I t

i l

l l

1

Tcge 120 t

1 They bring an air of independence to the NSRB.

2 In addition, the NSRB's reports d'.. go to the Board 3

of Directors.

We feel like we have an effective system.

4 MR. EBNETER:

That's a good testimonial but you 5

didn't answer my question.

The original purpose of the NSRS 6

was to provide a conduit to the Board of Directors independent 7

to the line manager.

That conduit no longer exists.

So the s

question keeps arising how do you assure this.

^ '

Now I asked Mr. Runyon this last week, specifically 1

what he was going to do about this.

1 MR. FOX:

What did he tell you?

Ii

': i!

MR. EBNETER:

He said he didn't know yet.

He said u

il

': L he would k at it.

Where's Mr. Polk.

Mh POLX:

Back here.

'.5 MR. EBNETER:

Didn't I ask him that?

l~

i MR. POLK:

That's correct.

h; t

MR. EBNETER:

He said he's still orientating a

,. himself, n

MR. FOX:

Well I can tell you as of today, he hasn't 2:

'made any decisions.

1 MR. EBNETER:

Well I was impressed with Mr. Runyon 22 by the way, but your answer did not persuade me, Mr. Fox, and b

p you'll be asked it again and I think you ought to have a 0

better answer than that on how the Board does get informed of

5 o these issues, other than they on distribution for reports i

1

Pega 121 t _

i because that's not 2

MR. FOX:

Well you're talking about how they get --

3 I can tell you how they get infermed of the issues.

They get 4

informed by Admiral White.

Now you were talking about, I 5

think you're referring to an independent path.

6 MR. EBNETER:

yeah, he needs some independent audit

'4 function.

l!

2I MR. FOX:

Okay.

The Board has taken your question Iil under -- Mr. Runyon has taken your question I'm sure under 10 advisement and I think he's the appropriate individual to il

'l ' answer that.

But I just want to tell you at this point in 0

'2 time h

0 4 MR. EBNETER:

Well my question to you was not that 3

ayessentially.

I was asking you if you had an equivalency of it and you couldn't answer that.

I a g\\

explained the history to you and how MR. FOX:

I

\\

"y ineffective that was when it did report to the Board and what l

i

'! i! we ' re doing now.

Now if the Board decides that they feel like o

lp'they need that activity, then by golly they'll have it.

H 2C '

MR. EBNETER:

Well we think they need it, I'll tell 21 you that.

And I think I conveyed that to Mr. Runyon.

22 MR. POLK:

you did, i

l 23h MR. EBNETER:

I don't know, but I can -- this li 2

question, you know, -- well I don't want to explore it any i

25 further but it has not been answered satisfactorily.

1

l l

g Page 122 F

i 1

MR. FOX:

Well I'm not the individual to answer it, I

but I do want to say that I believe we have a good independent 3

safety conscience and I believe-we have an excellent group i

4 under Mr. Mullee that's doing work for Mr. White.

5 MR. EBNETER:

I'm not questioning the expertise or 6

the integrity of that panel or anything.

I'm just telling

?

you, you know, I think Mr. Runyon needs more than one B

independent audit, he probably needs it in the financial area 9

also.

But you know -- well you heard my comments.

10 MR. SMITH:

Could I ask a question for my own il information?

The Nuclear Safety Review Board in the utilities 12 that I'm used to, and Joe and I were just discussing it, a

normally report to the Senior Nuclear Executive and not to the i

I la Board of Directors.

Is there a specici *;ommunications within 15 TVA that we're discussing?

e MR. EBNETER:

Well the Boards you've dealt with are P

I not quite equivalent to the TVA Board.

TVA does not have --

l TE has very little oversight in any respect, and that's one of n

the reasons they got into the situation they're in today.

I 20 don't equate the typical utility structure to what we have at 21 TVA, there's quite a bit of difference.

Now I agree they both 22 have Boards of Directors and they both have managers and 23 things, but there's quite a bit of difference.

24 But you heard our comments.

It comes up regularly

)

25 ti and I'm not the only one that asks it.

Page 123 r -

u _

1 MR. FOX:

Okay.

