Report on Fact-finding Meeting by Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee (DCISC) at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) on January 18-19, 2006 by A. David Rossin, Member and Sheila Sheinberg and R. Ferman Wardell, Consultants [16th Annual Report, Exhibit D.6]

1.0 Summary

The results of the January 18-19, 2006 Fact-finding trip to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in Avila Beach, CA are presented. The subjects addressed and summarized in Section 3 include:

Human Performance Overview
INPO Evaluation, DCPP Response & Actions
Status of Organizational Development at DCPP
Overview of DCPP Culture
Human Resources Update
Operating Experience Assessment Program
Quality Verification Update
Meeting with VP, Nuclear Services, Donna Jacobs
Compressed Air System Review and Walkdown with System Engineer
NEXIS Project Review

2.0 Introduction

This Fact-finding trip to the DCPP was made to evaluate specific safety matters for the DCISC. The objective of the evaluation was to determine if PG&E’s performance is appropriate and determine if any areas revealed observations which are important enough to warrant further review, follow-up, or presentation at a public meeting. These safety matters include follow-up and/or continuing review efforts by the Committee, as well as those identified as a result of reviews of various safety-related documents.

Section 4-Conclusions highlights the conclusions of the Fact-finding team based on items reported in Section 3-Discussion. These highlights also include the team’s suggested follow-up items for the DCISC, such as scheduling future Fact-finding meetings on the topic, presentations at future public meetings, and requests for future updates or information from DCPP on specific areas of interest, etc.

Section 5-Recommendations lists specific recommendations to PG&E proposed by the Fact-finding team. These recommendations will be considered by the DCISC. After review and approval by the DCISC, the Fact-finding report, including its recommendations, is provided to PG&E. The Fact-finding report will also appear in the DCISC Annual Report.

3.0 Discussion

3.1 Human Performance Overview

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Ms. Ardela Daniels, Supervisor of Organizational Improvement, and Mr. Peter Bedesem, Senior Performance Improvement Coordinator, to discuss Human Performance at DCPP. The DCISC last reviewed Human Performance at its October 12, 2005 Public Meeting (Reference 6.1)

Background: On August 27, 2003 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified Human Performance as a cross-cutting issue at DCPP, and in July 2004 the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), in an Assist Visit, identified the three following concerns in the area of Human Performance: 1 – Inadequate use of human performance error prevention tools, such as pre-job briefings, procedure adherence, and communications; 2 – Root cause investigations are not addressing the causes of organizational or process weaknesses; 3 – apparent cause evaluations do not document behavior, processes and/or organizational weaknesses. Since then, DCPP has focused its attention on improving Human Performance across the plant. NRC lifted the Human Performance Cross-cutting Issue in April 2005.

Human Performance Initiatives: DCPP created a Human Performance Plan, detailed, focused, and with ownership and status identification for 2005. This plan included the following:

Initiative 1: Use error prevention tools (communication and verification practices) consistently and effectively across the Station.
Initiative 2: Modify the Management Observation Program so that it effectively reinforces Human Performance behaviors.
Initiative 3: Ensure the quality and accuracy of procedures and work processes.
Initiative 4: Implement changes to identify organizational factors in an improved root cause analysis process.
Initiative 5: Create and institutionalize a formal Human Performance Program for the Station.
The primary objectives of the Human Performance Improvement Strategy are to:: 1. Focus to improve line ownership of the program; 2. Establish continuous improvement structure; a. Improve Human Performance leadership; b. Reduce frequency and severity of events; 3. Recognize and encourage good performance; 4. Identify and address performance shortfalls; 5. Allow leadership to monitor and drive performance; 6. Improve matrix to monitor; a. Align with goals leading toward industry leadership; b. HP clock re-sets, error rate, observations; 7. Establish forum for review; a. Performance Improvement Board (Officers, Directors, Oversight); b. Department Meetings (Directors, Managers)
Results: Each program objective has been pursued with vigor. A number of programs, processes and strategies have been and are being put in place to improve human performance.: Some results that have already been achieved are:; 1. All sections are now meeting management observation goals (four were not meeting these goals in April; 2. A new Management Observation Program that identifies performance at the station, department and section level; 3. Performance trends are incorporated in Performance Improvement Reviews

Management Observation Program

In addition, a web-based strategy has been put in place to facilitate data collection, data management, and data distribution from the Management Observation Program. This website link is found on the DCCP homepage. This website will provide insight across the plant as to Management Observation data, process and achievements.

Human Performance and the DCPP Business Plan

The first initiative in the Diablo Canyon Business Plan, 2006-2009, focuses on Human Performance. Goals are:: 1. Reduce the number DCPP equipment configuration control events (includes mispositions, misalignments, etc) in 2006; 2. Improve Human Performance through more consistent use of error prevention tools
Some of the additional actions necessary to improve Human Performance are:: Continue benchmarking to learn from top performers; Continue to improve plant work processes (2006 Goals); 1. Expand processes to include other items beside PI programs; 2. Improve line ownership; Continue to improve quality (2006 Goals); 1. Continue organizational cause training for all analysts; 2. Improve trending program to integrate Corrective Action Program, Human Performance, Management Observation Program, and Self-Assessments; 3. Enhance training interface

Human Performance Governance

One of the major initiatives in the Human Performance arena during 2005 has been to create a governance structure designed to provide a cohesive framework for the improvement of Human Performance. At the station level the human performance objective is to "improve line ownership for the human performance program." There are initiatives and milestones to enable achieving the station-wide objective. At the department level, there is a departmental human performance objective, which is to "instill staff ownership for human performance behaviors."

To improve line ownership of human performance, the following initiatives were created:: 1. Use error prevention tools (communication and verification practices) consistently and effectively across the station.; 2. Modify the Management Observation Program so that it effectively reinforces human performance behaviors.; 3. Ensure the quality and accuracy of procedures and work packages.; 4. Implement changes to identify organizational factors in an improved root-cause analysis.; 5. Create and institutionalize a formal human performance program for the station.

All of the five initiatives have been pursued during 2005 and continue into 2006.

Corrective Actions for Human Performance Improvement

To facilitate management ownership and institutionalization of the Human Performance strategies and positive outcomes, DCPP has created a Corrective Action Program focusing on human performance. There are six corrective actions.

CA1: Develop station and departmental level human performance plans
CA2: Develop a system to analyze trend and utilize HP data
CA3: Achieve standardized communication across the organization
CA4: Implement best practices for management observation programs
CA5: Implement best practices for Supervisory effectiveness programs
CA6: Improve the quality of procedures and work packages

Conclusions:: DCPP has, over the last three years, made a concerted effort to focus on and improve human performance. The human performance crosscutting issues identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations were lifted in April 2005.; The focus, the commitment, and the actions taken in the area of human performance appear to have made a significant difference for DCPP. The number of initiatives, the follow-through, and the multiple strategies to address human performance and enhance human performance at DCPP are substantial. DCPP continues to integrate human performance improvement with plant performance.; The DCISC should continue to monitor DCPP human performance initiatives and results.

