ML20210K129
| ML20210K129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210K127 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604140487 | |
| Download: ML20210K129 (37) | |
Text
_ _
l_.'
- i I
i i
4 i
l i
j i
i TECHNICAL LETTER REPORT SITE SURVEY OF DAVIS-BESSE 3
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AND PRACTICES FIN 2990
.i i
l t
B l
l l
I r
November 19, 1985 l
! -f' f
' k $
'/ /)
1 39 ; -p..
f- - -
e EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
As part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Maintenance and Surveillance Program, a site survey of the Davis-Besse maintenance program and practices was conducted. The purpose of the visit was to collect descriptive data and observations related to the Davis-Besse maintenance and surveillance program, using a data-gathering protocol developed under FIN 82984. These descriptive data were intended to includ3 the extent and impact of those program changes instituted subsequent to the June 9, 1985 loss of main and auxiliary feedwater event. The site survey was conducted the week of September 16, 1985, with five NRC and two Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff acting as team members in the data collection effort.
Protocol information was collected in five main areas: organization and administration; facilities and equipment; technical procedures; personnel; and work control. The protocol includes the detailed information, while this report contains selected observations and summaries extracted from that protocol.
Deficiencies related to the maintenance and surveillance program at Davis-Besse prior to the June 9 event were observed in nine major areas.
These areas are:
(1) Corporate Commitment - Many of the deficiencies listed below had been previously brought to the attention of senior management within the Toledo Edison organization prior to the June 9,1985, event and were not adequately addressed because of self-imposed budget constraints.
(2) Maintenance Work Backlog - The backlog of maintenance work was seen by plant personnel as sufficiently large such that it resulted in numerous pieces of equipment and instruments being out-of-service, or in a less-than-optimal condition, and caused significant numbers of preventive maintenance actions to be skipped due to a lack of available resources.
l (3) Spare Parts / Material Readiness - Difficulties in providing spare parts to support maintenance activities existed. The difficulties were the result of insufficient spare parts on hand, poor planning for long-lead-time items, lack of effective expediting, and an excessive amount of time to process requisitions.
l (4) Supervision - Inadequate numbers of first-line management supervisors were available for the direct monitoring of maintenance work. While group leaders were expected to perform this function, their lack of management training and direction as well as their continued union affiliation impacted their ability to provide objective and aggressive supervision.
(5). Preventive Maintenance - The preventive maintenance program in the i
past has been very limited with less than 20% of the staff time spent on preventive maintenance.
l
O iii CONTENTS Executive Summary i
Body of the Report A.
General Information 1
B.
Survey Methodology 1
C.
Descriptive Data 3
1.
Organization and Administration 3
2.
Facilities and Equipment 10 3.
Technical Procedures 11 4.
Personnel 14 5.
Work Control 17 D.
Conclusions 19 Appendixes Appendix A - Plant Staff Interviewed During Site Visit A.1 Appendix B - Entrance and Exit Meeting Attendance B.1 l
1 l
Appendix C - Time Line C.1 Appendix D - Davis-Besse Plant Data D.1 0
11 (6) Maintenance Procedures - Procedures were not consistently used, not always clearly written, and were not comprehensive for all systems and equipment.
(7) Communications - Cross-comunications between organizations at the plant were inadequate. The result was that problems related to maintenance remained unresolved for extended periods of time.
(8) Defined Responsibilities - Clearly established and understood responsibilities for specific maintenance and surveillance functions were not provided in sufficient detail to preclude omission of certain key functions, such as trending, measuring impact on operations, and identifying long-lead-time materials.
(9) Training - Maintenance training provided in the past was not systematically developed, not provided in sufficient quantity, and often cancelled due to work load.
Extensive modifications are currently being made to the Davis-Besse maintenance and surveillance program.
In the opinion of the site survey team members, the modifications -- as explained in the Davis-Besse Course of Action submittal, outlined in reviewed procedures, and as described to the site survey team by individuals and groups being interviewed as part of the protocol infomation gathering process -- address all perceived previous weaknesses (listed above) in the Davis-Besse maintenance and surveillance program which are believed to have contributed to the June 9, 1985, event.
Those modifications are currently being implemented. However, it is too early to determine how effective those changes will be, or if they have been implemented sufficiently such that an integrated, well-understood (at all levels) maintenance and surveillance program now exists at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIVISION OF HUMAN FACTORS TECHNOLOGY (DHFT)
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE SURVEY REPORT A.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Docket No.: 50-346 License No.: NPF-3 Licensee:
Toledo Edison Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Survey Conducted: September 16 through September 20, 1985 Team Members:
D. Persinko, NRR, Team Leader G. Dick, Project Manager, NRR G. Barber, IE W. Guldemond, RIII N. Choules, RIII W. Rankin, PNL W. Apley, PNL B.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY:
The NRC has undertaken a program to investigate, and, if necessary, instigate measures to improve maintenance in the U.S. nuclear power l
industry. A multi-year Maintenance and Surveillance Program Plan (MSPP)
(SECY 85-129) has been prepared to document this program. The MSPP has two purposes: (1) Provide direction for NRC efforts to ensure effective maintenance and surveillance, and (2) Propose alternate regulatory approaches with respect to maintenance and surveillance activities, if necessary. The MSPP identifies the technical and regulatory issues to be addressed and directs the integration and planning of the NRC's activities to accomplish these objectives.
Phase I of this effort is entitled " Survey and Evaluation of Maintenance Effectiveness." One of the major projects under this effort is entitled
" Technical Assistance in Support of the Maintenance and Surveillance Program (Phase I) - FIN B2984." A major objective of this project is to obtain information and assess the current practices of nuclear power plant maintenance and surveillance programs. A protocol (formalized data gathering outline) was devised as part of this project. The protocol was refined during site surveys at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (July 1985) and the Millstone 1 Nuclear Power Plant (August 1985).
2 This protocol was developed for use in the collection of maintenance and surveillance program descriptive data. Data were collected in five broad categories:
o organization and administration o facilities and equipment o technical procedures o personnel o work control On June 9, 1985, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant experienced a loss of main feedwater while the plant was operating at 90% power. Subsequently the plant suffered a complete loss of auxiliary feedwater. A number of significant pieces of equipment were either not in-service prior to the event or malfunctioned during the event. The NRC Incident Investigation Team that evaluated the event did not extensively review the Davis-Besse's maintenance program and practices. Rather, they based their findings and conclusions on sunnaries of past evaluations, trouble-shooting, testing and maintenance related to the equipment that malfunctioned. These summaries were provided by the utility.
More in-depth information concerning the maintenance program and practices at Davis-Besse than that provided to the NRC Incident Investigation Team was desired.
In order to obtain this information and collect additional maintenance data for the overall survey (FIN B2984), a site survey of l
facility maintenance was conducted using the previously-developed protocol. The scope of the survey was to include the extent and impact of the program changes instituted subsequent to the June 9, 1985, loss of main and auxiliary feedwater event. Observations by individuals
(
interviewed during the site visit are noted as such; where differing opinicns or descriptive facts and figures were given, efforts were made to confirm or verify that information through other sources.
~
The attached appendixes contain a list of Davis-Besse staff who were interviewed, a list of the people who attended the entrance and exit meetings, a time line for the visit, and a brief summary of descriptive data concerning Davis-Besse. A completed protocol, and the materials and references obtained from the site, are part of the MSPP file which will be maintained for data background. These materials have been cleared by Toledo Edison with respect to 10 CFR 2.790 (Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding).
3 C.
DESCRIPTIVE DATA:
1.
Organization and Administration a.
General Description Davis-Besse is currently undergoing a major administrative reorganization at the plant that especially affects the way the Maintenance Department is structured. A brief comparison of the organizations (pre-and post-June 1985) is provided on the following page.