Well let's close this for now.

2 Admiral White and Mr. Runyon need to consider this and decide 3

what's appropriate for TVA and you've asked the wrong guy the 4

question today.

Okay?

5 MR. EBNETER:

Fine.

6 Is that the conclusion of your presentation?

7 MR. FOX:

It's the conclusion of the presentation 8

but you asked some questions early on.

I'd first of all like to close the presentation and then I'd like to deal with some 1;

of the questions that we're prepared to answer that you asked 11 J during the presentation.

'; k TVA CLOSING COMMENTS i: !!

MR. FOX:

In closure, you've heard from Joe Bynum, 1

u iour Assistant Manager for Nuclear Power: Steve Smith, our Plant Manager: John Hosmer, our Project Engineer and Dick I

lMullee, 1

the head of our NMRG and Tish Jenkins, our Employee

h Concerns Program Manager and soon to be our Manager of 4

50Persor.nel.

And I don't realJy have anything to add to the I

stor/ except that once we close the handful of open items that li 20 we have before us, and there are some open items that have to 21 be closed between now and the time that we restart, we're 22 confident that we're ready to restart and operate Sequoyah 22 Unit 2 safely.

We'll be working very closely with your staff M

in the next week or so to have a number of meetings to 25 l disposition Appendix R, to disposition the diesel generators, I

i l

Page 124 i

1 close out the remaining IDI items, to hit the punch list items 2

that are mentioned in your SER on the nuclear performance plan J

3 for Sequoyah, Volume 2.

4 Once we do that, we feel like we'll be -- we don't 5

feel like, we know we'll be ready to competently startup and 6

run that plant safely.

i 7

Now that's the end of the presentation per se.

I'll

)

s be happy to start answering your questions and also to S

entertain any additional questions that you might have.

M MR. EBNETER:

Okay, well we appreciate it.

I thcught you did a very good job on it and certainly TVA has

'I

'2,made a lot of progress.

We are very close to startup.

The i

u!

media asked me if I was going to recommend that and I told

'I u

them we'd have to wait til next week because there's a lot is could transpire between now and next week.

But I think

6 generally the staff is impressed with the progress that has l'c been made, b

The status of the plant -- and I tour the plant h

d quite a bit and the control room and I get good comments from M

20 the worker level, the plant is the best they've ever seen it 21 and that's good, it's gett,ing down where it should be at.

So 22 we are impressed with that.

i 22 We think the things you've given us today help increase our confidence in TVA to restart Sequoyah.

You'll

5(iprobablyget these same types of questions next week when we 1

1 m

..-._c..

Page 125 rt j 1

-- when you prepare your presentation to the Commissioners.

2 That'll be next_ week, I think Friday, and we will 3

also be there to present our views and our recommendation.

4 So we do appreciate it and I think you've done a 5-good job.

6 I'd like to ask the staff if they have any questions 7

and after the staff is done, TVA can if you want to make some 8

comments, but we need to reserve a time for the public, 7

members of the public, to if they have questions to ask or 10

, comments to make with regard to the proceedings, we'll give il them that opportunity, and I assume that after the whole l'

d

] proceeding is over both the TVA managers and representatives will be available for the press as will the NRC if they want a h

4} press in,terview or something.

15 MR. FOX:

Certainly.

c MR. EBNETER:

So let me ask the staff first if they i

l'd have any questions.

Frank?

15 MR. MCCOy:

I have no questions.

M!

MR. EBNETER:

Ken?

l 20 MR. BARR:

yes, I'd like to ask Mr. Bynum, in your t

21 presentation you mentioned that a significant number of 22 managers have been hired by TVA.

In Volume 1, one of the 23. concerns identified in Volume 1 talked about retaining of d

experienced managers and I'd like to discuss for a moment 25 '

things that you've done to retain experienced managers.

1

Page 126 1

MR. FOX:

Well for one thing, and I think this is 2

one of the most important things, we've given them the 3

challenge of their lifetime.