3.2 INPO Evaluation and DCPP Response and Actions

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Chuck Belmont, DCPP INPO Coordinator, to discuss the April 2005 INPO Evaluation and DCPP’s response and actions. The DCISC last reviewed the DCPP-INPO interface at the August 2004 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.3).

The DCISC Fact-finding Team reviewed the April 2005 INPO Evaluation and DCPP’s response. The evaluation was positive overall, and contained 13 Areas for Improvement (AFIs). These were no particular surprises, and the response appeared satisfactory; however, implementation of the actions contained in the response is what matters, and the DCISC should follow up on this.

Mr. Belmont’s job as INPO Coordinator is a new one for DCPP, effective December 1, 2005. The decision to create this position was based on benchmarking findings from five nuclear plants known for effective INPO initiatives. Each plant had a single person driving the effort.

Mr. Belmont is in the beginning stages of developing the DCPP INPO Change Plan which would be a spreadsheet to address gaps in DCPP’s addressing the 13 INPO AFIs from the April 2005 evaluation.

The known gaps are:: INPO initiatives are not all on-track; Operator errors not fully addressed; Improper decision-making by Radiation Protection technicians not fully addressed; Work Order quality improvements needed; Organizational effectiveness improvements and performance have not yet reached desired levels

Other gaps will be added as they are identified. This Plan would be included in the DCPP Business Plan, which is defined as the single, comprehensive strategic and action plan for DCPP. The Plan would incorporate a DCPP intranet site for access by all DCPP personnel. The Plan and website would also include other significant station issues/problems.

During June and July 2006, DCPP plans a two-week INPO mid-cycle self-assessment. The 15-member team, to include outside reviewers, will look at the INPO cross-functional areas and five core functions. The mid-cycle assessment is expected to provide a measure of how well DCPP is addressing the AFIs.

DCPP has requested an INPO assist visit beginning January 30, 2006 to review change management. This would include change management for the DCPP Nuclear Excellence Information System (NEXIS) Project, because DCPP considers implementation of NEXIS to be a particularly big challenge (see Section 3.10 of this report for information on NEXIS change management). The DCISC should review the results of this assist visit when available.

Responding to a question on whether DCPP is a mature "learning organization," Mr. Belmont stated that DCPP is currently in the "compliance mode" and that other organizations considered mature really "have it in their hearts and minds." DCPP is working on those learning programs which will help it become a learning organization. These programs include the Corrective Action Program, Human Performance Plan, Self-Assessment Program, Operating Experience Assessment Program (see Section 3.6 in this report), etc., i.e., those programs that provide learning opportunities and improve performance. See also Section 3.4 below for further discussion on DCPP as a learning organization.

Conclusions:: DCPP’s April 2005 INPO evaluation was positive overall and contained 13 Areas for Improvement (AFIs) which DCPP is pursuing. DCPP has developed a new position dedicated to coordinating actions on INPO initiatives. This is a constructive move. The DCISC should continue to follow up on DCPP’s progress on INPO issues.

3.3 Status of Organizational Development at DCPP

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Mr. Pier Dubé, Senior Organizational Development Consultant for DCPP. Our previous meeting with Mr. Dube was May 3, 2005 (Reference 6.4).

Mr. Dubé was energized by his recent experience as Containment Coordinator during the most recent outage (2R13). As Containment Coordinator, Mr. Dubé experimented with changing the culture in containment. His objective was to help move the culture from a "silo’d mind-set" to a collaborative, cooperative environment. Mr. Dubé concluded that the experiment was successful. Through creating forums for conversation, through continual support and reinforcement, and by breaking down the silos between supervisors, Mr. Dubé observed a true cultural change: rapid problem-solving, effective decision-making, an enhancement of the "questioning attitude," and a commitment to team work.

Mr. Dubé reported that the course "Crucial Conversations" had been completed by 75 Supervisors and Managers, and people responded in a positive manner. Mr. Dubé observed that people use the Crucial Conversation skills.

Two new Organizational Development (OD) initiatives identified by Mr. Dubé were (1) Organizational Alignment and (2) an extensive Communication Plan.

The purpose of Organizational Alignment is for everyone to know how they can contribute to the work of DCPP, how they connect throughout the organization, and how both team and individual contributions provide for the effective and productive performance of the plant. PG&E’s Enterprise Goals, DCPP’s 2006 Business Plan and the major focus areas identified in this plan and their department goals. This alignment initiative is supported by the new Performance Management Plan (see Section 3.5).

The alignment initiative is outlined in the "Diablo Canyon Communication Strategy Action Plan" which incorporates the following:: PG&E transformation efforts; All plant communications relating to DCPP Business Plan and associated Business Goals; All department communications as they relate to DCPP Business Plan and associated goals; All section communications as they related to DCPP Business Plan and associated business goals.
The objectives of the Communication Strategy Action Plan are to:: Provide clear actionable overall strategy and methodology for site-wide and departmental communications; Maximize vertical alignment of Diablo Leadership with DCPP Business Plan and PG&E transformation efforts; Maximize horizontal alignment between departments through capitalizing on interdependencies and teaming opportunities to accomplish DCPP Business Goals (For insight into PG&E transformation efforts, see sections 3.5 and 3.8)

Multiple communication media are utilized in the Communication Strategy Action Plan. These communications include email broadcasts, "Current Times" articles, posters around the plant and data on the cafeteria boards, and number of face-to-face forums to include All Hands Meetings, Department Meetings, Director Meetings, and any and all forums where information can be shared and discussed. It will also be incumbent on the directors and officers to create consistent talking points that can be used in meetings and in one-to-one conversations.

The primary focus of the Communication Plan is that communication needs to be consistent, persistent, and aligned with plans, objectives and outcomes desired by the plant. This is especially important for the 2006 DCPP Business Plan. Communications from Officers and Directors will have common themes, run in alignment with the communication strategy, and support strategy objectives. It is assumed that communications from managers and supervisors are in alignment with the Communication Strategy and support strategy objects. One measure of progress is that multiple communications send a clear and consistent message in that efforts involving multiple communication vehicles are timed and paced to maximize effectiveness in alignment with DCPP’s communications strategy. Most important, the communications strategy is designed to help employees understand how their roles and goals impact Plant goals.

Mr. Dubé stated that DCPP cultural change is being driven by the Transformation changes at corporate Pacific Gas and Electric. With help from a number of consulting firms, PG&E had set up a Leadership Academy and a Cultural Change Workshop. The PG&E-sponsored training will be attended by PG&E employees, as well as DCPP personnel. This training will not only provide information and opportunity for learning, but also for building relationship between DCPP and the corporate body. These initiatives should be explored in future Fact-finding meetings.