The Davis-Besse organization is now structured such that the various maintenance functions are spread across the organization instead of being centered in the Maintenance Department. The new organization was developed on the basis of the perceived needs and new goals and objectives of the plant. A new Senior Vice President (V.P.), Nuclear was hired last year, and he subsequently hired a new Plant Manager (P.M.)this year (this is the fourth new Plant Manager in the last 7 years). The V.P. and the P.M. detemined how they wanted their new organization to function and reorganized to meet this philosophy. A major part of the philosophy was to bring in new, proven staff into the newly-created administrative-level positions and to organize such that the Maintenance Department only had to concern itself with doing actual maintenance. With regard to the maintenance-related functions that are not in the Maintenance Department, the following functions and reporting chains now exist:
(1) the warehouse function is under the Materials Manager, who reports to the Nuclear Projects Director, who reports to the Senior V.P., Nuclear. This function used to report to the Plant Manager; (2) facility modifications are done in the Facility Modification Department, the head of which reports to the Nuclear Projects Director; (3) the Systems Engineering group is in the Nuclear Facility Engineering Department, the Director of which reports to the Nuclear Engineering Group Director, who reports to the Senior V.P., Nuclear. This function used to be under the Maintenance Department (approximately 30 " cognizant" engineers who were responsible for planning for each work order involving their
" cognizant" system), which reported to the plant manager; and (4) the planning / scheduling is now done in the Planning Department, the head of which reports to the Plant Manager. There was no formal planning group before.
In the past all maintenance work scheduling was done in the Maintenance Department.
Planning was done previously by the
" cognizant" engineers and scheduling was done by a separate group within the Maintenance Department. Now the scheduling as well as the planning functions have been placed in a separate organization, the Planning Cepartment, and the Planning Superintendent reports directly to the Plant Manager, not to the Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance.
4 060 0. Gas datic4 e
l..
.a.
l l
l l
...a.,..~ae.
1 W.*
a.ac...aanag Se H
,..e
..a a.~..
.,.a... l
...a.~..
usmen.as.C e*..e.
f w.
.a C. 9 L..e E..co..se sm 8 ag a.e.
l
.u....~~.._.e.
w aie ac. C.we.a.v 9 eo.a C. 9 l
L..e *&C C.ac.c e as*ee.
...~...~. C em.i a....
weaiea.ac F em.a C..st y
l L.
a.~.. ag~
q l
.a....a...
q l
...a..
netWC.caa q,anoes e
l..
.._t
,s.... l i
l i
I j
l
....,. o.
l
...... a, G....e l
....a..
H...
6,
.....e....-a.a.. l l......
.a..
l p.....ag~e
..ae... r l
.A.Ca.a4W I
.a4 6 at te.g f.C6te. Eag.
.co La.e Meca.ac.iiag nee.
I Ease.e.
M.*e 5 c.u.t g,,,,,y,,,,,
Eag<e.e.ias $
w<
W.n.ge. Il f.*.*
C..e
__p
..........a..e. l
....-.a-L..e E w<
Eag.aee.
(ag.a.
J.i
- a. E as a
.ag w.a.g..
M.me $
s..e.e Goa 8 8er.*.a p
.a C. 9 1
14C 5 e.me.a ae L..e t&C f ag ae Iag a.ee e,.as 5 c t..e G.a
.s f e.=.=
Fw.m.a C. 9
_p.,
e.
.a, l H
a-.
.a..
1
[ c.s. w.a.
l y
pn-----
+
m m-e rr
,wa-
. = - - -
I 5
4 In addition, the responsibility for keeping abreast of problems on a system basis has been removed from the Maintenance Department and has been reassigned to the newly created Systems Engineering Group which is part of the Nuclear Facility Engineering Department, the head of which reports directly to the Senior V.P., Nuclear. The rationale for these changes from the Maintenance Department perspective was to reduce the overall department workload, thereby allowing attention to be focussed strictly on maintenance activities. These changes have yet to be implemented fully with the result that some departmental overlap in functions is still occurring. As a result of these changes, communications that were previously intradepartmental must now become interdepartmental. The success of the new organization will significantly depend on the success of the new communication paths.
In addition to the realignment of responsibility, the other major i
change accomplished by the new organizational structure is a large increase in craft-level supervision.
Previously the ratio of foremen l
(I&C and electrical) to crafts people was on the order of one foreman for every 25 to 30 crafts people. The new ratio is on the order of one foreman for every 6 to 10 crafts people. This was done by promoting 3 electrical, 4 I&C, and 1 mechanical craft workers to foremen. The rationale for this change was that not enough supervision was being done at the working level (previously the foremen had to spend most of their time doing paperwork). Supervisory duties normally associated with the foreman position were supposed to be accomplished by group leaders. These were, and still are, union positions which were felt by management to not be sufficiently 4
distinct from the crafts to provide adequate and objective l
supervision. The increase in the number of foremen is expected to enable the foremen to spend 75% of their time in the field. This 75%
i time allocation has yet to be achieved.
The new foremen were promoted i
from the union ranks and have not yet been replaced by new craftsmen.
It is the utility's expectation that increased productivity due to increased supervision will more than compensate for the temporary loss of craft workers. The group leader positions still exist within the crafts to provide close job supervision. The foremen will provide supervision necessary to keep the job moving.
l In general, the plant has moved to a structured, line-oriented management in which goal-setting is required and feedback on how well the goals are being met is used in the annual appraisals for j
administrative / supervisory personnel.
i b.
Other Related Protocol Observations Management is not modelling the Davis-Besse program after any other single nuclear unit in the U.S., because they perceive that they can improve upon any that currently exist by taking the best features of a l
variety of programs. They believe that the major problems at Davis-Besse were poor planning and scheduling, poor communications,
6 understaffing in the non-craft groups, accountability, inadequate parts support, and inadequate management supervision. Management felt that the NRC in the past had not required a corporate commitment to maintenance, but instead assigned blame too stringently on the plant staff level. Management feels that it will be over a year before plant will have sufficient performance indication to adequately evaluate how good their maintenance program has become. They have not developed any clear criteria as to how they would judge their program to be successful at that time, outside of believing that forced outage rate would be used as one indicator.
The Davis-Besse staff, including management, were uncertain as to exactly how much information on reorganization and new policies / procedures had been cons 1cated in sufficient detail to all levels of personnel on-site.
Position Descriptions (PDs) do not exist for all of the new job functions. These are being rewritten at this time (based largely on PDs from Cook, Callaway, Zimmer, and Summer) and will need to be approved by Corporate.
The Administrative Policies and Documents (ads) at the plant are currently undergoing total revision. The old ads were fairly inclusive, including, for example, definitions for corrective, preventive, and emergency maintenance. The major problem with the old ads was that what was specified as policy in the ads was not being carried out at the working level.
The newly formed Systems Engineering Group has not yet been completely staffed with permanent people. While many of these staff were previously " cognizant" engineers in the Maintenance Department, there are a significant number of new personnel filling those positions.
The most significant potential for overlap in functions between departments involves engineering. Under the Nuclear Engineering Group Director, there is an Operations Engineering Group, Nuclear Plant Systems Group, Nuclear Facilities Engineering Group, and an Engineering Services Group. Additionally there are engineers reporting to the Planning Manager, Assistant Plant Manager (Maintenance), Assistant Plant Manager (Operations), and even the plant manager has a separate group of engineers reporting directly to him. Because functional descriptions for all these engineering support organizations do not yet exist, the potential for overlap and/or omission of required engineering support exists.
The large number of separate engineering groups also dilutes the existing expertise related to plant systems. The Plant Manager recognizes this potential problem, and is attempting to clarify functions through the development of applicable position and departmental function descriptions.
,---,-r-n
7 It was believed by nearly all staff interviewed that money has been the primary constraint to making improvements; that if action could not be tied to an NRC commitment, then it would probably not be funded.