4 Secondly, there are some initiatives on the part of 5

Mr. Runyon, he seems to be particularly active with some o

members of Congress and some of his statements that he's made

/

to the press and to the office managers and to the general 9

public, he's stated that he's going to make an all out assault on the pay cap.

I'll let him answer that question in front of n

the Commission, I'm sure it's going to come up.

I saw where i,

l! it had come up with him in the press while he was visiting --

\\\\:l right after visiting the Commission up there.

I'll let him

[l answer whether or not he feels like he's going to be u

successful in what he's set out to do.

15[

MR. BARR:

I guess the only other question I had 4I!

te ll dealt with the SRO's that are reviewing maintenance efforts.

ll'h You have three SRO's assigned to that group, is that going to d

si! inhibit, put a strain on operations staff?

b MR. SMITH:

No, sir.

Those individuals weren't part li 2c j of the operating staff to begin with, they were serving in j

i 21 other capacities.

It has slowed down our effort on some 22 procedure generation and some activities that were going on

- ithat weren't essential to restart the plant, but our near term objective is to get those activities done also, but we felt 25!!that the work control group was much mc e important to control h

I i

(

1 Page 127 r -

t _

1 work activities and to restart the unit than the other 2

activities.

3 MR. RICHARDSON:

In harassment and intialdation 4

cases, do all the supervisors at Sequoyah including the new 5

people that have been hired been through the orientation 6

prograas?

7 MS. JENKINS:

They did not go through the special e

one hour session, but they're being processed through a 9

orientation with their supervision.

I can't say that all of

D them that have actually been hired in the last month have been hthroughit, i!

12l MR. RICHARDSON:

But they will have in the near

!!,; future.

n' 14 MS. JENKINS:

Correct.

M MR. RICHARDSON:

Are there any open, unresolved it complaints of harassment and intialdation at either Sequoyah or corporate right now?

O l

MS. JENKINS:

None that I'm aware of.

c 4 {!

MR. RICHARDSON:

That's all.

}

}

22 MR. EBNETER:

Mr. Jennison?

I 21 MR. JENNISON:

I, have one on the NSRS.

I think the 22 question on the NMRG is that the thing you gained with NMRG 22 was a more experienced and a larger staff.

You also gained N

line enforcement of their requests, their suggestions.

And we 25 audited rough drafts of the report versus the drafts that Mr.

I Page 128 t__

1 White sent to the Board and we found no technical editing done 2

on his part.

So we're happy with the fact that what they're 3

saying is getting to the Board.

But what you lost was direct 4

interface between experienced technical people and the Board.

5 I think that's the real question with the NMRG versus the NSRS 6

issue.

7 MR. FOX:

From the independence point of view.

8 MR. JENNISON:

yes, sir.

7 MR. BRANCH:

Do you think you've reached the level 10 of day-to-day management, face-to-face interface with the l operating crews -- have you got to where you wanted to get on

't 12,

that yet?

I i

1 :- 0 MR. SMITH:

No, I haven't.

I feel that the day-to-l,

4 day interface is adequate for the restart of the unit.

For 15 the long term, to bring the plant to the level of excellence, te ;

if you will, that I feel is -- we've got quite a bit of work I

l to do.

I feel that the activity is to get Unit I restarted

'! {l and our refueling outage on Unit 2 will help me to better 1; l establish and solidify that interface.

There are some other 20 things that I have planned to help improve that interface in 21 the near term also.

22 MR. EBNETER:

Is that all from the staff?

23 (No response.)

2:

MR. EBNETER:

Public, members of the public, do you 25 !have comments or questions either of TVA or the NRC7 We'll

Page 129 f }

1 t j 1

entertain them but you should identify yourself and any 1

2 affiliation you may want to associate yourself with and we'll 3

entertain anything you want to say.

4 (No response.)

5 MR. EBNETER:

TVA, do you have any final comments?

6 MR. FOX:

Well yes, I'd like to close out some of j

7 the questions you raised today.

2 When I was talking about institutional 1 zing change 7

in order to create permanence, you asked me some questions.

I 10 spoke to the configuration management directive.

You asked 11 for a copy of that.

I'd like to provide you copies of that 1

12 '

document, I'll give each one of you a copy and I've tabbed 12 yours, Steve.