Conclusions:: There are a number of initiatives, programs, classes, meetings, including an Organizational Alignment initiative and a Communication Plan, all designed to enhance the organizational development and performance of DCPP. These all appear to be worthy initiatives, capable of enhancing safety culture at DCPP, and focused on enhanced communication, collaboration, support, and performance.

3.4 Overview of DCPP Culture as a Learning Organization

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Cary Harbor, Manager Problem Prevention & Resolution Group. The DCISC last reviewed DCPP culture as a learning organization in the July 2005 Fact-finding meeting (Reference 6.5).

Mr. Harbor noted that the primary initiative that will change DCPP’s culture is the new Performance Improvement Program Governance strategy put into place by the senior leadership at DCPP to stimulate line management ownership for human performance. The most significant outcome of the Governance strategy is to identify the roles and responsibilities in the Human Performance arena, as distributed among the VPs and Directors, the Managers, Human Performance Center of Excellence (HPCoE)/Corrective Action Program (CAP) & Supervisors (see Section 3.1 above).

Program Directive OM15: In Program Directive OM15, Performance Improvement Program, the focus was on the performance improvement program, the primary objectives are to facilitate line ownership of human performance, and to achieve continuous improvement by establishing a structured process that implements program metrics and facilitates use of these metrics.

Specific responsibilities are identified for Managers, Directors, and Vice Presidents in the Performance Improvement area. These responsibilities are:: 1. Managers; a. Setting performance improvement goals and metrics for their department; b. Reviewing and monitoring department performance indicators; c. Identifying needs for improvement plans based on metric results; d. Developing improvement plans; e. Entering improvement actions into the Corrective Actions Program; f. Implementing improvement actions and reviewing with the Director in performance improvement meetings; g. Presenting improvement plans to Directors and Vice Presidents during periodic review meetings; 2. Directors; a. Reviewing and monitoring department performance indicators; b. Reviewing performance improvement goals, metrics, and improvement plans for their departments; c. Reviewing performance improvement with department Managers; d. Requiring improvement plans when short falls are identified; e. Verifying that improvement plans are implemented and expected progress is achieved; 3. Vice Presidents; a. Providing oversight at performance improvement review meetings; b. Reviewing performance improvement plans; c. Reviewing plant-wide metrics; d. Approving self-assessment schedules
In addition, inter-departmental administrative procedures will be developed to specify the requirements, methods, and processes for identifying, analyzing, monitoring, and implementing the following performance improvement programs:: Human Performance; Self-Assessment; Change Management; Corrective Action; Operating Experience

Inter-departmental Administrative Procedure OM15.ID1, Human Performance Program, establishes the requirements for the Human Performance Program. This document also lays out the responsibilities for the Station Director, Quality Director, Manager in charge of the Human Performance Program, Supervisor in charge of the Human Performance Program, Human Performance Coordinators, and members of the Human Performance Center of Excellence (HPCoE). Requirements are also specified for the Training Manager, Directors, Managers, and Supervisors, who are responsible for communicating and promoting expected behaviors through training, management observation, coaching, reinforcing expectations, corrective actions and rewards, and makes all employees responsible for using error prevention tools as required and appropriate for the task.

Mr. Harbor concluded that the most significant issue in improving performance and the governance of performance is providing clear expectations at every level.

A number of face-to-face forums have already been established to enhance human performance and learning and to move toward more information sharing, collaboration, and cooperation. One of these forums is the Performance Improvement (PI) Board, which meets monthly for an hour to an hour-and-a-half. The Performance Improvement Board involves all Managers, selected Supervisors, and reviews the performance of maintenance, operations, engineering, etc. All Managers must attend the Performance Improvement Board. This is another tool to facilitate ownership at Management levels, and oversight at the Vice President and Director levels.

Changes and Improvements: The strategy is to involve everyone, all people, in performance improvement. In the area of performance improvement, a number of significant changes have occurred:: 1. For the Problem Prevention and Resolution Group, the report title was changed to Plant Performance Improvement Report (PPIR).; 2. A PI Board Charter was established and revised to include the role of learning services.; 3. A PI Governance Team meeting Monthly to address refinements to the Plant Performance Improvement Report.; 4. Developing operating experience screening time metric.; 5. Separated out benchmarking actions from self-assessment actions to enhance monitoring.; 6. Prepared to incorporate PI metrics into Management Review Meetings (MRM) Project.; 7. Monitoring Action Request (AR) extensions.

These improvements have led to a positive outcome. The quality of Action Requests (ARs), Root Cause Evaluations (RCEs), Apparent Cause Evaluations (ACEs) and Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) are improving. ACEs are being used in more cases. Problem statements, apparent cause, and corrective actions have all contributed to the progress of DCPP as a Learning Organization. The average ACE in 2004 took a hundred days, in 2005, ten days. AR extensions were driven down and extension criteria were created.

Mr. Harbor concluded that Managers are taking ownership, providing communication, helping people align to their roles in human performance and human performance improvement, and the use of human performance improvement tools.

Mr. Harbor predicted that in 2006 mangers will continue to assume ownership of human performance and reinforce appropriate behavior. Strong programs in the learning area will be designed and implemented, targeting organizational effectiveness. There will continue to be Management Review Meetings where all programs are examined, including learning programs and work control. The effectiveness of learning programs will be monitored, enhanced, and knowledge acquired will be shared.

Conclusions:: DCPP has put additional focus on progressing as a Learning Organization through initiatives on improving the performance of its "learning programs" such as Corrective Action, industry Operating Experience, Self-Assessment, Management Observation, Benchmarking, etc. The DCISC should continue to follow this area.

3.5 Human Resources Update

Karen Brower, Manger of Human Resources at DCPP, met with the Fact-finding Team. This was the first DCISC meeting with DCPP Human Resources in recent years. The conversation focused on three areas:: 1. The structure of Human Resources at DCPP; 2. The current Human Resource Plans; 3. Overview of the new "Enhanced Performance Management Process"

The Structure of DCPP Human Resources

Ms. Brower reports to the Human Resources Business Unit at PG&E. Her responsibility at DCPP is predicated upon her responsibilities in Generation, both at PG&E and DCPP. Working for Ms. Brower are two HR Supervisors, and an Executive HR Advisor. The work of HR at DCPP is organized around functional areas, i.e. employee relations, labor relations, staffing, compensation, workforce planning, knowledge management, performance management, and the Premier Survey. Within DCPP Ms. Brower reports to Donna Jacobs.

Current HR Plans

The focus of HR in 2006 is to connect DCPP to the larger PG&E transformation and to analyze and act upon the results of the Premier Survey, to involve DCPP personnel in the business process and leadership transformation, programs and training (provided by PG&E), and to institute and institutionalize the new Enhanced Performance Management Process (EPMP) across all of DCPP. The Premier Survey is a twice-annual survey performed by both PG&E and DCPP to randomly ask employees their opinions about the Company, their organization, and their jobs. This information is then used to gauge the organization’s climate and overall health and provides valuable input for future business decisions.