It was commonly believed by plant staff that previous upper management had not actively pursued the Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) recommendations made in the Spring of 1984 due to budget constraints. There appeared to be some exceptions (eg. The Health Physics (HP) Supervisor said that he had gotten a high percentage of his ideas approved, but felt that the approval was obtained because of direct ties to ALARA (As low As Reasonably Achievable) issues). No one interviewed expressed the opinion that adequate funding existed in the past.
Corporate monetary commitment to Davis-Besse's maintenance program has increased in the past year. Prior to 1985, the maintenance operating budget was around $8 Million (M). The budget appropriated for 1985 was $13.5M, but a new forecast indicates the actual expenditures to be
$18.0M for the year. The maintenance operating budget for 1986 is estimated to be $27.0M, which mostly reflects manpower increases.
These budget modifications and requests have not yet been approved by the utility board of directors.
Hiring, firing, and promotions are all handled through the Personnel Department with input from maintenance foremen, supervisors, and administrators. Until this past year, all significant personnel matters were handled out of the Corporate office in Toledo.
In August of this year, one full-time Personnel Administrator was placed at Davis-Besse for the approximately 1,000 staff.
According to maintenance craft comments, the former head of the Maintenance Department was only able to tour the plant on a weekly to 1
monthly basis, and the Plant Manager rarely toured the plant. The new Plant Manager and Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance, both expressed intent to tour the plant on a daily basis.
Administrative coordination and communication were not good under the old organization. The communication between operations and maintenance was especially poor. Communication between operations and maintenance was believed to be good on an individual basis, but not between organizational groups. Work would be closed out and operations not informed. There are no defined communication links between Health Physics (HP) and maintenance. Operations staff stated that there was inadequate status reporting on what maintenance was currently in progress. The extent of that reporting varied among craft groups. Operations staff felt that I&C did the best job of keeping operations informed of maintenance work. This was attributed to the potential for impact on plant controls and indications. Under the new organizational structure, interdepartmental communication has become even more important because the various maintenance-related functions are now spread across the plant organization.
l
8 Communication is to be enhanced by a Plan of the Day meeting (POD),
which all of the department heads are.to attend.
In addition to this half-hour meeting at 8:00 a.m., the Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance, holds a half-hour meeting at 7:30 a.m. with his immediate supervisees, the General Foremen, and the Lead Engineers. The General Foremen typically hold a quick meeting after this to pass on needed infonnation to the foremen.
In addition to increasing manpower, efforts are being made to improve the planning, scheduling, and tracking of maintenance activities. All planning and scheduling (P/S) is now done in the Planning Department.
g The P/S staff receive the original Work Request (WR), turn it into a Maintenance Work Order (MWO), prioritize the MW0s, make sure that all the required parts are on hand or have been ordered, get all the necessary sign-offs on the MWO, check the work for possible Technical Specification violations, etc., get Quality Control (QC) to determine hold points and coverage, and attach the necessary procedure to the MWO work package. The intent is to streamline the amount of preparatory work to be performed by maintenance so that the maintenance craftsman only has to pick up a completed work package, pick up the assembled materials that were sent over by the warehouse, check out his tools from the tool bins, and go out and start to work on the MWO.
There are several computerized data bases being used or being implemented at Davis-Besse related to maintenance needs. The main one is the Davis-Besse Maintenance Management System (DBMMS).. The DBMMS lists the status of all MW0s for PMs, Corrective Maintenance (CM), and Surveillance Testing (ST).
In addition, it can be used as an equipment history file, since it keeps track of all work done on a system-coded basis and how long it took to do the specific piece of work. Davis-Besse staff are currently entering 20,000 previously-completed MW0s into the system (i.e., completed prior to the implementation of the DBMMS about 2 years ago). A computer program called Project 2 (P-2) is used for scheduling purposes. With the proper input on what needs to be done, how long it will take, and what follows after the original work is completed, P-2 prints out a work flow diagram (schedule), which shows the critical path for the work accomplished. A Materials Accounting and Procurement getting(MAPS) is now being implemented. Finally, the plant also has a System computerized Commitment Tracking System to follow the status of commitments made to the NRC. These systems are currently being used by the Maintenance, Planning, Operations, and Materials Groups for initiating and tracking maintenance actions.
In the past, the plant has dreae very little in the way of preventive maintenance or discretionary surveillance testing, which is at least partially due to the backlog of corrective maintenance work.
For example, 4.5% of the maintenance staff time was used for PMs in January, 1985.
This increased to 16% in August, 1985. However, the stated plant goal was to spend 60% of the staff's time on PMs in the
9 future. Management felt that it would probably take about 3 years to achieve this goal. There are about 60 people working on the development of the preventive maintenance program at this time. They plan on using the Davis-Besse Maintenance Management System for scheduling the PMs. Another change involves the approvals required for waiving a PM.
In the past a Lead Engineer could approve waiving a PM, now it requires the Maintenance Manager's approval, as well as a written justification and an assessment of the consequences of waiving that PM.
In addition, there has not been in the past, nor currently, any preventive maintenance performed on non-stock equipment stored in the warehouse.
The Plant Manager intends to use the following indicators for determining how effective the maintenance program is: internal QA audits; requested Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) review; Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) review starting October 31, 1985; the Performance Enhancement Program (PEP), which was a program developed by the licensee as a result of meetings with Region III to address declining SALP perfonnance ratings (initiation -
late 1983); and INP0's performance measurements (quarterly and monthly).
In addition plans currently exist to conduct an extensive testing program during startup (66 tests), which will be approved by a special test group and a " blue ribbon" committee. The Plant Manager also expressed a belief that the Planning Department also had its own set of indicators for examining performance. However, that group has not finalized those measures.
Maintenance backlog continues to be a problem. Davis-Besse had 1239 outstanding Maintenance Work Orders (MWO) as of September 18, 1985.
Twelve were priority 1,14 were priority 2, and 1213 were priority 3.
There are over 440 Q-item parts not on-hand to support existing work orders. The total number of work requests is continuing to increase.
In the two weeks prior to September 16, the increase was from 887 to 960. The number of MW0's (backlogged, suspended, and on-hold) have increased by 100 up to 290 for the electrical shop, while remaining fairly constant for the I&C (about 420) and mechanical (620) shops.
In the last month more corrective MW0's have been initiated than completed (+63), more Facility Change Request (FCR) MWO's have been initiated than completed (+43), and more PMW0's have been initiated than completed (+22). These increases likely represent an attempt to perform maintenance that was previously ignored or not identified.
In addition the status of backlog work was not clearly known to all organizational groups. Five separate accountings of the backlog were provided to the site survey team; none agreed as to the specific amount of the backlog.
QC management felt that in the past 30% of his recommendations related to maintenance were accepted, 30% were stopped by budget, and 30% were technically overruled. Although official implementation plans have not been finalized, QC is not expecting to cover any maintenance activities currently scheduled to be performed on the backshift.
10 Plant staff felt that under the old system, the " cognizant" engineers were so overloaded with other duties and functions, that they were unable to provide the system engineering function that was needed.
In the past any request for engineering assistance was infonnal and maintenance staff felt that this resulted in inadequate engineering support.
Plans are to develop a formal engineering support request.
To promote interdepartmental communication concerning outages, the new organization will have an outage coordinator in every department.
Coordinators will report to the Outage manager. While this position description is not yet in place, the intent is to provide an improvement in forced outage planning over the previous method where planning was done on a system basis.
Materials management was identified as a problem over a year and a half ago, but it still did not get very much attention. Since the June event, however, eleven materials management procedures have been reduced to two, to streamline the acquisition and storage process.
The Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and other data sources were not used previously to look at the failure rate for equipment at Davis-Besse. The NPRDS inputs for Davis-Besse are not up-to-date. The staff have no idea when the NPRDS system will be brought up-to-date.
In the past there was no assurance that the root cause of a problem was identified by the work request process. In the past " cognizant" system engineers were expected to provide that function; now the program will be more formalized and will be implemented in the Systems Engineering group.
2.
Facilities and Equipment
- a. General Description Inadequate facilities for parts storage and other maintenance activities at Davis-Besse has been identified as a problem for a significant period of time. Current workshops are especially cramped, particularly.the I&C shop. The warehouse is located half a mile from the plant, and is near 100% capacity, even though less than 50% of the perceived needed spare parts are on-site. Construction of a new maintenance support building has just started adjacent to the plant.
This new building for maintenance has been in the planning stage since 1981. The 100,000 square foot building is planned for completion in November 1986 (total cost $15 million, with $2 to $3 million dollars inequipment). The new building will be used to store consumables and to pre-stage big jobs. The primary benefits, however, are expected to be significantly expanded shop and office space for each of the three craft groups, and the co-location of the planning, scheduling, and performance groups. A new warehouse has been requested.
If approved, current plans are that the warehouse will be located on both sides of the protected area to facilitate parts receipt. The plant working
11 spaces are smaller than desired by plant staff; much of the blame for this is related to an initial plant design decision that cut work space in plant by one third to save construction costs.
- b. Other Related Protocol Observations Lack of spare parts has been a continual problem at Davis-Besse, largely dus to a Toledo Edison Company maximum limit of $10M in spare parts for all of its operating units.
It should be noted that around 1983 Toledo Edison was implementing an austerity program that may have influenced the amount of money available for spare parts.
In addition PEP identified a problem with the stock code system, but no action was taken.
The problem is that the system was formerly under another corporate group, and has not been updated. While there is a corporate pooling of parts inventory, Davis-Besse does not pool spare parts with any other nuclear facility. Engineering is currently doing a walkdown of all the systems in order to generate a list of maintenance procedures and spare parts required.
The warehouse staff felt that the warehouse was nearly filled to capacity. They were not sure how much space would be gained by selling excess equipment. Warehouse staff are currently inventorying and evaluating parts to determine accurately what exists and what is useful to retain. Since there are plans to significantly increase the spare parts inventory, there is a need for a new warehouse. To transport spare parts from the current warehouse, which is a half-mile from the plant, parts are sent to the plant through the controlled area using a guarded truck.
Before the June event many supplies were being pigeonholed out in the plant; since then a major plant cleanup has resulted in the return of large numbers of supplies and equipment to the warehouse. All plant staff interviewed felt that cleanliness of plant now was significantly i
better than before June event.
l l
l The plant safety record is good; only two lost time accidents in CY-84; one in CY-85.
Operations staff felt that some surveillance tests put undue stress on plant equipment.
3.
Technical Procedures:
- a. General Description The technical procedures program at Davis-Besse is currently undergoing a major revision. New Administrative Documents (ads) are being rewritten to reflect the new maintenance policies and the new maintenance organization arrangements. At present there are approximately 600 procedures (both technical and administrative) dealing with maintenance activities. That number is expected to
12 increase to 1800 to 2000 before the new procedure development program is completed in late 1986. This increase will address deficiencies such as the fact that I&C has only one work procedure at this time to cover all I&C calibration and testing work.
In order to get the new procedures written, consultants are being hired.
The consultants will develop content and format requirements, as well as write the various types of procedures. The procedures will be validated by plant staff.
- b. Other Related Protocol Observations The writing or rewriting of ads and maintenance procedures is expected to be an ongoing evolution. As requirements to perform a maintenance action come up, the procedures will be reviewed and revised before work begins. Administrative procedures for that process are still being prepared. The new AD on " conduct of maintenance" will be finished on October 15, 1985. A human factors expert will be hired in the next few weeks to make content and format determinations for the different types of procedures.
INP0 guidance on procedures development will likely serve as the basis for the new procedures.
Prior to the June event, about 50% of the maintenance procedures were written by plant staff, while about 50% primarily involved vendor technical data. Where before only plant staff wrote procedures, it is planned that about 40 contractors will be working on the writing of new procedures by the end of 1985.
It is expected that all of the new procedures will be in place by the end of 1986.
While there is no system at the plant for acquiring original or updates of vendor technical manuals or for controlling the vendor manuals at the plant, there are plans to apply configuration management to those documents (Davis-Besse Course of Action Submittal).
QC hold points or QC coverage is detemined for each MWO by the QC Department. The notifications and holds are then written into a photocopy of the relevant maintenance procedure.
Procedure verification is not carried out, except to the extent that each new procedure has to be signed off by the Station Review Board.
Procedure validation is carried out before the first procedure use or during the first procedure use by the craftsmen.
The ads specify that a procedure shall be used for all maintenance work except where the " skill of the craft" precludes the need. Skill of craft deteminations are made by the Planning Department, QC Department, and the foremen collectively.
The new administration has taken a verbal hard line on procedure use.
The new policy from top management is that craftsmen not using procedures would be fired.
This policy was intended to raise the level of consciousness about procedure use. However, the union agreement precludes such treatment until the fourth misuse (verbal warning, written warning, days off
13 without pay, and termination), so the first time that a mistake occurred because a procedure was not used, the Senior V.P., Nuclear, gave a verbal warning to the six people involved (3 maintenance and 3 QC) in order to stress its importance. This was followed by a mandatory lecture to all Davis-Besse staff concerning the consequences of failing to follow procedures. Because of this dichotomy, plant staff indicated that the impact of the new hard line policy on procedure use is not fully understood by all working levels yet. Part of this problem may be a result of the fact that many of the newly-hired managers at Davis-Besse have come from non-union sites, where they felt that they had more flexibility in implementing policy.
Maintenance staff feel that this new procedural compliance policy has resulted in significant work slowdowns. Crafts personnel are unsure when to ask for procedural interpretation, and with the reassignment of " cognizant" engineers, whom to ask. There were 22 MOVATs (Motor Operated Valve Automated Tests) done the week before the lecture on procedural compliance by senior management; only 4 were done the following week.
The Planning' Department is now responsible for making sure that a copy of the most_ recent version of the procedure is attached to the MWO package.
There is a Temporary Modification (T-MOD) Form for identifying and -
documenting the need to change a procedure. The changes must be approved by a supervisor, an SRO, the Plant Manager, and the Safety Review Board.
Plant staff had major problems using procedures in the past due to an extensive number of T-MODS, even when those modifications had been permanently incorporated into their respective procedures. Frequently the T-MODS were haphazardly inserted, and the procedures lost their original continuity. The plant does have a Procedure Deletion Form for eliminating unnecessary maintenance procedures.
The surveillances performed were felt to be adequate, but not enough periodic testing was being done previously, with too many surveillances waived.
HP felt that the primary reasons for the facility low man-rem exposure were extensive decontamination, and job tracking of radiation exposure during outages.
Mission-wide procedures integrating corporate policy with technical and administrative plant procedures are scheduled to be in place by end of CY-85.
t
14 4.
Personnel:
- a. General Description
~
Staffing levels in the past at Davis-Besse were detemined pretty much on an ad hoc basis, possibly due to the lack of a personnel specialist. Now specific staff and specific staffing levels are being detemined using a more structured approach. High-level administrative staff have just been hired who reflect the philosophy of the new Senior V.P., Nuclear.
In addition, the new administrative staff are hiring or promoting subordinates who reflect their philosphy. Final craft staffing levels will be determined by ensuring that training needs, shift work needs, and vacation needs can be accomodated. At present there are approximately 200 people in the Maintenance Department, plus 68 planners / schedulers in the Planning Department, plus 13 staff in the Facilities Modification Department, plus approximately 150 GEM contractors doing facilities modification work.
Up until May,1985, there was a one-shift schedule for maintenance.
In May, 1985, the plant moved to a 2-shift maintenance schedule with a half-hour changeover during nomal operation. They are currently on a 2,10-hour shift outage schedule. Approximately 5/6 of the maintenance staff worked during the regular shift and the other 1/6 worked the midnight shift (no coverage on the swing shift). The craftsmen did not like the 2-shift schedule. When the new Assistant l
Plant Manager, Maintenance, was hired in August, he announced that the 2-shift regular work schedule would be ended. However, he rescinded that initial statement because of work load and informed us during our site visit that they would move to a 3-shift schedule after the outage was over as long as workload demanded it.
Everyone below foreman is a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union, Local No. 245. The union agreement covers union benefits, the grievance process, wages, shift differential, overtime, etc. Craft recruitment is done locally, although administrative positions are advertised nationally.
Turnover rates at the plant have been less than 2% for the total craft staff. This may be due to high unemployment in the crafts (although I
there is low unemployment in general in the area, 200 out of 1200 I
craftsmen at the local IBEW union hall are unemployed). However, low salary rates at the plant have been a cause of concern to workers and management. Recent changes in the salary rates have been made to address this.
Maintenance training in the past has suffered from lack of training and from the fact that training courses were cancelled when maintenance work had to be done. Davis-Besse has developed several maintenance training courses since late 1982, however they have not employed a rigorous, systematic approach to training. The maintenance
15 training staff and facilities for training have been expanded greatly since the June 9 event, and a significant effort is underway to obtain INPO accreditation in the maintenance training area.
- b. Other Related Protocol Observations There are currently 198 people in the Maintenance Department. Of those, 39 are supervisors and technical staff. There are 46 mechanical craft, 23 electrical craft, and 43 I&C craft. There are no plans to increase the number of non-supervisory craft personnel.
In addition, there are 68 staff in the Planning Department, which includes about 29 staff in the computer group. The Facilities Modification Department is composed of 13 people, who mainly supervise the contractor staff. During outages approximately 30 staff are provided from other Toledo Edison units.
l The main contractor is GEM, which has been the main contractor since the plant was designed. There are typically about 40 GEM craftsmen i
working at the site during nomal operations. During this particular outage, there are approximately 150 GEM craftsmen and foremen on site.
During a scheduled refueling outage, there are typically 150-200 GEM craftsmen and approximately 100 non-GEM contractors working. The l
plant uses no more than 300 contractor staff during an outage.
l' The overtime pay rate for union personnel is 1.5 times the normal f
salary. The amount of overtime is quite high at the plant. Craftsmen work 50% overtime during outages and approximately 20% overtime during normal operations. The stated goal for overtime is to hold it below 20%.
Career paths have been limited at the plant because of low turnover.
However, with the latest organization changes, which included the addition of new staff members, crafts people have moved up to foremen position, and some of the previous foremen have been moved up to General Foreman and Supervisor positions. The new organization structure is line oriented, and it is likely that subordinates will move up to fill vacated jobs.
Recruitment for high-level supervisors, administrators, and training staff has been done at a national level. Selection tests have recently been implemented. All staff are currently undergoing an 8-hour test battery (MMPI and various aptitude tests) to determine job suitability. No skills tests are used.
In September, 1982, a former nuclear navy training instructor was hired to do all of the maintenance training. However, approximately 90% of the I&C training, 70% of the electrical training, and 50% of l
the mechanical training have been done by contractors. At present the Training Department is undergoing major changes. A Training Department Director was hired last year, and the previous maintenance I
trainer promoted to Maintenance Training Manager.
Five additional
16 instructors have been hired and three more are to be hired (3 for mechanical, 3 for I&C, and 2 for electrical). The Training Department has committed to gaining INP0 accreditation by the end of 1986, although they hope to receive their accreditation by mid-1986.
Davis-Besse was the second-to-last plant to commit to INP0 accreditation. The present goal with regard to maintenance training is for craftsmen to spend 1/6 of their time in training. While vendor training was used extensively in the past, the plant hopes to do all of the training, except very specialized training, in the future.
The training facilities are presently being greatly upgraded. Two training rooms with approximately 1500 square feet of floor space will be dedicated to maintenance training.
Laboratories are being equipped for I&C (1300 square feet), mechanical (1440 square feet), and electrical (700 square feet) training. Although budget constraints restricted the purchase of training equipment in the past, that is not the case now. For example, a $250,000 electrical training device was recently ordered, and it took only one week to get the proper approvals.
In addition, Davis-Besse is committed to buying a plant-reference simulator, which should be installed by 1988 or.1989.
Although operations staff believed that there were qualified people in maintenance, on the whole they felt that maintenance staff had let the plant down, and were directly responsible for the plant's current condition.
The engineering group felt that there would be an in-place group of qualified and experienced system engineers by the fourth quarter 1986.
l Plant Engineering has increased by about 50 staff since the event, and within the next 4 - 6 weeks all the plant engineering staff from corporate will be relocated out to the plant site.
Maintenance workers blamed scheduling for their slow work in the past.
They felt that if they worked too fast, when they finished there would be no more work for them to do. They also felt that even if there was I
l work, it would consist of the lousy jobs.
It was felt by several operations and maintenance staff that the required 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> days and maintenance coverage on the backshift were not productive, and had been instituted simply for image reasons.
Maintenance foremen felt that increased training in supervision of maintenance work was needed. Each new foreman does participate in a course offered at Wittenburg College (one week per year for three years). Those who had attended the course considered it extremely valuable in introducing new foremen to supervisory techniques.
Hawever, none of the new foremen had attended the course, and they felt the need for expanded guidance related to supervisory techniques sooner than was currently scheduled.
~17 Materials staff felt that they would be able to support the majority of station needs within 60 days, and the total needs within six months.
Many staff felt that post-s,tartup it is possible that the utility will forget the past and re-tighten purse strings.
Some plant staff stated that Toledo Edison just doesn't pay enough to attract and keep qualified people. This was especially noted for the I&C engineering positions, where the high turnover rate and extended vacancies were felt to have had serious impacts on I&C maintenance at the plant.
Some maintenance staff felt that permanent QC staff were very good, but that a number of the contracted QC staff were not competent. QC has added staff from crafts for the first time.
In the past craft salaries were so high and QC salaries so low that no one from maintenance would go into QC.
Even now QC can only afford someone who has completed apprentice training, not a journeyman. Similar constraints applied to training and planning functions in the past.
There is no personnel exchange program between the maintenance and QC staff organizations.
Many staff felt that there was a big wall between the union crafts and plant management, and that reduction in benefits, increased overtime, threats of dismissal, and required shift coverage were aggravating the problem.
I Recent personnel changes have greatly effected the plant, especially craft supervision and engineering. Although craft staff are senior (average journeyman 10 years), several of the new supervisory staff for I&C and Mechanical are very new to the plant. The new I&C Superintendent has only been at the plant for two months; the new Mechanical Superintendent has also only been here two months. The new General Foreman (Mechanical) just arrived at plant two weeks ago; having been out of nuclear power since he retired from the Navy in 1969. He was brought back by the V.P., Nuclear, who had known him in the navy.
5.
Work Control
- a. General Description Maintenance at Davis-Besse is controlled using the Maintenance Work Order (MWO) system. The most common mechanism for the initiation of an MWO is the work request. Any TED employee may request that maintenance be performed on equipment by initiating a work request.
Operations personnel submit their work requests through the shift supervisor, and shop personnel through their supervisor. Besides a work request, an MWO may be generated as the result of:
18 i
o Another MWO which did not completely address all required i
maintenance or disclosed additional items requiring f
maintenance o
A Facility Change Request (FCR) o A Deviation Report (DVR) j o
A Nonconforinance Report (NCR) i o
An unsatisfactory surveillance report by QC i
o The direct initiation by a " cognizant" individual l
using DBMMS.
j The work control process has undergone two major changes in the past i
few years.
First, while the same general MWO system is being used as was used in the past, it is now computerized. Second, everything 3
dealing with completing an MWO, up to doing the actual work, is now handled by the Planning Department. This means that the maintenance t
i l
worker has more time now to carry out actual maintenance work.
- b. Other Related Protocol Observations All work planning and scheduling used to be done in the Maintenance l
Department. Now all planning and scheduling is being done in the Planning Department. The Planning Department is broken up into three l
units--regular planning / scheduling, outage planning / scheduling, and l
computer support. Within the regular planning section, subunits do planning / scheduling for I&C, mechanical, and electrical separately.
There are 68 people in the Planning Department and 29 of them are involved with computer support. Under the new configuration, the Planning Department takes care of all of the paperwork, signatures, and parts availability determinations for the MWO. The Planning Department attaches a copy of the relevant procedure to the completed MWO. The warehouse sends over work packages of parts. Thus, when a maintenance craftsman goes to do maintenance, he picks up the completed MWO package, including the procedure, picks up the completed parts package, checks out the required tools from the tool crib, and goes off to do the work. This new system is supposed to increase greatly the productivity of the maintenance craftsman. However, maintenance craft workers feel that planning as currently configured is not yet competent to produce error-free MWO's.
The MWO itself requires signoffs or checkoffs for all of the protocol items except two (reportability of problem to the NRC and QA sign-off). Thus, the MWO itself appears adequate since it addresses a description of the problem; failure or work activity; number of the work request; priority of the work; description of the work to be performed; hold points; special tools; fire review; operational
19 testing requirements; review and approval requirements; date work commenced; personnel who performed the work; description of cause and corrective action; date work completed; and post-maintenance review.
In the future all major MW0s will be scheduled in the plan of the day.
Accessibility of parts and supplies has improved.
It used to take 26 to 28 stop points and 8 to 10 weeks for a new procurement.
Recent administrative changes have reduced that to six to ten stop points, and 3 days. Plans are for the integrated spare parts / Qualified Suppliers List (QSL) / purchasing order / warehouse tracking system (MAPPS) to be in place by mid-1987.
As in the past, there is a problem with the current tagging system.
Tags are not always pulled when the job is complete; pulling them is not always called for in the work package.
Most maintenance staff felt there were too many suspended work orders; they felt that the more work orders that were suspended, the worse the maintenance program. When a job is suspended, the MWO package is returned to Planning, which involves delays and the potential for losing the MWO.
Each of the craft foreman separately felt that a backlog of 100 to 150 work orders in their shop was a manageable amount.
Operations staff felt that too many work orders were inundating the shift supervisor, and that there should be a prescreening of those work orders to identify those not impacting plant operation, and therefore not requiring Shift Supervisor review.
D.
CONCLUSIONS:
Davis-Besse is currently undergoing a major reorganization at the plant that especially affects the way the Maintenance Department is structured and the way that maintenance is carried out. A structured approach has been taken in defining what the new organizational structure should be and what new policies / procedures should be implemented.
The reorganization began with the hiring of a new Senior V.P., Nuclear. He hired a new Plant Manager, and together they developed a new operating and maintenance philosophy. They then set out to hire new high-level administrative staff who believed in and could carry out the new philosophy. These new administrative staff have determined their needs, set goals and objectives for their departments, planned and developed their nee organizations and staffing needs, and are now in the process of implementing their plans.
As one feedback mechanism, they are to be evaluated on how well they meet their set goals and objectives. Additional lines of communication are to be established among departments to facilitate constructive feedback.
I i
Facilities and spare parts have long been a problem at Davis-Besse.
i Original assessments of facility size and spare par ~t needs were reduced for monetary reasons. Several years ago plans for a new maintenance l
~.
20 et.
building, where the workshops would be located, were developed based on space and equipment needs determined over the preceding years of operation. The facility design has been altered slightly based on input from the newly hired administrative staff. The need for more spare parts and a better spare parts accounting and ordering system has also been recognized for years. The number of spare parts has been limited due to a
$10M Toledo Edison cap on total expenditures for spare parts for all of their operating units. This cap is now being lifted. Davis-Besse staff are now determining spare parts needs based on spare parts usage over the past sevrral years. Since there are over 440 Q-item parts not on-hand to support outstanding work orders, feedback on the increased availability of spare parts under the proposed new program should be straightforward.
Technical procedures in the past were not developed in a systematic fashion. This is now changing. The plant management wants its crafts people to use procedures, so a new procedure writing program is being developed. Consultants are to be hired to: (1) determine format and content requirements for the different kinds of procedures; (2) determine which procedures need to be written; and (3) write the procedures.
Development, use, and control of the procedures should be readily observable if and when the improvements are implemented.
As mentioned above, the need for and type of administrative personnel was recently determined and the hiring has been done to fill the new administrative positions. These new hires have recently determined their supervisory needs and have put supervisors (largely foremen) in place.
Now they are detennining their craft staffing requirements based on training needs, work backlog, vacation, etc. Maintenance training in the i
i past has been limited, and has not been systematically developed.
However, with the goal of INP0 accreditation for all of its training l
areas, the Training Department has recently increased significantly in staff size. Maintenance trainers have increased from 1 person to 8 people plus 1 supervisor. All new courses are being developed according to l
INP0's systematic approach to training.
In addition, the classroom and workshop needs were determined last year, and new facilities / equipment are being bought and built to meet these needs.
Existing training modifications to meet accreditation objectives will need to be assessed as the accredited program is implemented.
l The work control system has been in place for several years. One major change is that it was computerized two years ago. Based on the maintenance philosophy of the new administrative staff, a second major l
change is that all of the paperwork associated with the Maintenance Work l
Order is now handled by the Planning Department. Because this new role l
has only recently been established, plant staff are still unsure as to I
exactly how such a system will work. The major concern among maintenance staff is that they are no longer aware as to who the " cognizant" engineer is for a particular system.
l
?
21 1
The maintenance program at Davis-Besse has recently undergone major i
changes. These changes have come about following a systematic look at program needs, goal-setting, and the planning and developing of new programmatic thrusts and organizational structure. The program is just now being implemented. Senior management is attempting to develop and set i
feedback mechanisms in place so that the plant should have the ability to determine how well the new program is working after it has been implemented for some time period.
Deficiencies related to the maintenance and surveillance program at Davis-Besse prior to the June 9 event were observed in nine major areas.
These areas are:
(1) Corporate Commitment - Many of the deficiencies listed below had been repeatedly brought to the attention of senior management within the Toledo Edison organization prior to the June 9,1985, event and were not acted upon because of self-imposed budget constraints (1984 PEP and MBO). Despite previous SALP reports which identified concerns regarding maintenance, programs to improve the maintenance function at Davis-Besse were not adequately implemented. As an example, for i
1985 the following work performance measurement goals were i
established and reported on a monthly basis to corporate via the Nuclear Mission Work Performance Measurement Report.
There was not significant progress towards achieving these goals, and that lack of progress was tolerated prior to the June 9 event:
% of scheduled PMs completed
% of total maintenance man-hours due to preventive maintenance Number of Control Room Instruments Out-Of-Service i
Number of Jumper and Lifted Lead Log Entries in the Plant Non-ConformanceReports(NCR's)OpenLessthan90DaysComparedto j
Total Each Month Audit Finding Reports (AFR's) Open Less Than 120 Days Compared to Total Open Each Month Supplier Deviation Reports (SDR's) Open Less than 90 Days Compared 4
to Total Open Each Month f
Number of Procedures Having Greater Than 5 Temporary Modifications for Over Two Months, i
1 i
l a
9
,,,,,,-,,.wm,,,
,-.---,.-.---...,,n,r.,,..
,--,-.,,,s.,,w,-,u,,,_,,..,.n,-
w.
,_,,,m4.,v._
.,,-.---.-n--,,
~
22 (2) Maintenance Work Backlog - The backlog of maintenance work was seen by personnel as sufficiently large such that it resulted in numerous pieces of equipment and instruments being out-of-service, or in a less-than-optimal condition, and caused significant numbers of preventive maintenance actions to be skipped due to lack of available resources.
The total number of work requests is continuing to increase.
In the two weeks prior to September 16, the increase was from 887 to 960. The number of MWO's (backlogged, suspended, and on-hold) have increased by 100 up to 290 for the Electrical Shop, while remaining fairly constant for the I&C (about 420) and Mechanical (620) shops.
In the last month more corrective MW0's have been initiated than completed (+63), more FCR MW0's have been initiated than completed (+43), and more PMW0's have been initiated than completed (+22). These increases likely represent an attempt to perform maintenance that was previously ignored or not identified.
In addition the status of backlog work was not clearly known to all organizational groups.
Five separate accountings of the backlog were provided to the site survey team; none agreed as to the specific amount of the backlog.
1 (3) Spare Parts / Material Readiness - Difficulties in providing spare parts to support maintenance activities existed.
The difficulties were the result of insufficient spare parts on hand, poor planning in the ordering of long-lead-time materials, lack of effective expediting, and an excessive amount of time to process requisitions.
(4) Supervision - Inadequate numbers of first-line management supervisors were available for the direct monitoring of maintenance work. While group leaders were expected to perform this function, their lack of management training and direction as well as their continued union affiliation impacted their ability to provide objective, and aggressive supervision.
(5)
Preventive Maintenance - The preventive maintenance program in the past has been very limited with less than 20% of the staff time spent on preventive maintenance. The current plant goal is to spend 60% of staff time on preventive maintenance. For January through June of l
1985, only 57% of the scheduled PMs were actually completed (low in April - 43%: high in March - 72%). This was despite a unit goal of 80% on a monthly basis.
(6) Mainte1ance Procedures - Procedures were not consistently used, not always clearly written, and were not comprehensive for all systems and equipment.
(7) Communications - Cross-communications between organizations at the plant were inadequate.
The result was that problems related to maintenance remained unresolved for extended periods of time.
23 (8) Defined Responsibilities - Clearly established and understood responsibilities for specific maintenance and surveillance functions were not provided in sufficient detail to preclude omission of certain key functions, such as trending, determining the root cause for equipment failures, measuring impact on operations, and identifying long-lead-time materials.
In order to better establish these responsibilities, it will be necessary to have established, understood, and implemented position and organizational function descriptions.
(9) Training - Maintenance training provided in the past was not systematically developed, not provided in sufficient quantity, and often cancelled due to work load. A systematic program would involve a formal identification of needs, and then a detailed plan to implement the steps to address those needs, as well as specifying which measures will be used to evaluate the program's eventual success.
Extensive modifications are currently being made to the Davis-Besse maintenance and surveillance program.
In the opinion of the site survey team members, the modifications -- as explained in the Davis-Besse Course of Action submittal, and described to the site survey team by individuals and groups being interviewed as part of the protocol infonnation gathering process -- address all perceived previous weaknesses (listed above) in the Davis-Besse maintenance and surveillance program that are believed to have contributed to the June 9, 1985, event.
Those modifications are currently being implemented. However, it is too early to determine how effective those changes will be, or if they have been implemented sufficiently such that an integrated, well-understood (at i
all levels) maintenance and surveillance program now exists at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.
1 l
l
._,v__-
i l
APPENDIXES A.
Plant Staff Interviewed During the Site Visit.
4 B.
Entrance Meeting Attendance and Exit Meeting Attendance.
I C.
Time Line 1
D.
Davis-Besse Plant Data L
i I
l 5
i l
i l
l I
t
~
_--,,,,-_w,,,
-c,e,-,
,,e-
_,,,w-w__----,-rw--m-+--.n~en..,m
.w,-
,,,-n
3 A.1 Appendix A - PLANT STAFF INTERVIEWED DURING THE SITE VISIT Senior Vice President Nuclear - Joe Williams, Jr.
Planning Superintendent - Mike Schefers Plant Manager - Lou F. Storz Quality Assurance Director - Chuck T. Daft Nuclear Engineering General Manager -
0.I. Mavro Facility Modifications Director - Carl Fosnaugh GEM Supervisor - Joe Marchica Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor - Dennis J. Mominee Operations Engineering Supervisor - John Johnson Assistant Plant Manager - Maintenance - Steve Smith Plant Services Manager - Dave N. Morrison Health Physics Supervisor - Mike P. Horne Industrial Safety Supervisor - Judy Brower Materials Manager - Tom Chiles Operations Superintendent - Louis P. Simon Operations Engineer - Pete Senick Director, Nuclear Facility Engineering - James Helle Nuclear Reliability Supervisor & NPRDS Coordinator - Dave A. Huffman Operations Engineering Manager - Jack R. Lingenfelter Station Performance Supervisor - Erdal C. Caba Material Storage and Warehouse Operations Supervisor - Mike Nagey Materials Ordering Supervisor - Linda Dohrmann QC Supervisor - D.L. Rhodes Senior QC Inspector (Mechanical) - Jim Pearson Senior QC Inspector (Electrical / Mechanical) - Rick Jarosi Senior Equipment Operator I - Ronald W. Clark Reactor Operator - Byron Myers Shift Supervisor - Scott F. Wise Shift Supervisor - Ron K. Flood
o A.2 Outage Manager - Don A. Lee Planning Manager - Dick Brown Maintenance Specialist - Jim Long Mechanical Superintendent - Jack Kasper Mechanical Lead Engineer - John O'Neill General Foreman - Mechanical - Bill Berardi Foreman - Mechanical - Dick Reilly Mechanical Craft - Roger Renaux Mechanical Craft - William Hassal I&C Superintendent - Carroll Phillips Lead I&C Engineer - Tom R. Isely General Foreman - I&C - K.A. Brubaker Foreman - I&C - Paulo Russell I&C Craft - Ed Gensler I&C Craft - Jim Staton Electrical Superintendent - Neil Bonner Lead Electrical Engineer - T.W. Haberland General Foreman - Ron Eubing Foreman - Electrical - Gary Shiets Electrical Craft -
Personnel Administrator - William Dicks Training Director - M.L. Stewart Nuclear Maintenance Training Manager - M.A. Schoener Technical Skills Training Instructor - J.D. Swartz Technical Skills Training Instructor - L.J. Blake 1
B.1 Appendix B - ENTRANCE MEETING ATTENDANCE AND EXIT MEETING ATTENDANCE Entrance Meeting Attendance (9-16-85 / 9:00 AM)
Mel Stewart TED Steve Wideman TED Joe Williams TED Louis Storz TED Ted Myes TED Michael Schefers TED RF Peters TED Steve Smith TED CT Daft TED BR Beyer TED D. Kosloff NRC Drew Persinko NRC Bill Guldemond NRC Ned Choules NRC George Dick NRC Bill Rankin Battelle Walt Apley Battelle Exit Meetina Attendance (9-20-85 / 11:00 AM)
Steve Wideman TED Lou Storz TED Michael Schefers TED Steve Smith TED Greg Cwalina NRC George Dick NRC Ned Choules NRC Walt Rogers NRC Drew Persinko NRC Walt Apley Battelle
C.1 Appendix C - TIME LINE Team A - Choules / Dick / Apley / Persinko (50%)
Team B - Barber / Guldemond / Rankin / Persinko (50%)
Monday, September 16, 1985 staff on purpose of visit -
Briefing to senior utility (DBAB), Room 209 9:00-9:30 Davis-Besse Admin. Bldg.
Attendees:
J. Williams, Jr.
T. J. Myers T. D. Murray M. L. Stewart S. M. Quennoz R. F. Peters I. F. Storz C. T. Daft S. J. Smith M. E. Schefers B. R. Beyer S. G. Wideman 9:30-10:30 Interview with Senior V.P., Nuclear - Joe Williams Team to meet with Resident Insp(ectors -
10:01-10:30 Personnel Processing Facility PPF) 10:30- 1:00 Meet with Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance and Maintenance Superintendents to explain purpose of visit, refine the interview schedule and get a brief overview of the maintenance program (including planned changes) - PPF Attendees:
L. F. Storz M. E. Schefers S. J. Smith S. G. Wideman N. L. Bonner R. A. Brown J. R. Kasper D. A. Lee C. V. Phillips Lunch 1:00-5:00 Team A.
Meet with Assistant Plant Manager, Operations and staff to go over surveillances, and operations' interfaces with Maintenance Department (p.27/12,13/92/35) 1:00 L. P. Simon - Acting Assistant Plant Manager, Operations, (Operations Superintendent) 2:00 J. Johnson 3:00 P. Senick Team B.
Meet with Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance and staff to go over organization and administration of Maintenance Department.
C.2 1:00 S. J. Smith - Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance 2:00 N. L. Bonner - Electrical Superintendent 3:00 J. R. Kasper - Mechanical Superintendent 4:00 C. V. Phillips - I&C Superintendent 5:00 M. E. Schefers - Planning Superintendent Tuesday, September 17, 1985 8:00-12:00 Plant tour 1.
Warehouse, including receiving and EQ storage areas 2.
Electrical Shops, tool bins and staging areas 3.
Mechanical Shops, tool bins and staging areas 4.
I&C Shops, tool bins and staging areas 5.
Maintenance supervisory personnel offices 6.
Control Room and Shift Supervisor Offices 7.
B0P, but not RACA areas 8.
Training and Plant Engineering areas 1:00-5:30 Team A.
Meet with on-shift Operations' staff to discuss surveillance control and maintenance interfaces (Shift testingoffice) 1:00 Ron Flood - Shift Supervisor 2:00 Byron Myers - Reactor Operator 3:00 Ron Clark - Equipment Operator 4:00 Scott Wise - Shift Supervisor Team B.
Meet with Maintenance supervisory staff to discuss procedures for work control as well as development and usage of maintenance procedures. Go through work package generation, review, usage, and final documentation of accomplishment. Obtain and review two maintenance procedures (including procedure or adjusting torque switch bypass contacts and torque switch settings
- AFW) 1:00-2:30 R. A. Brown - Planning Manager 2:30-4:00 D. A. Lee - Outage Manager 4:00 J. W. Long - Maintenance Specialist I
C.3 Wednesday, September 18, 1985 8:00-10:30 Team A.
Meet with Plant Engineering and Materials Manager to discuss available plant information regarding equipment performance and maintenance needs, as well as component labeling and maintainability issues. Coordinator for Davis-Besse NPRDS input should be present. Discuss In-Service Inspection and Testing.
8:00- 8:45 J. Helle 8:45-9:15 J. R. Lingenfelter 9:15-10:00 E. C. Caba and Tom Chiles 10:00-10:30 Dave Huffman and O. J. Marro Team B.
Meet with appropriate staff to discuss staffing levels, recruitment, career path and maintenance staff qualifications Group Meeting:
L. F. Storz M. E. Schefers S. J. Smith W. B. Dicks 10:30-12:00 Team A.
Meet with I&C Superintendent, Lead I&C Engineer and I&C General Foreman to discuss I&C maintenance program and staff.
Group Meeting:
C. V. Phillips K. A. Brubaker T. R. Isley Team B.
Meet with Electrical Superintendent, Lead Electrical engineer and General foreman to discuss electrical maintenance program and staff Group Meeting:
N. L. Bonner R. W. Uebbing T. W. Haberland i
1:00-5:00 Team A.
Meet with Warehouse Supervisor to discuss spare and replacement parts control, materials storage and receipt inspection policies. Meet with Safety Supervisor i
and Chemistry & HP Supervisor to discuss interfaces with maintenance organizations. Meet with Plant Manager and Assistant Plant Manager (Plant Services) to discuss and review plans for new maintenance building.
I 1:00 T. J. Chiles - Materials Manager 1:30 L. M. Dohrmann and M. J. Nagy 2:30 Judy Brower l
3:00 Mike Horne 3:45 Dave Morrison and Lou Storz l
l
C4 Team B.
Meet with training staff to discuss maintenance staff training 1:00 M. L. Stewart - Training Director 2:00 M. A. Schoener - Nuclear Maintenance Training Manager 3:00 J. D. Swartz - Technical Skills Training Instructor 4:00 L. J. Blake - Technical Skills Training Instructor Thursday, September 19, 1985 8:00-9:30 Team A.
Meet with the Mechanical Superintendent, lead Mechanical Engineer and General foreman to discuss mechanical maintenance program and staff Group Meeting J. R. Kasper W. A. Berardi J. J. O'Neill
~
8:00-11:00 Team B.
Meet with Assistant Plant Manager, Operations; Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance; and Planning Superintendent to discuss maintenance indicators 8:00 M. E. Schefers - Planning Superintendent 10:00 L. P. Simon - Assistant Plant Manager, Operations (Acting) 9:30-11:00 Team A.
Meet with I&C maintenance craft workers (2) to discuss maintenance program Group Meeting:
11:00-12:00 Team A.
Meet with mechanical maintenance craft workers (2) to discuss maintenance program Group Meeting:
Team B.
Meet with electrical maintenance craft workers (2) to discuss monitoring of maintenance program Group Meeting:
1:00-5:00 Team A.
Meet with QC Supervisor and QC Inspectors to discuss monitoring of maintenance program 1:00-2:15 D. L. Rhodes - QC Supervisor 2:15-3:00 J. J. Pearson - Senior QC Inspector R. Jarozi - QC Inspector 3:00-5:00 3 New Foremen (Mechanical, Electrical, and I&C) i 4
4
-,w-,-
C.5 4
Team B.
Meet with Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance and staff to discuss scheduling maintenance-intensive activities (planned and forced outages) and establishing extent of preventative maintenance program 1:00 S. J. Smith 2:00 M. Schefers 3:00 D. A. Lee 4:00 R. A. Brown Friday, September 20, 1985 8:00-10:00 Team A.
Meet with QA staff from Corporate to discuss audit of maintenance and QC programs at site 8:00- 9:00 C. T. Daft - Quality Assurance Director 9:00-10:00 D. J. Mominee - Operations QA Supervisor Team B.
Meet with contractor maintenance supervisory and craft staff to discuss interface with maintenance group onsite Group Meeting:
C. L. Fosnaugh D. Brown J. Marchica 10:00-11:00 Team to brief resident of findings 11:00 Exit briefing with utility i
O D.1 Appendix D.
DAVIS-BESSE PLANT DATA Specific data about the Davis-Besse plant includes:
Type PWR Licensed Thermal Power (MWt) 2772 Condenser Cooling Method Tower Condenser Cooling Water Lake Erie Reactor Supplier Babcock & Wilcox Turbine-Gen. Mfr.
General Electric Engineer Bechtel Constructor Bechtel Construction Permit 3-24-71 Operating License 4-22-77 Critical First Time 8-12-77 Commercial Operation 7-31-78 Most Recent SALP Ratings SALP Rept 50-346/84-11 for April 1,1983 - August 31, 1984 Maintenance 3
Surveillance 2
Quality Program 3
SALP Performance Categories - Definition Category 1: Reduced NRC attention may be appropriate. Licensee management attention and involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used so that a high level of performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Category 2: NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.
Licensee management attention and involvement are evident and concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Category 3: Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased.
Licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not effectively used so that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
l l
l i