There are three documents here, one is a 14 transitional design improvement program which was started back 15 in the summer of 1986 by Bill Drotleff who was the chief 4

Engineer at that time, and it transitions through the

" l configuration control directive which was insued back in H

August and then an implementation policy for that directive 1;

which was implemented -- was issued about three months ago, 20 four months ago.

You might want to look through there.

21 That's a good example, I t,hink of how corporate did get out in 22 front.

When I first got here in September of 1966, we were M

having substantial problems with the design base line program f

24,,in that there was a moving target there and we had to get e

L 25

' something in place fairly quickly to capture and track the t

i l

\\

Page 130 l

l l

I changes that were occurring to the design base line at that 2

time.

And' John Kirkebo and Bill Drotleff were the principal 3

architects for an interin transitional design control policy 4

which was put out to be -- to create uniformity, particularly 5

between Browns Ferry and Sequoyah on their design base line 6

programs and also to give us the level of control we needed so 7

that we didn't have a liability to go back and pick up as we 8

brought the design base line programs to closure.

7 And then you see, the final formal policy which came 10 out over Admiral White's signature last August, which is the

. policy that's in place now at Sequoyah -- being implemented.

12 MR. EBNETER:

Okay.

l

' j MR. FOX:

Secondly --

j MR. BARR:

Before you leave that, this says Advance u

t 15 ll Copy-Restricted Use", is that what charac*.erizes the rest of

'e this?

Pd MR. FOX:

No, you should flip on through and see the 13j implementation directive and also the transitional policy nhwhichisback--I think it starts on about page 56 in that 20 last attachment.

It's in there.

I suggest you read it and 21 we'll be happy to answer any questions during your tenure down 22 here or tomorrow.

]

i The next one was on the design verification and particularly you asked a question of John Kirkebo about NEP 25 I 3.1 and he's prepared to answer that at this point.

J v.

,m..

,y--

Pcga 131 r

t _

i MR. KIRKEBO:

The request was to provide copies of 2

our procedures in the area of independent design verification 3

calculations.

I have here a copy of our Nuclear Engineering 4

Procedure 3.1, Rev 1 of September '87 and an interim order 5

issued in November of '87 modifying the independent design 6

verification process that I described to you earlier.

7 MR. EBNETER:

Thank you, John.

8 MR. FOX:

Okay, the other question is the Tech Spec i

change making John Hosmer a full member of the Board, that's 10 in our Licensing concurrence chain now and we'll go ahead and l

't [ get that out so that you can act on it.

!I I think that's basically the questions that --

i; MR. KIRKEBO:

Charlie, I had one additional one.

J

'4 MR. FOX:

Oh, okay.

15 )

MR. KIRKEBO:

This was associated with --

4

h MR. FOX:

Okay, on waivers, excuse me -- excuse me.

I 1

MR. KIRKEBO:

That's correct.

To clear the air, i

'S we've been discussing the implementation of the transitional n

design control process and the transitional design control i

' process, as John Hosmer was describing it, has to do with 21 using modification packages and not issuing drawings.

22 When we implemented the transitional program, we 23 wrote into the procedures that the project engineer could o'

24 allow a waiver at his discretion and that discretion -- and 25 that means that the waiver would allow him to issue a design

Page 132 i

u_j i

modification package -- excuse.ne, issue a design change 2

without packaging it up, doing it the way we were doing it 3

before.

This was done, waivers were allowed by procedure within our QA program and it was recognized that there was too 4

5 many waivers being allowed and therefore all waivers were 6

stopped.

7 The process now requires modification packages to be s

issued.

Engineering assurance came in and inspected the process, inspected where waivers had been utilized and to confirmed that the design modifications that were issued under I

the waiver were done appropriately.

In other words, they did

't b

!?ll Independently look at the waivers.

They had two inspections h

hatSequoyahtolookatandseewheth.erthewaiversconstituted e

any type,of breakdown or the magnitude of the waivers.