Enhanced Performance Management Process

The EPMP, designed as part of the Operational Excellence Transformation at PG&E, is still in the developmental and test phases. This method for performance management is being introduced to DCPP and will be integrated across all programs and people in DCPP. The purpose of the EPMP is to provide consistency, focus, and alignment across the organization.

With alignment as the objective, the assumptions behind the EPMP are:: To ensure that employees have a clear understanding of their goals and a line of sight between theirs and the organizations overall goals; To drive performance improvement by communicating expected behaviors and technical skills that align with the values, and coaching to reinforce desired behaviors and skills; To motivate employees by providing clear alignment between their performance and their compensation development and career opportunities

Goal setting is an important component of the EPMP. First, enterprise goals are set, and then these goals are cascaded down through the organization, providing for alignment and calibration. Based upon the enterprise goals, Officers set a line of business goals, Managers and Directors set departmental goals, and Managers and Supervisors set individual goals with employees.

At the Enterprise level, the three Enterprise goals are:: Delighted Customers; Energized Employees; Rewarded Shareholders

These Enterprise goals set the foundation for all cascading and calibrating of goals across the system. As goal setting moves through the organization, and individual employees are engaged in the process, involving employees in a constructive discussion about their expectations is the individual key to a successful performance management process.

These Enterprise goals are further defined in the DCPP Business Plan into the following:: 1. PG&E Metrics (e.g., generation availability, industrial safety, O&M Cost, INPO index, etc.); 2. DCPP Business Goals (e.g., improve generation availability, improve human performance, improve costs, etc.); 3. DCPP Department Goals (in progress); 4. Supervisor and Employee Goals to appear in the EPMP (in progress)

The Competency Model Framework

The EPMP includes a Competency Model, which focuses on a general description of knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform a role in the organization. Competencies are described in terms that can be measured. There are three areas in which competencies are identified:

Core -: competencies apply to all employees
Leadership -: competencies apply to all employees in a supervisory role
Technical -: competencies tied to job families (this is a 2007 roll out).

Competencies will be integrated into many activities ranging from selection and staffing, to succession planning, and to training and learning.

Coherence -: All parts of the Enhanced Performance Management Process are designed to work together with the organizational vision, the organizational values, the organizational goals, competencies, and performance.
Calibration -: Performance is calibrated predicated upon exceeding, meeting, or not meeting individual goals, the demonstration of competencies, and the identification of strengths, proficiencies, and areas for development. The performance grid is designed for individual development. Each non-represented employee will have a development plan. The grid provides developmental options based upon goal and competency ratings. Action plans will continue to be a part of the EPMP.

Employees will be rewarded based upon their placement in the grid. In essence, this is a pay for performance strategy. A baseline assessment will occur in 2006, and there will be a transition in 2006 to the EPMP.

As part of the EPMP there is the requirement for feedback and coaching, likely the most critical and challenging piece of the Performance Management Process.

There is a timeline for instituting the EPMP at PG&E, with the majority of the efforts being executed in 2006.

Part of HR’s responsibility is to institute the same program at DCPP. The initial Performance Management Model strategy of setting expectations, evaluation, calibration, and development and reward is as follows:

Set expectations: Discuss and document goals; Review competencies; Incorporate major areas of responsibility; Provide on-going feedback and coaching
Evaluate: Evaluate mid-year performance; Evaluate year-end performance; Document demonstrated competency behaviors and progress towards goals; Provide on-going feedback and coaching
Calibrate: Conduct leadership review to ensure rigor and constancy; Determine placement on performance grid; Identify key development opportunities; Identify key feedback messages; Provide on-going feedback and coaching
Develop and Reward: Individual development plans; Base and incentive pay; Training and development needs; Career management; Succession planning; Provide on-going feedback and coaching

The entire methodology is described under these four areas, with the focus being high-performance in the organization.

Conclusions:: DCPP Human performance (HR) plays a significant role in the work of DCPP, providing a link between PG&E and DCPP by connecting initiatives in both organizations in the area of Human Resources and providing support in a number of areas to DCPP from Employee Relations to Performance Management.; A significant challenge for HR will be to introduce, institute and institutionalize the new PG&E Enhanced Performance Management Process. Introducing this Process across DCPP in 2006 will require training, experimentation, Officer, Director and Manager commitment, enhanced capacity to communicate one-on-one, and the ability to coach and provide feedback. The process, if effectively implemented, should provide a good tool to define individual employee goals tied to corporate and plant goals and to measure and reward individual performance.; DCISC should continue to follow this HR initiative in Enhanced Performance Management Process in future Fact-findings.

3.6 Operating Experience Assessment Program

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Chris Joyce, Senior Engineer and Program Manager for the Operational Experience Assessment Program (OEAP), and Gary Close, Supervisor of the Performance Programs Group, to review the DCPP OEAP. The DCISC last reviewed OEAP in the December 2004 Fact-finding meeting (Reference 6.6). At that time the Fact-finding Team concluded the following:

"The Operating Experience Assessment (OEA) Program appeared satisfactory overall; however, two exceptions are (1) the lack of meaningful program effectiveness measures and (2) likely understaffing of the program. It is noted that DCPP benchmarks its OE against others’ programs, including program measures."

The OEA Group has been expanded from one person to almost two full-time individuals. This addresses the DCISC concern in the December 2004 Fact-finding Report of potential problems due to understaffing. The OEA program incorporates a formal system to collect and evaluate operating experience reports from DCPP as well as from other nuclear plants, INPO/WANO, NRC, vendors, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The reports are evaluated to assess the applicability of others’ experiences to DCPP to identify actions to help prevent or mitigate them at DCPP. The OEA Program documents each step in the process. The Program is controlled by plant procedure (Reference 6.7). The procedure was updated in December 2005 to include the actions identified below.

Since December 2004, OEAP has been part of the INPO evaluation, an Apparent Cause Evaluation (ACE), a Quality Verification (QV) assessment, two benchmarking trips to facilities known for effective OEAPs, an internal review by OEAP stakeholders, an NRC inspection, and a NEXIS process review (see Section 3.10 below).

The QV Assessment concluded that the program was acceptable but cumbersome, including having some unclear, redundant and inconsistent procedure requirements. The INPO evaluation included an AFI to improve the backlog of unreviewed OEA items. The 3rd Quarter DCPP Problem Prevention & Resolution Report (PPR) reiterated the above issues and recognized that acceptable corrective actions and improvements were being made.