And u

is the engineering assurance in two reports concluded that it had I

lnot.

a The project engineer, independent of engineering s

adassurance, decided that he wanted additional assurance that heverythingwasallright, with those 90 modification packages 1;

l' 20 that had been waivered, and requested his line managers to go 21 back and do some confirmatory analysis.

This confirmatory 22 analysis has been done in roughly 50% of the time of these 90 23 packages and has continued to be ongoing.

Are there any questions?

5 g MR. EBNETER:

No, I guess we'll probably talk to EA l

Page 133 r -

t t _

1 about those reports.

2 MR. KIRKEBO:

Okay, that's good.

Thank you.

3 MR. EBNETER:

Okay, fine.

Anything else?

4 MR. FOX:

Thank you.

5 MR. EBNETER:

All right, I want to thank you all.

1 I'd like to remind the public one more time if they have any 7

questions, they can ask them now or they can catch us or send B

us a letter on them.

Thank you.

i (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 4:35 p.m.)

10 i!

c 11 i

I i.

e I!

.P 6'

21 d4 l

2.'

ll

5 i

b iL 1

l l

1 CERT 2FICATE 2

3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

5 Name: PUBLIC tiEETING ON SEQUOYAH OPERATIONAL READINESS FOR UNIT 2 6

7 Docket Number:

50-328 8

Place:

Chattanooga, TN 9

Date:

February 24, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereaf ter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting ccmpany, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate rec.

of the foregoing proceedings.

ia, 16

/S/

L 'w

<<v 17

- (Signature typed) :

Peggy J. Warren 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25

/~

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

v.;4.-

+aa a

a aaaa

-5

--a-m--

--a.

~

g I

e 5

e I

4 t

a

?

2 3

4 a

8 IZl i

.I I

i 1

l l

1 1

D 0

v

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER l

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT l

UNIT 2

l OPERATIONAL READINESS FEBRUARY 24, 1988 l

i l

\\

-~-

I

~

NUCLEAR OBJECTIVES TVA OFFICE OF NUCLEAR POWER OBJECTIVES i

TO ASSURE SAFE PLANT OPERATION l

1. ESTABLISH A STABLE ORGANIZATION

2. PUT A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM IN PLACE I

i l

3. ESTABLISH PROCEDURALIZED AND DISCIPLINED l

WAY OF DOING BUSINESS

4. ENSURE THE TECHNICAL INTEGRITY OF THE PLANTS

5. REESTABLISH TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN MANAGEMENT i

4 couuon. u4.wwn

I' 1

3 1

D.

S A

f R

G 4

S r

E E

N D

A E

R T

RE R

M O

S O

P H

P U

B S

J L

A C

I N

H C

E T

!i i <

1iij Il.

ii ::

i ii l

I i!I f

i ei:.

4

!!l<

I I

l TECHNICAL SUPPORT READINESS j

j

• TRANSITION l

l

• TECHN1 CAL SUPPORT TODAY 1

PLANT SUPPORT i

i I

'i i

}

l

TRANSITION l

ISSUE PAST TODAY I

TIME OFFSITE ONSITE AVAILABLE REAL TIME ACCOUNTABILITY "ON CALL" "OWNERSHIP" SERVICE SUPPORT 4

DESIGN WEAK REESTABLISHED BASIS i

DESIGN DRAWINGS PACKAGES 4

CONTROL i

I

i l

i l

l!

TECHNICAL SUPPORT TODAY j

PROJECT TEAM ON SITE RESPONSIBILITIES:

TODAY l

- DAILY SUPPORT

- UNIT 1

RESTART ENGINEERING

- MODIFICATIONS ENGINEERING

)

)

FUTURE i

i

- D AILY SUPPORT j

- MODIFICATIONS ENGINEERING l

• TEAM:

- M ATRIX

- TVA ON SITE AND TVA KNOXVILL9

- GILBERT &

UNITED ENGINEERS ON SITE 1

l l

4 1

l

~

i l

D AILY PLANT SUPPORT PLAN 'OF THE DAY i

• SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PLANT OPER ATIO NS REVIEW COMMITTEE DESIGN PACKAGES I

i:

• ATTITU DES

- TEAM l

- SUPPORT i

- OWNERSHIP

- ETHICS i

POSITIVE TRENDS

- CORRECTIVE ACTIONS l

- DESIGN CHANGE NOTICES l

- ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES i

-.---- ----- 1

i I

I j

TECHNICAL SUPPORT READINESS

SUMMARY

j

]

• TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROCESS IN PLACE i

e TECHNICAL SUPPORT PEOPLE HAVE ACC$PTED j

TECHNICAL OWNERSHIP AND ARE SUPPORTING PLANT OPERATION i

f I

l I

g it 01 131

t O

e R

I o

e (0W Z

z Q

H z

m e

l I

6 Z

4

_J f

I

.I 1

I i

l 1

l i

1 1

0 i

l I

n-

,,.nen,

,,.n,

.._n.._,,,,

.n.,~--.

--w

._m_.a__

1

.i l

1 e

l l

i

~ SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLhNT IS I

FULLY PREPARED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND ORGANIZATIONALLY TO SUPPORT l

RESTART GF UNIT 2 4

f i

i i

i f

I i

Ftt4At

.I

PLANT ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION i

l l

l

• LIMITED MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AT OPERATOR AND CRAFT LEVELS

'~

ACCOUNTABILITY LACKING FOR PERSONNEL AND ORGANIZATIONS

• POOR HOUSEKEEPING AND MATERIALS CONDITIONS

• POORLY DEFINED RESPONSIBILITIES f

• LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES l

• ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS COMPLEX AND CONFLICTING

• MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WEAKNESSES

• LACK OF SYSTEM SPONSORSHIP (ACCOUNTABILITY)

• DEFICIENCIES IN ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS i

1

• LACK OF COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN PLANT ORGANIZATION l

l l

\\

mo. m i

1

i

l l

i l

r I

i MANAGEMENT.

INVOLVEMENT l

• ORGANIZATION TO - DIRECTLY ALIGN RESPONSIBILITIES TO CRITICAL AREAS REDUCTION IN LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT BETWEEN PLANT MANAGER AND STAFF 1

MANAGEMENT DUTY ROSTER l

1 l

• WALK YOUR SPACES POLICY PLAN OF THE DAY MEETINGS j

i FIXED SHIFT SUPPORT TO OPERATIONS i

i

\\

}

M;$ON TJ

SHIFT SUPERVISON WORK CONTROL STA GROUP

=. co-

• • =

ri c,s.. m.

e] s SHt CAPTAIN swPeevesom coonocesATom p

TECHNICAL eSAsesTresAsoca i

SUPPORT hSA08AGER 5

i l.-.

L eu e Sl 3

i i

2 4

1 ELEC INST MECH f.A B O R G. F.

G. F.

G. F.

FOREMAN l

ACCOUNTABILITY AND l

DEFINED RESPONSIBILITIES l

RESPONSIBILITIES DEFINED IN SITE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

• PERSONNEL TRAINED AND HELD ACCOUNTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES REEMPHASIZED DURING PERIODIC l

MEETINGS I

• CORPORATE AND SITE GOALS AND O BJ ECTIVES j

DEFINED AND PROGRESS TRACKED 1

l l

h TACK. I31

k HOUSEKEEPING ANb MATERIAL CONDITION i

- ESTABLISHED DETAILED ' HOUSEKEEPING AND MATERIAL CONDITION UPGRADE PROGRAM

~,

i COVERS 100 PERCENT OF POWER PLANT AND SHOP FACILITIES

- PROGRAM WILL COMPLETE IN DECEMBER 1988

- WILL BE FOLLOWED BY RECURRING MAINTENANCE l

PROGRAM WHICH WILL KEEP PLANT CLEANLINESS l

AND MATERIAL CONDITIONS AT HIGH LEVEL

- INCLUDES EXPANDED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM w i. e e t e a t.1 $ 4

i ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS UPGRADE PROGRAM i

INCORPORATES CORPORATE POLICIES, DIRECTIVES AND STANDARDS I

i CENTRALIZED UNDER ONE ORGANIZATION I

REDUCES OVERALL NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CLEARLY DEFINES RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERFACES j

e ONGOING

- WILL INCLUDE RECURRING (PERIODIC)