In its inspections NRC identified several industry events which were not adequately reviewed for applicability to DCPP. These were: (1) Pressurizer safety valve lift set-point movement,; (2) potential for Containment recirculation sump valve failure to open following certain small-break loss-of-coolant accidents,; (3) Auxiliary Feedwater Pump minimum flow requirements, and; (4) missed opportunities to address issues of voids appearing in Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS).
NRC considered each of the issues as “Green” or of very low safety significance, and DCPP corrected them. These concerns appeared to be caused by lack of sufficient evaluation by the line organization rather than the OEA Group; nonetheless, the review was part of the OEAP process. DCPP has since augmented its operability review and root cause processes.
Mr. Joyce has developed an OEAP Action Plan which included findings and recommended improvements from the aforementioned assessments and evaluations. The Action Plan, dated May 2005, included the following attributes:: Defining the OEA Program (basically a comprehensive list of the findings and recommendations needing action); Roles and Responsibilities (redefining program roles and responsibilities); Action (actions to update procedures and process steps); Implementation (actions required to accomplish the above); Change Management (communication, training, self-assessment and monitoring plans); Issues Bin (placeholder for any issues coming out of the actions)

The Action Plan appeared to be more than half complete with the final self-assessment scheduled for September 2006. The Plan appeared comprehensive and actionable.

Measures for the OEAP are shown below.

OEA Screening Time: the monthly average number of days from when a OEA document is received to when it is screened and determined whether the item is applicable or not to DCPP. This indicator has been “Green” (less than 14 days) since its inception in March 2005 with a December 2, 2005 value of 13 days. The number of days has increased over the last three months from 5 to 13.
Timeliness for Sharing of OE with Industry: rolling year median from event date to submittal to INPO. Timeliness has been “Green” (less than 30 days) during 2005 with a December 1, 2005 value of 17 days and is trending downward slightly.
Transportability of Industry Events Related to Applicability to DCPP: the average time DCPP takes to evaluate industry events to determine applicability to DCPP and whether there are sufficient barriers in place to prevent a similar event at DCPP. This measure has been “Green” (less than 60 days) for all of 2005 and appears stable.

Results through December 2005 indicate that the OEAP is performing satisfactorily, although DCPP still does not have its own measure(s) for OEAP effectiveness; however, there are three effectiveness measures for the CAP which would be somewhat of an indicator of OEAP effectiveness because OEAP items are entered into CAP and tracked. These measures are:

Effectiveness Evaluation Index: a monthly average of the percent acceptance of the effectiveness evaluations reviewed and approved by CARP. For 2005 performance has been 100%, above the 90% goal.
Accuracy and Completeness of Quality Problem Closure: monthly average of a statistical sample of ARs reviewed for proper closure. For most of 2005 performance has been at or above the goal of 95%.
Significant Repeat Events: the number of significant repeat events for Category 1 for a rolling year. During 2005, the number has trended down to 1 (Yellow), where “Green” is zero.

Mr. Joyce, OEAP Program Manager, appeared knowledgeable and improvement-minded about the program. He has been working with the NEXIS Project (see Item 3.10) to improve the OEAP process and align OEAP with the new SAP system.

Conclusions:: The Operating Experience Assessment Program (OEAP) appeared to be operating satisfactorily overall. Substantial improvements are being made to the process as a result of an INPO evaluation, Quality Verification assessment, benchmarking of other plants’ programs, and alignment to the new SAP system. Staffing, a prior DCISC concern, has improved to adequate with a second person. However, there is still no specific measure for program effectiveness.

3.7 Quality Verification Update

The Fact-finding Team met with Dave Taggart, Quality Verification (QV) Manager and Bob Prigmore, General Supervisor Plant Quality Assurance. The DCISC last reviewed Quality Verification at the October 12-13, 2005 DCISC Public Meeting (Reference 6.8) when PG&E presented the results of its Third Quarter 2005 Quality Performance Assessment Report (QPAR).

Overall performance was considered to have been improving with continued emphasis needed in the following areas:: Outage preparedness and Execution; Outage Extensions Due to Equipment Failures; Project Cost Estimating & Coordination; Learning Organization (CAP, benchmarking, management observations and · self-assessment); Equipment Issues; Emergency Preparedness (EP)

Most DCPP Departments were rated "White." Emergency Preparedness was considered “Red” and Emergency Response Organization (ERO) was "Yellow". Plans had been made for corrective actions in EP.

The Fourth Quarter QPAR was not yet available, but QV used the December 19, 2005 Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee (NSOC) QV presentation as a basis for recent DCPP quality assessment. [It is noted that the full DCISC will receive a report on the Fourth Quarter QPAR at its February 15-16, 2006 Public Meeting.] Overall, DCPP performance is "White."

The following areas were judged to have good or improving performance:: Continuous operation of units; Operating without automatic trips since October 1997 for Unit 2 and June 2002 for Unit 1; Conservative Operational Decision Making Process & implementation (e.g., high swells); Personnel safety performance (disabling injuries); Work Control schedule adherence; Initial implementation of the new Plant Health Committee; Effective implementation of the Performance Improvement Governance; Security Protective Strategy; Engineering Programs; Corrective Action Program metrics improving; Engineering support of emerging issues
Key Station Performance Issues consisted of the following:: Outage preparedness and execution; Outage extensions due to equipment failures*; Project cost estimating; Learning Organization; Benchmarking; Self-Assessment; Operating Experience*; Corrective Action Program*; Management Observations*; Long standing equipment issues
Other Quality Performance issues were:: Inaccurate HP performance indicator; ERO drill/exercise performance (NRC White performance indicator); Outage scope control; Operations low level human performance issues

There were also additional specific issues from Outage 1R13 needing attention. Action plans were in-place to improve all the above areas.QV had been moved organizationally January 1, 2006 to report directly to Dave Oatley, Vice-President and General Manager. This was a morale booster for QV, provided them needed independence from the station organization, and eliminated any conflict between QV and the CAP. The Fact-finding Team believes this was a positive move. QV also believes that line ownership of quality issues (e.g., assessment findings) was satisfactory.

The triennial Fire Protection Audit has just been completed, and QV is awaiting responses. A two-year audit of CAP will take place for a month beginning in late February 2006. Dave Taggart will lead the assessment team which will include Jack Martin, an outside member of NSOC, and industry peers. A similar assessment of human performance will occur in 2006, along with many self-assessments and a (subjective) assessment of DCPP safety Culture. QV plans a Containment Sump assessment similar to a Supplier Audit Finding Report (SAFR) during 2006. In mid-March 2006 a Nuclear Industry Evaluation Program (NIEP) audit of DCPP QV will begin. It will include NSOC.

Conclusions:: It appears that DCPP’s Quality Verification (QV) Program is actively and effectively implemented. The QV Organization considers overall DCPP quality performance to be “White”, i.e., "performance is meeting expectations and gaps to top tier performance are known and are being closed". The move of QV to report directly to the Vice-President and General Manager provides the potential for independence from the line organization and top-level management support.