I REVIEW AND UPGRADES l

m. i si a

i 1

i MAINTENANCE PROGRAM UPGRADE 4

l 1

CORPORATE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM i

PROCEDURE UPGRADE i

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE t

• RESTRUCTURING OF MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION l

• PRIORITIZATION OF WORK ACTIVITIES POST MA?NTENANCE TESTING I

i l

)

l uro2.132

TOTAL OPEN-WORK REQUESTS NUMBER OF WRs

~

COMMON

~~~~

2000 UNIT 2

/

1500 s

s s

s

/

s/

\\

\\

s

^ -1045 1000

,s s--

704 500 I I I I f f f f f f if f I f f I f f f f I f f I f I f I f I I f I f I f I f f f s

s s

s CD (D

(D G3 (D

(D J

O.

Z

<t

~3 LtJ O

4 I

7 U)

Z 7

DATE 4

i t

1 l

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION i

e POSSESSES PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 5

tl OBSERVES SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

'i TRENDS l

- PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE I

i e COORDINATES PROBLEM RESOLUTION RECOMMENDS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS I

l

• REVIEWS TEST RESULTS

• VERIFIES PROPER INSTALLATION OF MODIFICATIONS 4

l s, u,,.., n

l ROOT CAUSE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURALIZED e

ROOT CAUSE TRAINING l

• INCIDENT 3NVESTIGATION TEAM

• IMMEDIATE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT GENERIC REVIEWS RCCA

44 h

O EED Zo

i H

N O

(n T

Cj

...t t

t t..

t....

t O

O O

O O

O O

LL.

O O

O O

O O

k OZ i

--,a,e-o A--,6.-

m

-_un--am6 m-a m.. -

w nm-_4

.__m,,,

,.w,__

2

_a k

b l

l i

0) 3 g

H Q

Z g

4 z

Z

~

0 l

l d

i 40 Z

3 3

i I

O O

a

)

i

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS

• 5000 + CONCERNS

• EVALUATED ISSUES A L "OLn"

• CORRECTIVE ACTIONS PROGRAM ALL RESTART ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED

=

• REACTIVE EFFORT -

ELIMINATE WRONG FEB 1, 1988 4 H-~-----------------------------------~~~~---------~~--

800 TOTAL PROGRAM TO DATE

- 550 IN 1986

- 250 IN 1987 NEw

• TREND DOWN PROGRAM

• EXIT INTERVIEWS 1 I

• 87X OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATh0NS ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHANGE

• AUDITS & INSPECTIONS i

i

• PROACTIVE EFFORT -

i CREATE RIGHT (uC

t COMMUNICATIONS DAILY PLANT STATUS SHEET STRUCTURED PERIODIC MEETINGS WITH ALL PLANT PERSONNEL

- SENIOR SUPERVISORS THREE TIMES WEEKLY

- ALL SUPERVISORS MONTHLY

- ALL PERSONNEL QUARTERLY I

PERIODIC INFORMATION MEETINGS WHENEVER I

EVENTS DICTATE l

PLAN OF THE DAY MEETINGS i

I MANAGEMENT ATTENDANCE AT TRAINING SESSIONS l

l WITH PLANT EMPLOYEES

\\

l MANAGEMENT ATTENDANCE AT DAILY SHIFT l

TURNOVER MEETINGS

~

l l

COMMUNICATIONS FORMALIZED BETWEEN OPERATIONS /

MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL f

i 1

narr_ u t

i l

NUCLEAR ETHIC t

l i

l

• SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS INSTILLED l

• WILLINGNESS TO IDENYIFY, ADMIT AND FIX i

PROBLEMS I

• LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS I

• QUALITY IN OPERATIONS AND ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES

• NOT ACCEPTING THE UNACCEPTABLE l

l

• CLEAR DEFINITION OF EXPECTATIONS dND ACCOUNTABILITIES j

l-

• COMMUNICATION AND TRUST BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES l

1 i

i

{

m n4.cs. i n

,4 a

m.u h.

a

_m.A

-w_a me.2.e s.

4 a..

.--ah aa-.m.A m.,,,mm.

2 e

O

\\

j i

i i

5 i

M Lu Z

O I

4 Lu s

Q:

3z t

l 4

m 4

.=

z l

O 4

4 i

a:

4 i

O 4

l l

\\

e*

e

.,_,...,~._,.-__,_,-..,-,_,-..,_,,..,y,-----

wmm_

-g*

1 i

INPUTS 1

l l

ASSESSED BY:

MANAGEMENT NRC i

i I

INPO i

• NUCLEAR MANAGER'S REVIEW GROUP i

I

• OPERATIONAL READINESS REVIEW i

OTHERS

\\

k 1

1 i

(M' ASS

1 i

IMPROVEMENTS i

i i

CRITICAL SELF ASSESSMENT i

CLEAR PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE i

j PROCEDURAL ADHERENCE I

"OPERATING" FOCUS i

SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE AREAS i

l J

i 1

i

)

i 1

S l

i i

OPERATIONAL READINESS 1

I MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT l

1 i

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS I

• STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

)

i e

.e j

~,

l i

1 l

OPERATIONAL READINESS l

l MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMEN'6 i

• OBSERVATION OF WORK ACTIVITIES 4

i

• INVOLVEMENT IN OPERATOR TRAINING l

4 l

PLANT OPERATIONS REVIEW ~ COMMITTEE l

i l

i L

i t

)

i l

ne<a

• 1 52 1

l I

i i

i OPERATIONAL READINESS MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT l

1

.l i

IMPROVEMENTS:

• EMPHASIS ON WALKING SPACES PHILOSOPHY OBSERVATION AND CRITIQUE OF TRAINING l

• PERIODIC MEETINGS WITH ALL PERSONNEL

(

l

• REVISION OF PLANT OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES 1

i I

.,..n

, n

i l

c j

OPERATIONAL READINESS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS MAINTENANCE - OPERATIONS INTERFACE TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS i

i l

• NIGHT ORDERS

• OPERATOR AID POSTING j

TAGGING i

SYSTEM ALIGNMENT e

i INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION

}

{

t l

l

]

i i

i i

. i OPERATIONAL READINESS

~

l ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS J

j 1

l IMPROVEMENTS:

ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORK CONTROL GROUP l

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES CHANGES

)

l 1

- CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 1

l i

l

- CONFIGURATION STATUS CONTROL I

- TAGGING PROCEDURE

)

- CONTROL OF TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS i

i i

I l

i

i j

l t

i i

i OPERATIONAL READINESS l

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE i

i e LICENSED OPERATORS

\\

j

• NON-LIC ENSED OPERATORS SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISORS j

• CHEMISTRY I

I

• RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL

}

l 1

. i v.

I l

t i

OPERATIONdL READINESS STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE l

IMPROVEMENTS:

t OPERATING CREW TRAINING l

- CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS

- STARTUP TRAINING

)

- HEATUP 4

- TEAMWORK AND DIAGNOSTIC SKILLS

• EVALUATION OF NON-LICENSED OPERATOR PROFICIENCY

• INTEGRATION OF SHIFT TECHNICAL ADV7 SORS INTO SHIFT COMPLEMENT l

j CHEMISTRY SHIFT ASSESSMENT e

RADIATION CONTROL SHIFT ASSESSMENT e

i l

IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION i

HEATUP I

l t

MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT

- SHIFT OPERATING ADVISOR

- NUCLEAR MANAGER'S REVIEW GROUP POST RESTART

- MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT

- NUCLEAR MANAGER'S REVIEW GROUP

- QUALITY ASSURANCE

i l

i i

CONCLUSIONS i

i l

ALL AREAS OF OPERATIONAL READINESS HAVE BEEN i

ASSESSED i

1 e PROGRAMS ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE CONTINUING f

IMPROVEMENT AND SELF ASSESSMENT '

)

~.

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT IS SAFE FOR RESTART 1

1 1

l

--