3.8 Meeting with VP Nuclear Services, Donna Jacobs

Donna Jacobs, Vice President Nuclear Services for DCPP, met with the DCISC Fact-finding Team to discuss activities and initiatives from her perspective. The DCISC last talked with Ms. Jacobs in May 2005 (Reference 6.9).

Ms. Jacobs has been with DCPP as VP Nuclear Services for approximately one year. She is part of a new leadership group that has come into DCPP in the last year from outside. This group includes; Jack Purkis Director, Maintenance Services; Ken Landon, Outage Director; Ardella Daniels, the Supervisor of Organizational Improvement; and coming on board, a new Engineering Manager. These changes in personnel have brought changes to DCPP.

The first topics for discussion were organizational changes at DCPP in 2005 and changes planned for 2006. In Ms. Jacob’s area of responsibility, the most significant change was the reorganization of Engineering. The change was a move from "asset-type" teams to discipline-based teams to better support the change in Maintenance from asset teams to discipline-based teams. The reason of the change was to bring all Engineering together to a more systematic approach which would provide one door into Engineering. Ms. Jacobs believes the transition to discipline-based teams has been successful.

Ms. Jacobs reported that management consultant Mercer-Delta was no longer working with the DCPP Executive Team, but that Mr. Dube and a consultant from PG&E, Tim Sadler, were assuming these duties, along with Jacqui Hinds, Assistant to Dave Oatley.

Plant Changes for 2006

The most significant change planned for 2006 is the transition from PIMS, the computer system currently used by DCPP, to SAP, the computer system currently being used by PG&E. This is a significant transition which DCPP has been working on since 2002. (For more on this transition see Section 3.10). This is part of the transformation of the entire corporate business model both at PG&E and at DCPP.

The schedule of major events for 2006-2009 is:: 2006 – 2R13; Low Pressure Turbine Replacement; PIMS Replacement; Leadership Academy; and Culture Workshop; 2007 – INPO Evaluation; Spent Fuel Rack Installation; PIMS Replacement; 1R14; and License Extension Studies; 2008 – 2R14; Steam Generator Replacement; and Loading Dry Casks; 2009 – 1R15; Steam Generator Replacement; and INPO Evaluation

Transformation Update: PG&E and DCPP

In 2004 PG&E launched a company-wide plan to transform the entire PG&E business and culture. The objective of this transformation is to position PG&E competitively as an industry leader. DCPP is an integral part of PG&E. The strategy is to create ONE company, ONE direction, and ONE vision, tied to a larger effort to move the whole Company (PG&E and DCPP) forward. The PG&E transformation includes both business process transformation and significant cultural changes.

DCPP Business Plan 2006-2009

Ms. Jacobs shared a draft of the DCPP Business Plan for 2006 with the DCISC Fact-finding Team. The Business Plan demonstrates the influence and impact of the PG&E Business Process and Cultural Transformation. A quote from the plan, "PG&E is undergoing ‘transformation,’ consisting of process improvements and cultural change to become the leading utility in the United States. To support this transformation, Diablo Canyon will become the best nuclear power plant, consistently earning top ratings from INPO and the NRC."

The Business Plan begins with the vision, goals, strategies, values, and behaviors articulated by PG&E in the transformation and in addition, identifies values and behaviors specific to a nuclear plant, i.e.: Nuclear is recognized as different; Decision making reflects safety first; Demonstrates intolerance for critical equipment failures; Expects success, but plans for failure; Maintains a questioning attitude; Continuously learns; Adapts best practices for DCPP; Uses training to improve performance
The DCPP Business Plan identifies six key goals, which are designed to support the overall PG&E goals. These six goals will cascade to all Performance Management plans. These goals are:: 1. Improve generation availability by crushing all long standing equipment issues scheduled for resolution in 2006.; 2. Improve human performance and safety by having less than or equal five human performance event-free clock re-sets in 2006.; 3. Complete all self-assessments and benchmarking on schedule and implement recommendations within 180 days on average.; 4. Improve generation availability in the INPO Composite Index by completing 2R13 in less than or equal to 39 days.; 5. Improve the INPO Composite Index by reducing the Collective Radiation Exposure to less than (TBD) REM for 2006.; 6. Improve cost by replacing PIMS with SAP without significantly impacting the business.

Safety Culture

Regarding Safety Culture, Ms. Jacobs had completed some briefings for the leadership at DCPP on Safety Culture, specifically focused on INPO recommendations. These are featured in INPO’s "The Principles for a Strong Nuclear Safety Culture"). Both Ms. Jacobs and Dr. Sheinberg served on the Advisory Group for this report.

Ms. Jacobs reported that there was a plan to survey DCPP in terms of safety culture, but no decision had been made on instrumentation. This survey would be sometime in the near future.

Conclusions:: PG&E Corporation, through its Business Process and Cultural Transformation, is having an impact on DCPP with changes in business processes and culture and an Enhanced Performance Management Program. DCPP appears to be embracing these changes and integrating these changes into the DCPP Business Planning Process.; It appears that all of the changes that are taking place at DCPP, during 2005 and into 2006 and 2007, are designed to enhance safety, improve plant operations, support people, and reduce costs. The DCISC should continue to explore the impact of the changes at PG&E on DCPP and the outcome of these changes.

3.9 Compressed Air and Backup Air/Nitrogen System Review and Walkdown with System Engineer

The Fact-finding Team met with Surendra Sabharwal, System Engineer for the Compressed Air and Backup Air/Nitrogen Systems, for a system review and walkdown. Mr. Sabharwal was also the Design Engineer who designed much of the system. This was the first review of these systems. The DCISC last reviewed a system (Emergency Diesel Generator System) during the December 9-10, 2005 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.10).

The Compressed Air System (CAS) is common to both units and is divided into two Subsystems: Instrument Air System (IAS) and Service Air System (SAS). The IAS is Safety Class 2, having redundancy and high-quality components typical of Class 1, but it is not seismically designed nor supplied by emergency electrical power. IAS consists of three primary full-capacity air compressors which supply clean, dry air pressure primarily to air-operated valves (AOVs) and instruments needed to run the plant and for safe shutdown. Normally one compressor is required for plant operation. There are three additional full-capacity compressors which serve in a secondary role. They normally are used for the additional refueling outage compressed air demands but can be aligned to the IAS anytime.

Because IAS is not fully safety-related, the 17 valves required for safe shutdown are supplied with an additional source of assured air from the Backup Air/Nitrogen System (BANS), a Class 1 design. BANS is a passive pressure system with air or nitrogen accumulators or tanks located with and dedicated to each safe-shutdown valve. They are seismically designed and require no electrical power. Each is designed with capacity adequate for valve operation to assure safe shutdown.

The IAS supplies the Service Air System with compressed air via isolation check valves. SAS provides clean, dry compressed air for components, such as tools, which are not needed for plant operation.

The IAS system health card is summarized as follows:

	Unit 1	Unit 2
System Color Indicator	Green	Green
Operating Margin
- Control Board ARs	0	0 (Action Requests)
- Operator Burdens/Workarounds	0	0
- Long-standing Equipment Issues	0	1
- Operator Compensatory Actions	0	0
Operating & Design Margin
- POAs/OEs	0	0 (Prompt Operability Assessments /Operability Evaluations)
Adverse Trends	0	0
Design Margin
- Components in Alert	0	0
- Temporary Modifications	0	0
- Leak Repairs	0	0
- Degraded Reactivity Control Cmpts.	0	0
- Items in MR (a)(1) Status	0	0

The Health Card shows that the entire Compressed Air System has been operating satisfactorily as designed with no adverse trend in major component operating parameters. System critical parameters (e.g., air pressure dewpoint, operating pressure range, hydrocarbon and particulate levels, etc.) have been within the design limits.

The (non-significant) long-standing equipment issue is saltwater corrosion of the enclosures of the three backup (secondary) air compressors which are located outside in the plant yard. A request has been made to enclose these compressors, and approval is pending. The System Engineer believes the enclosure will be installed in 2007. The three primary compressors are located inside the plant and are not subject to salt spray.

The Fact-finding Team reviewed the system design and operation with the System Engineer and toured the major components of the system out in the plant. The tour included the following:: Three Primary Air Compressors and associated dryers, receivers, gauges and filters; Piping, instrumentation and valves for the IAS; Piping, instrumentation and valves for the SAS; The Backup Air System for Valve FCV-602, the isolation valve for the 1-1 Component Cooling Water (CCW) to the CCW Heat Exchanger; Three Secondary Air Compressor (outside)
Conclusions:: The Compressed Air Systems appeared to be performing satisfactorily and in good (Green) health as measured by the System Health Card and discussions with the System Engineer. There were no significant long-standing equipment issues other than the need to enclose the outside air compressors for protection against the damp, salty environment. The System Engineer appeared knowledgeable and pro-active about the system.

3.10 Nuclear Excellence Information System (NEXIS) Project Review

The Fact-finding Team met with Charlie Nichols, NEXIS Project Manager; Mitch States, NEXIS Communications; Andrew Simcock (contractor), Assistant Project Manager; John Nystrom, Organizational Readiness; and Geren Richardson, Training, to review the Nuclear Excellence Information System (NEXIS) Project. This is the first review the DCISC has made of this project.

PG&E corporate has been using SAP Corporation software for its Transmission and Distribution Department information system since 1996. In 2002 PG&E decided to replace the centralized DCPP Plant Information Management System (PIMS) with SAP software. PG&E’s Corporate Transformation (discussed above) is a major undertaking to significantly restructure PG&E’s business operations model through technology, integration and culture change. As part of the DCPP Performance Plan (now called the Business Plan) to "Simplify Processes and Reduce Work to Improve Efficiency," the NEXIS Project is a key component of DCPP’s Transformation. The project goal is to begin replacing PIMS with SAP, beginning June 2006 with training, going "live" in late August, and completing implementation by the end of 2007.

The NEXIS Project Team, along with SAP, has been performing the following major tasks:: Customizing the software for DCPP; Performing data mapping, extraction, and conversion from PIMS to SAP; Performing baseline configuration testing; Assisting plant line organizations to develop Business Process Procedures; Developing and providing end-user training; Developing implementation readiness plans; Conducting readiness assessments
The line organizations will be performing the following major tasks:: Master PIMS (and other database) data cleanup; Receive training; Implement readiness plans (part of readiness is an early February 2006 INPO Assist Visit on change management, including NEXIS); Perform procedure revisions

DCPP has developed a procedure, "Readiness for NEXIS Go-Live" modeled after their Outage Readiness for Restart Procedure. The procedure provides the plan for focusing each plant section’s efforts on readiness, implementation and evaluation of NEXIS transition to document assurance that all aspects of organizational readiness are complete.

Directors and Managers are required to approve readiness steps at Go-Live minus 30 weeks (February 2, 2006), 22 weeks (March 31), 9 weeks (June 29), 5 weeks (July 27), and 2 weeks (August 18). Finally, readiness authorizations by the three plant Officers are required before the system actually "goes live."

The procedure includes the following:: Change Communication; Employee Training; Policy and Procedure Change; Data Preparation; Job and Role Change
The NEXIS change management process follows and has been mapped to the multiple steps in each of the four phases in the existing DCPP Change Management Procedure. These four phases are:: 1. Establish a solid foundation for the change; 2. Initiate steps prior to full implementation: test, refine, adapt and retest; 3. Full-scale education and implementation; 4. Monitor and assess and attend to vulnerabilities in the new system

The existing Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Program and Procedure will be used to assure the verification and validity of the new system and data. This is the process used for all essential plant software quality assurance.

The Fact-finding Team received the "Section Readiness Communication" presentation being given to each plant section. The presentation defined the project scope and schedule for line organizations. It showed the two main goals to (1) optimize DCPP’s business processes and (2) incorporate SAP as the plant information management system. The presentation outlined key changes the plant will see with SAP, most notably business process changes, a more paperless work flow (e.g., procurement and work control), and use of a new data system. More specific changes were outlined for Engineering, Corrective Action Program and Problem Prevention and Reporting, Work Management, Supply Chain, and Quality Verification.

NEXIS is a huge change for DCPP with considerable resource demands beginning in late May 2006 following Outage 2R13. In addition to just the change to a new software information system, there are large impacts on plant resources for training and process/procedure revisions. Individual training ranges from 4-hour basic SAP classes up to over 80 hours for selected individuals. Training will take place from late May through mid-August 2006 for the plant’s approximately1400 employees. On top of that heavily-involved employees will then need to practice using the system and then convert to actually using the new system. Operations personnel working shifts will receive their training during their normal 5th week training shift.

The other major resource demand is learning and implementing new and revised processes. The NEXIS Project Team assisted each affected line organization section to improve their processes, create new ones, and map them to the new SAP system. This is a worthwhile effort but another impact, especially when considering the accompanying procedure changes to be made.

With Outage 2R13 from April 17 to May 26, 2006 SAP training beginning immediately afterward, and SAP implementation following, the Fact-finding Team is concerned that station personnel will be so consumed so as to increase the risk to safe operation of the plant without special attention by management or compensatory measures. At a minimum it appears that much of the normal plant work could suffer. The Team notes that Contractor Andrew Simcock, Assistant NEXIS Project Manager, has helped implement SAP at five other nuclear stations, including most recently Cooper Nuclear Station. This is a plus for DCPP. The Team discussed this with Mr. Simcock who agreed with the personnel commitment but noted no operational problems in the five previous transitions.

Member Rossin expressed concerns that the transition plan is very manpower and resource intensive. Particularly in the training area, where instructors and trainees must invest large blocks of time for classroom and practice, there may be problems meeting milestone dates. Granting that this transformation should not, of itself, impact plant safety, strains on personnel at all levels of the organization could become significant. It may be prudent to establish flexibility within training modules, deferring some parts to advanced course work at later times, and considering contingency plans of resource constraints become serious enough to delay certain milestones.

Member Rossin shared these concerns with Dave Oatley, Vice-President and General Manager by telephone on February 8, 2006.

Conclusions:: It appears that the Nuclear Excellence Information System (NEXIS) Project itself has been well-run and is accomplishing its task of preparing the new software system and its interfaces for incorporation at DCPP. The Project includes change management and plant readiness aspects designed to assure that incorporation goes smoothly; however, the training and implementation phases, scheduled to begin shortly after Outage 2R13, will be extremely labor intensive for station personnel. The Fact-finding Team is concerned that this could lead to increased risks to normal safe operation without special management attention.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1: DCPP has, over the last three years, made a concerted effort to focus on and improve human performance. The human performance crosscutting issues identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations were lifted in April 2005.; The focus, the commitment, and the actions taken in the area of human performance appear to have made a significant difference for DCPP. The number of initiatives, the follow-through, and the multiple strategies to address human performance and enhance human performance at DCPP are substantial. DCPP continues to integrate human performance improvement with plant performance.; The DCISC should continue to monitor DCPP human performance initiatives and results.
4.2: DCPP’s April 2005 INPO evaluation was positive overall and contained 13 Areas for Improvement (AFIs) which DCPP is pursuing. DCPP has developed a new position dedicated to coordinating actions on INPO initiatives. This is a constructive move. The DCISC should continue to follow up on DCPP’s progress on INPO issues.
4.3: There are a number of initiatives, programs, classes, meetings, including an Organizational Alignment initiative and a Communication Plan, all designed to enhance the organizational development and performance of DCPP. These all appear to be worthy initiatives, capable of enhancing safety culture at DCPP, and focused on enhanced communication, collaboration, support, and performance.
4.4: DCPP has put additional focus on progressing as a Learning Organization through initiatives on improving the performance of its "learning programs" such as Corrective Action, industry Operating Experience, Self-Assessment, Management Observation, Benchmarking, etc. The DCISC should continue to follow this area.
4.5: DCPP Human Performance (HR) plays a significant role in the work of DCPP, providing a link between PG&E and DCPP by connecting initiatives in both organizations in the area of Human Resources and providing support in a number of areas to DCPP from Employee Relations to Performance Management.; A significant challenge for HR will be to introduce, institute and institutionalize the new PG&E Enhanced Performance Management Process. Introducing this Process across DCPP in 2006 will require training, experimentation, Officer, Director and Manager commitment, enhanced capacity to communicate one-on-one, and the ability to coach and provide feedback. The process, if effectively implemented, should provide a good tool to define individual employee goals tied to corporate and plant goals and to measure and reward individual performance.; DCISC should continue to follow this HR initiative in Enhanced Performance Management Process in future Fact-findings.
4.6: The Operating Experience Assessment Program (OEAP) appeared to be operating satisfactorily overall. Substantial improvements are being made to the process as a result of an INPO evaluation, Quality Verification assessment, benchmarking of other plants’ programs, and alignment to the new SAP system. Staffing, a prior DCISC concern, has improved to adequate with a second person. However, there is still no specific measure for program effectiveness.
4.7: It appears that DCPP’s Quality Verification (QV) Program is actively and effectively implemented. The QV Organization considers overall DCPP quality performance to be “White”, i.e., "performance is meeting expectations and gaps to top tier performance are known and are being closed". The move of QV to report directly to the Vice-President and General Manager provides the potential for independence from the line organization and top-level management support.
4.8: PG&E Corporation, through its Business Process and Cultural Transformation, is having an impact on DCPP with changes in business processes and culture and an Enhanced Performance Management Program. DCPP appears to be embracing these changes and integrating these changes into the DCPP Business Planning Process.; It appears that all of the changes that are taking place at DCPP, during 2005 and into 2006 and 2007, are designed to enhance safety, improve plant operations, support people, and reduce costs. The DCISC should continue to explore the impact of the changes at PG&E on DCPP and the outcome of these changes.
4.9: The Compressed Air Systems appeared to be performing satisfactorily and in good (Green) health as measured by the System Health Card and discussions with the System Engineer. There were no significant long-standing equipment issues other than the need to enclose the outside air compressors for protection against the damp, salty environment. The System Engineer appeared knowledgeable and pro-active about the system.
4.10: It appears that the Nuclear Excellence Information System (NEXIS) Project itself has been well-run and is accomplishing its task of preparing the new software system and its interfaces for incorporation at DCPP. The Project includes change management and plant readiness aspects designed to assure that incorporation goes smoothly; however, the training and implementation phases, scheduled to begin shortly after Outage 2R13, will be extremely labor intensive for station personnel. The Fact-finding Team is concerned that this could lead to increased risks to normal safe operation without special management attention.

5.0 Recommendations: None

6.0 References

6.1 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Sixteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006”, Approved October 18, 2006, Exhibit B.1, “Human Performance Improvements.”
6.2 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Fifteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005”, Approved October 12, 2005, Exhibit D.7, Section 3.2, “Human Performance Plans for 2005 and Beyond.”
6.3 Ibid., Exhibit D.2, Section 3.6, “INPO Mid-cycle Review.”
6.4 Ibid., Exhibit D.10, Section 3.11, “Internal Organizational Consulting at DCPP.”
6.5 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Fifteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006”, Approved October 18, 2006, Exhibit D.1, Section 3.5, “Change Management and Organizational Development and Section 3.6, Organizational Improvement Program.”
6.6 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Fifteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005”, Approved October 12, 2005, Exhibit D.5, Section 3.7, “Operating Experience Assessment Program.”
6.7 PG&E Nuclear Power Generation, Inter-Departmental Administrative Procedure OM4.ID3, “Assessment of Industry Operating Experience,” Revision 10, December 21, 2005.
6.8 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Sixteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006”, Approved October 18, 2006, Exhibit B.1, “Quality Verification Update (QPAR).”
6.9 “Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Fifteenth Annual Report on the Safety of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Operations, July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005”, Approved October 12, 2005, Exhibit D.10, Section 3.14, “Meeting with New Vice-President Nuclear Services.”
6.10 Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee, Report on Fact-finding Meeting at DCPP on December 9-10, 2005, by William F. Conway, Member and R. Ferman Wardell, Consultants, Exhibit D.5, Section 3.2 “Status of the Emergency Diesel Generator System and Walkdown.”

Return to the top of this page or

For more information about DCISC contact:

Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee
Office of the Legal Counsel
857 Cass Street, Suite D, Monterey, California 93940
Telephone: in Califonia call 800-439-4688; outside of California call 831-647-1044
Send E-mail to: dcsafety@dcisc.org

Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee