Report on Fact-finding Meeting by Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee (DCISC) at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) on January 17 & 18, 2007 by A. David Rossin, Member and Jim E. Booker, Consultant [17th Annual Report, Exhibit D.6]

1.0 Summary

The results of the January 17 @ 18, 2007 Fact-finding Trip to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in Avila Beach, CA are presented. The subjects addressed and summarized in Section 3 include:

  1. Root Cause Analysis Program
  2. Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance Program
  3. Margin Management Status and Plans
  4. Plant Tour
  5. Performance Improvement Organization
  6. Attend Management Review Meeting
  7. Supervisor Effectiveness and Training
  8. Tour ISFSI and Status
  9. INPO Interface and Progress from Mid-Cycle Review
  10. Review Status of New Performance Management Program
  11. Observe Corrective Action Review Board Meeting
  12. DCISC Member Meeting with DCPP Management

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 whether 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 Root Cause Analysis Program

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Chris Over, Corrective Action Program Supervisor, to review the status of the Root Cause Analysis Program. Mr. Over has been in this position since August 2005. The DCISC last reviewed the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Program at the September 17 @ 18, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.1) at which time it concluded:

It appears DCPP continues to make good progress in improvements to its Corrective Action Program (CAP). The biggest challenges include improved line involvement and better quality of resolution of corrective actions.

Mr. Over reported that they just had a DCPP meeting to prepare for the upcoming INPO evaluation. NRC had an inspection of the Correction Action Program in June 2006 and did not have any findings or violations in this area.

There are currently 6 employees in the RCA Group with varied plant experience, but they are somewhat lacking in operations experience. Mr. Over reviews each RCA request and determines who should perform the RCA. Normally two analysts perform the RCA. They do not use consultants to perform review but do use consultants for training. They have sent their employees offsite for training and have brought consultants on site for training courses in the following various RCA areas:

  1. Screening Analysis
  2. Fault Tree Analysis
  3. Taproot Analysis
  4. MORT (Management Oversight Risk Tree) Analysis, and
  5. ECF (Event @ Causal Factor) Analysis

Mr. Over believes DCPP is doing well with the Human Cause segment of RCA. If any significant event relates to Quality, they will perform a RCA. RCA’s are also initiated at Management request. All RCAs must be approved by Vice-President @ Plant Manager Jim Becker before they can start. They can also get assistance in this area from Ardela Daniels – Organization Effectiveness Manager. The NRC has stated that they believe the DCPP RCA program was good. An external member of the DCPP Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee (NSOC) reviews all RCAs and some Apparent Cause Evaluations (ACEs). He reported that they were well prepared. The general perception at DCPP is that training has helped to make a big improvement in the RCA program.

The plans for 2007 will include more study of the ACE Programs at other plants. Some plants perform about 40 ACEs each year while some perform about 2000 ACEs per year. Mr. Over thought that 2000 is too large a number to be effective. DCPP performed about 300 ACEs in 2006. Mr. Over thinks that may even be too many and they might reduce the number. DCISC should monitor this ACE number and examine it in detail a future Fact-finding Meeting.

DCPP also wants to make changes to the Action Request (AR) Program. They generate about 12,000 to 15,000 ARs each year and would like to replace some ARs with Condition Reports for minor items that should not require an AR. They plan to complete this review by April 2007. Part of this review of the ACE program would be to investigate a two tier approach that some plants are using. The change would mean that they perform to the same level of detail on certain ACEs and apply a much lower level of detail on other ACEs that involve only minor causes.

They want to keep up with the industry in the RCA and ACE areas by doing two bench markings of other plants which have good programs. They plan to make changes as necessary to keep pace with the industry.

Conclusion:
It appears that DCPP has made improvements in the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) area through training and utilization of experienced employees from other areas of the plant. They appear to be somewhat lacking in the area of operations experience. The plans for 2007 are to review the Apparent Cause Evaluation (ACE) Program at other plants in order to make improvements. DCPP plans to make changes to RCA and ACE programs as necessary to maintain pace with the industry. They need to accomplish this before industry leadership can be referenced in plant goals.

3.2 Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance Program

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Dan Hardesty, Senior Engineer – Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) Section, to review the status of the Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance Program. The DCISC last reviewed the Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance Program at the October 25 @ 26, 2000 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.2) at which time it concluded:

DCPP continues to comply with its Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) for the reactor vessel, and its internal compliance program appears to be in order and under active attention by the plant staff.

Mr. Hardesty reported that surveillance testing in the early life of Units 1 & 2 at DCPP predicted that they should have no problems with pressure vessel embrittlement during the 40 year license. There are 4 surveillance capsules remaining in Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, but all surveillance capsules have been removed from Unit 2 Reactor Vessel. They will evaluate a possible need to install new surveillance capsules in Unit 2 if they go to life extension.

In Unit 1, one surveillance capsule was removed and tested in Outage 1R1. Three surveillance capsules were removed and one tested in Outage 1R5, one surveillance capsule was removed and estimated in Outage 1R11, and two surveillance capsules were removed and estimated in Outage 1R12. In Unit 2, one surveillance capsule was removed and tested in Outage 2R1, one surveillance capsule was removed and tested in Outage 2R3, one surveillance capsule was removed and tested in Outage 2R6, and three surveillance capsules were removed and one tested in Outage 2R9.

Mr. Hardesty also reported that the NRC will probably be modifying the Regulatory Guide on Reactor Vessel start up requirements on temperature and time.

There are four dosimetry chains suspended at four different azimuthal angles in one quadrant outside the reactor vessel. Mr. Hardesty stated that these should be replaced every 5-8 EFPY. To maximize their lifetime, they are now replacing them approximately every 5 cycles. The last time they were replaced was during Outages 1R10 and 2R10. Mr. Hardesty also reported the next changeout should be during Outages 1R15 and 2R15. Because DCPP uses radiometric monitors, Westinghouse indicates they can be used for the life of the plant and recommends a changeout frequency of at least 5 cycles to minimize the loss in accuracy associated with the decay of the short lived iron isotopes.

Conclusion:
It appears that DCPP has been performing the Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program successfully as per requirements. DCPP might need to install new surveillance capsules in Unit 2 if life extension is pursued. The NRC will probably be revising the Regulatory Guide on Reactor Vessel start up requirements on temperature and time.

3.3 Margin Management Status and Plans

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Ken Bych, Equipment Reliability Engineering Supervisor, to review DCPP Margin Management. The DCISC last reviewed Margin Management at the May 31-June1, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.3) at which time it concluded:

DCPP is progressing well in developing its Margin Management Program. Its plan appears solid, and implementation is on-schedule. This new program should benefit the safety of DCPP in the future.

Mr. Bych first reported on Margin Management background. The initial Margin Management Response was:

Mr. Bych then described what “Margin” means:

  1. Margin is that conservatism included in the operation and design for all Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs),
  2. Margin can be thought of quantitatively as the difference between actual and required performance, and
  3. Margins are not always specifically identified or quantified in design basis documents or operating procedures even when that conservatism exists.
  4. Margin can be changed, but changes must be analyzed and documented.

Margin Management is the practice of margin documentation and tracking so that margin is not inadvertently lost. Degraded equipment, plant modifications, procedure changes, revised calculations, and human error can reduce margins over time. SSCs with low or reduced margin must be monitored and margin recovered, if that is determined to be necessary.

Margin Management is also an NRC focus area. An NRC team reviewed DCPP’s design and operating margins in a special inspection in January 2005. A Second NRC team reviewed DCPP’s design and operating margins in a special inspection in September 2006. They identified four potential green non-cited violations. These have been entered in an Action Request (AR).

DCPP’s “Margin Management and Change Plan” procedure was issued in July 2006. It addressed:

@#8226; Training for operators and engineers

@#8226; Review of certain procedures for change

@#8226; The action plan for Margin Management Phase III includes:

Mr. Bych then discussed some of the existing issues affecting Margin Management. Margin Management is an engineering responsibility. DCPP has many of experienced people retiring and the need for knowledge transfer is very important. Replacement employees need the knowledge transfer so that they understand the margin concept and changes that have been made to margin. In regulatory space, he believes they are in good condition, as design margins changes require NRC approval. Operating margin is the responsibility of the plant. Performance was very good in the turbine upgrade. They looked at maintaining all of the margin associated with the turbine in the turbine upgrade. Mr. Bych thinks they have good knowledge of margins for all systems and are doing a better job of reviewing and documenting new changes. They also have now met all of INPO expectations for Margin Management.

The industry is now identifying systems with low margins and is discussing what can be done in these systems. DCPP’s top ten “low margin systems” are: 1) Component Cooling Water, 2) Auxiliary Salt Water, 3) Auxiliary Feedwater, 4) Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer, 5) DC Power, 6) AC Power/Diesel Generators (DG), 7) Chemical Volume @ Control, 8) Control Room Ventilation, 9) Solid State Protection System, and 10) Containment Recirculation Capacity/Residual Heat Removal. For each of these systems there is a background description, margin challenges and evaluation.

Conclusion:
It appears that DCPP has a good Margin Management Program and continues to sustain its effectiveness as industry improvements occur. DCPP has many experienced people retiring and the need for knowledge transfer of margins is very important. The new employees need this knowledge transfer so that they understand the margin concept and changes made to margin. They also have now met all of INPO expectations for Margin Management.

3.4 Plant Tour

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Don Malone, Regulatory Services Engineer, for a plant tour. The first area was the Control Room. Both units were operating at 100% power, and operations appeared to be operating normal. The Fact-finding Team had a long discussion with one of the Shift Foremen relative to working conditions and operator overtime. He stated it depends who you talk to whether they think they are working too much overtime or that overtime conditions are acceptable.

Mr. Malone led the Fact-finding Team through other areas of the Turbine Building. Overall the material condition of the plant was good. The next area was the Diesel Generator (DG) Rooms. Outside the Unit 1 DG Room, the Team was stopped by plant personal getting ready for CO-2 tests for each of the 3 rooms. All three of the Unit 2 DG rooms were then inspected. Each of the DG rooms had been cleaned and painted and were in excellent condition. These DG rooms were in the best condition they have been compared to previous visits.

Conclusion:
During the visit to the Control Room, both units were operating at 100% power and operations appeared to be operating normal. The DCISC Fact-finding Team was able to have a long discussion with one of the Shift Foremen about working conditions and operator overtime. Overall the material condition of the plant was good, and it appeared the DG rooms were in the best condition they have been compared to previous visits. The DCISC should continue to have plant tours when practicable during Fact-finding Meetings.

3.5 Performance Improvement Organization

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Paul Roller, Performance Improvement Director. The DCISC last reviewed Performance Improvement (PI) at the November 28 @ 29, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.4) at which time it concluded:

Replacing the Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Report with the Plant Performance Improvement (PPI) Report appears to be an improvement for informing plant personnel of plant performance. The Management Review Meeting (MRM) is a good opportunity to review plant performance indicators particularly for areas that need attention. The Performance Improvement Rollup Review Meeting Process allows for sections to review performance at the section level, and identify trends to address before they become problems. It’s probably the only meeting that allows all Managers to get together to review performance improvement.

The discussion with Mr. Roller allowed the Fact-finding Team to review his organization and its responsibilities. The PI organization consists of: Regulatory Services, Problem Prevention @ Resolution, Learning Services, and Organization Effectiveness. Mr. Roller believes the Performance Improvement Program (PIP) is the program, if implemented properly, which will be able to take DCPP to the next level in performance. They are also benchmarking other plants to learn from their performance improvement.

Mr. Roller then discussed the Management Review Meetings (MRMs) as to their purpose, attendance and results. The MRMs have been ongoing for about nine months. They started with one meeting every month, but now have one every other month. The attendees review all performance indicators and metrics that identify current performance levels needing improvement. At the beginning of each MRM, awards are presented for each Department that has been performing well and good individual is also recognized.

The goal of the MRM is for the line organizations to analyze performance metrics and determine corrective actions and propose improvements. The charter of the MRM states that:

The MRM is to provide a forum to facilitate the following:

  1. Station management review of DCPP performance in four key areas of the performance plan: Safety, Plant Operations, People, and Cost
  2. Provide the forum for the leadership team to:
  1. Reinforce expectations for plant standards so that they are clearly understood and consistently applied across all organizations
  2. Communicate to the entire management staff the importance of the DCPP Performance Plan and focused objectives.

The charter also includes the attendees, frequency, and roles and responsibilities for the Vice-Presidents, Directors, Managers, Supervisors, Data Owners, Performance Improvement Implementation Team, and Individual Contributors attending the meeting.

Mr. Roller discussed the Performance Improvement (PI) Roll-up Review Process. The PI Roll-up process is to:

@#8226; Periodically review department performance by:

The purposes of the PI Roll-up reviews are to:

@#8226; Monitor @ review department performance

@#8226; Identify

DCPP initiated the development of the PI Roll-up process in May 2006 and conducted initial meetings in June and July 2006. Procedures were prepared and put into use in August 2006.

Mr. Roller reported that PI Roll-ups have been used successfully at top performing plants and DCPP has been benchmarking these plants in developing their program. Each Department has a PI Roll-up meeting monthly with Director, Manager, Supervisors, and individual contributors to review all indicators for the month to determine the most significant issues. The report on the meeting identifies what actions need to be taken for improvement.

Mr. Roller thinks the MRM and the PI Roll-up meetings have been successful in making improvements, but they need to get line organization buy-in to be able to sustain these improvements.

Conclusion:
It appears that the DCPP Performance Improvement Program and the Performance Improvement Roll-up program can make improvements in performance at the plant. DCPP thinks the Performance Improvement Program (PIP), if implemented properly, will be able to take DCPP to the next level in performance improvement. They are also benchmarking other plants to learn from their performance improvement. The goal of the Management Review Meetings (MRMs) is for the line organizations to analyze and determine action, implement improvement, and monitor performance metrics. DCPP reported that PI Roll-ups have been used successfully at top performing plants, and DCPP has been benchmarking these plants to develop its program. DCPP needs line organization acceptance in order to be able to sustain these improvements. DCISC should review these programs at a Fact-finding Meeting in the 1st quarter of 2008.

3.6 Attend Management Review Meeting

The DCISC Fact-finding Team attended the first hour of a scheduled four-hour Management Review Meeting (MRM). This was the first time the DCISC has been able to attend one of these meetings. Mr. Roller, Director, Performance Improvement, was the facilitator of the meeting.

The MRM appeared well organized with good presentations by each of the presenters. There was also good feedback to the speaker after each presentation including suggestions for improvements to the presentation. The two Vice-Presidents, all Directors, all Managers, some Supervisors, and some individual presenters were present for the entire meeting. This resulted in a large attendance at the meeting. There were also 5 or 6 employees from San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station at the meeting for benchmarking, two INPO employees who were there preparing for the DCPP INPO evaluation, and the NRC Inspector. Occasionally it was difficult to hear the speakers in such a large room with so many people. DCPP might consider having a sound system to improve communication.

Mr. Roller started the meeting by reviewing the DCPP 2007 “six to fix” which were:

  1. Industrial Safety @ Human Performance
  2. Energize Employees
  3. ALARA
  4. Refueling Outage Performance
  5. Performance Improvement
  6. Project Performance

The agenda for the meeting was as follows:

@#8226; Opening Remarks (including recognition)

@#8226; December 2006 MRM Review (MRM Plus/Delta and previous Action Items)

@#8226; Safety (both industrial safety and nuclear safety)

@#8226; Plant Operations

@#8226; Learning Programs

@#8226; People

@#8226; Costs

@#8226; Closing Remarks (including feedback and the 2007 MRM schedule)

The DCISC Team attended the last 15-20 of the MRM. Overall the MRM appeared to be effective in identifying items needing attention and communicating this to the necessary personnel to get the problems resolved. There was also a MRM feedback sheet which all attendees were urged to complete on the effectiveness of the meeting and make comments or offer ideas for improvement.

Conclusion:
It appeared that the Management Review Meeting (MRM) was well organized with good presentations by each of the presenters. There was good feedback to the speakers after each presentation. Sometimes it was difficult to hear the speakers in such a large room and so many people. DCPP might consider having a sound system to improve communication. Overall the MRM appeared to be effective in identifying items needing attention and communicating this to all the necessary personnel for problems resolution. DCISC should continue to attend the MRM when they are meeting during Fact-finding Meetings.

3.7 Supervisor Effectiveness and Training

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Ardela Daniels, Organization Effectiveness Manager, to discuss the status of Supervisor Effectiveness and Training. The DCISC last reviewed Supervisor Effectiveness and Training at the February 15, 2005 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.5) at which time it concluded:

The first Line Supervisors Program, which incorporates, in draft form, approximately 16 days of classroom training and development is a considerable investment of people and time which should pay off in enhanced performance of First Line Supervision.

Ms. Daniels discussed DCPP Supervisor development and handed out the key elements for supporting supervisor effectiveness. These were:

@#8226; Clear Roles @ Responsibilities:

@#8226; Aligned Priorities:

@#8226; Adequate Management Support:

@#8226; Clear and Effective Initiative:

@#8226; Reasonable Workloads

Current efforts underway are 1) PG&E Leadership Academy (100% supervisors to attend either Leadership Academy or Crucial Conversations in 2007); PG&E Culture Change Initiative (100% participation, currently in reinforcement phase); and Crucial Conversations Roll Out in 2007. Additional efforts underway are:

@#8226; Leadership Coaching and development program

@#8226; Additional Coaching Efforts

@#8226; Department Supervisor Development

Ms. Daniels stated that there has been a big change in the DCPP leadership team. They are encouraging feedback from employees at the various meetings. The two Vice-Presidents are behind the Management Review Meetings and support them. They need to improve the Performance Improvement (PI) Roll-up by getting more involvement by craft and individual contributors.

Ms. Daniels reviewed what DCPP was doing in the area of Leadership Coaching and Development (LCD) area. This was a big step forward for creating a Coaching Culture at DCPP. The PG&E Vision, Goals, Strategies, and Values were listed. DCPP is committed to creating a coaching culture to continually improve safety and reliability. DCPP will improve the coaching skills of the extended leadership team by having each leader assigned to a coach from the PG&E Leadership Coaching and Development (LCD) group by March 30, 2007.

She then discussed how the LCD Coaches operate:

@#8226; Ongoing partnership designed to help clients produce strategic results

@#8226; To support DCPP, certified Leadership coaches are partnering with Directors, Managers, and Supervisors to increase effectiveness in the following areas:

The status of coaching at DCPP was also reviewed. Operations now has a full time coach to support training of operators. He participates in training and performs observations of training instructors. The coach reports to the Operations Manager and is a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO). There are two coaches from PG&E Corporation spending 100% of their time coaching. The one coach from Operations spends 100% of his time coaching and there are two coaches from Human Performance spending about 50 % of their time coaching and one coach from her department spends about 80 % of his time coaching.

DCPP has external consultant coaches for the Officers who spend about 3 months coaching. Each Officer, Director, Manager, and Supervisor will have a coach assigned to them by March 30, 2007. This coaching is a company wide effort, but DCPP is making this a special effort in LCD. Ms. Daniels is integrating the many parts of coaching using the INPO model. INPO has been assisting her with this effort as DCPP is considered to be one of the leading utilities in the area of Organizational Effectiveness. There is also improvement by allowing employees solve problems. DCPP has Supervisor alignment meetings monthly. Ms. Daniels also stated one of the big needs for DCPP is to have clear and effective processes.

Conclusion:
It appears that DCPP has made significant progress with the Supervisor Effectiveness and Training Program. It was reported that there has been a major change in the DCPP leadership team which is encouraging feedback from employees at the various meetings. DCPP needs to improve the Performance Improvement (PI) Roll-up by obtaining more involvement by craft and individual contributors. DCPP will improve the coaching skills of the extended leadership team by having each leader assigned to a coach from the PG&E Leadership Coaching and Development (LCD) group by March 30, 2007. DCPP hopes to make large improvements in their extended leadership team when they complete the coaching process. Coaching is an important area of interest to DCISC, and should be included when practical at future Fact-finding Meetings.

3.8 Tour ISFSI and Status

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Jearl Strickland, Manager Used Fuel Storage Project, to review the status and for a tour of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) . The DCISC last reviewed and toured the ISFSI at the October 25 @ 26, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.6) at which time it concluded:

A tour of construction of the foundation of the pad for the initial spent fuel storage casks of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) revealed orderly and well-controlled work in-progress.

The road to the ISFSI has been completed and the grade change in the area of Patton Cove behind the facility has been completed to protect against the possibility of landslides. Basic infrastructure has been completed for Phase I. The security gate was delivered that week. The transfer cask is complete. Eight of the multi-purpose canisters and the 8 storage over-packs have been received. The transporter is complete and the rigging equipment is being constructed.

Remaining work is 1) installation of passive security barriers, 2) installation of active security systems, and 3) connection to plant security system which is scheduled to be complete by August 31, 2007. The start up schedule is:

The above schedule depends on the resolution of regulatory issues. The DCISC Fact-finding Team then toured the ISFSI site. There was a minimum of activity at the ISFSI site as a result of most of the large construction work being complete. The work area seemed orderly and well maintained. The Team also drove by the construction site where a concrete building was being built to house the old steam generators when they are replaced in 2008 @ 2009.

Conclusion:
There was a minimum of activity at the ISFSI site as most of the large construction work has been complete. The work area seemed orderly and well maintained.

3.9 INPO Interface and Progress from Mid-Cycle Review

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Chuck Belmont, INPO Program Manager, to discuss DCPP’s interface with INPO, and to review progress made as a result of the Mid-Cycle review. The DCISC last reviewed the INPO Mid-Cycle Review at the September 6 @ 7, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.1) at which time it concluded:

DCPP’s mid-cycle INPO self-assessment found a number of significant improvements in station performance and four prior Areas for Improvement needing resolution as well as several new deficiencies. These are being addressed in an action plan.

Mr. Belmont is the DCPP interface with the INPO organization. He is also going to INPO on loan in April 2007 for about 18 to 24 months. He also leads the DCPP INPO Mid-Cycle Self Assessment for identifying items that need improvement before the INPO evaluation.

The Mid-Cycle Self-Assessment Team performed a comprehensive review of Diablo Canyon operations over the period of time since the last INPO Evaluation during a two week period starting on July 10, 2006. The assessment team included a cross-organization of DCPP and industry personnel. In all, eight industry experts were utilized as well as the DCPP INPO Senior Representative. The Assessment Team concluded that there has been significant improvement in plant performance since the last INPO Evaluation. Areas in need of improvement were also identified. In total, there were eight Areas for Improvement (AFI) and six performance deficiencies as well as four previous AFIs that were identified as “open with concern”.

Mr. Belmont stated that all original AFIs and the mid-term AFIs had been closed. He still had two concerns from the evaluations: 1) maintenance work package quality and 2) operator equipment mispositionings.

Conclusion:
The INPO Self-Assessment Team concluded that there has been significant improvement in plant performance since the last INPO Evaluation; however, areas in need of improvement (AFIs) were identified. All original AFIs and the mid-term AFIs have been closed, but there are still two concerns (maintenance work package quality and operator equipment mispositionings) left from the evaluations.

3.10 Review Status of New Performance Management Program

The DCISC Fact-finding Team met with Karen Brower, PG&E H.R. Business Partner for Generation, to discuss the New Performance Management Program. The DCISC last reviewed this topic at the January 18 @ 19, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.7) at which time it concluded:

DCPP Human performance Resources (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.

Ms. Brower reports to Human Resources (HR) at PG&E, and reports to PG&E Corporate. On-site she interacts with the Vice-Presidents and the Directors. The HR specialists on site report to their organization at PG&E Corp.

She reviewed the PG&E Performance Management Model which is to move PG&E toward their vision. The performance management strategy is to:

@#8226; Set Expectations

@#8226; Evaluate

@#8226; Calibrate

@#8226; Develop and Reward

PG&E Corporate Enterprise goals will cascade through the organization with calibration occurring at each step of the process. Officers will set line-of-business goals. Directors and Managers will set department goals. Managers and Supervisors will set individual goals with employees with employee input and discussion. Employee’s major areas of responsibility will also factor into individual goal setting.

Setting expectations is a collaborative process between an employee and their supervisor. During the discussion supervisors should:

Individual goals can be adjusted during the year if job duties or business conditions change. Engaging employees in a constructive discussion about their expectations is key to a successful Performance Management process. At mid-year and year-end the employees are evaluated on their goal achievement and demonstrated behaviors.

Based on the overall competency and goal rating, employees will be placed in a Performance Grid which consists of Goals (Does not meet, Meets or Exceeds) and Competencies (Strength, Proficient, and Development). To calibrate performance 1) placement is based on the employee’s goal achievement and demonstration of competencies; 2) employees must be honest in the evaluation and calibration processes; and 3) overall analysis should reflect the organization’s performance.

Ms. Brower also discussed training and coaching of all Vice-Presidents, Directors, Managers, and Supervisors. This will be through Leadership Academy Workshops, Culture Workshops and Coaching. PG&E identified a number of actions needed to achieve and sustain a new culture within the organization. A key strategy was to create a leadership curriculum to prepare people to lead within PG&E. The Leadership Academy’s purpose and goal is to strengthen the leadership within PG&E by focusing on training and development for Directors, Managers and Supervisors – recognizing that they are all part of a greater leadership team. Through this course curriculum, PG&E leaders will be better prepared to:

The first workshops were started in November 2005 and should be completed in 2007. After completing the Leadership Academy, coaches will contact the employees to begin the coaching engagement. Ms. Brower reviewed PG&E Leadership coaching @ development. Leadership coaching is an ongoing partnership designed to help clients produce fulfilling results in their professional lives. Through the process of coaching, clients deepen their learning, improve their performance, and enhance quality of life. To support PG&E’s culture change, certified Leadership Coaches will partner with Directors, Managers, and Supervisors to increase their effectiveness. Leadership Coaches are a key component of PG&E’s overall leadership development strategy and are an extension of the Leadership Academy.

The Leadership Academy states “Coaching is the process of equipping people with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop skills and become more effective. Coaches guide people to learn for themselves, encouraging and challenging to orchestrate resources and create learning opportunities.” She also discussed the coaches assigned to DCPP.

The feedback from the employees on the training and coaching has been good. The plan for 2007 is for half of DCPP Supervisors and above to attend Leadership Academy and half to attend Culture Workshops.

Conclusion:
The PG&E Performance Management Model is designed to move PG&E toward their vision by identifying and monitoring employee performance. In the new model, Officers will set line-of-business goals. Directors and Managers will set department goals. Managers and Supervisors will set individual goals with employees with employee input and discussion. Setting expectations is a collaborative process between an employees and their supervisor. This new model involves the employees more than in the past and allows employees to better understand the process and expectations. It appears that the process should provide a good tool to define individual employee goals tied to corporate and plant goals and to measure and reward individual performance.
Training and coaching is a key strategy to create a leadership curriculum to prepare people to lead within PG&E. The Leadership Academy and the Culture Workshops should provide good training for all leadership employees at DCPP. DCISC should continue to follow the Performance Management Program, Training and Coaching at DCPP in future Fact-finding Meetings.

3.11 Observe Corrective Action Review Board Meeting

The DCISC Fact-finding Team attended the Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) Meeting to observe the conduct of the meeting.. The DCISC last attended a CARB Meeting at the May 5 @ 6, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting (Reference 6.8) at which time it concluded:

The Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) agenda was prepared prior to the meeting and it appeared that each of the members had reviewed the information to participate in the discussion for each of the items. The CARB’s review of the AR’s for problem description, cause analysis and corrective action was very detailed and the discussion was open. Action decisions were taken.

Ken Peters, Director of Engineering, was chairman of this CARB meeting. An agenda for the meeting had been distributed and all participants had reviewed the actions to be taken at the meeting. The CARB meets every week. The items to be discussed at this meeting were:

The members of CARB discussed each of these items in detail and came to agreement by all as to what actions needed to be taken. The members were well prepared to discuss in detail each of these agenda items. The CARB also reviewed Action Items identified at this meeting to be sure they are addressed at a future meeting. It appeared that on some of these items, the CARB went into too much detail before coming to a conclusion, especially since the CARB members were so well prepared with the information they had been given before the meeting.

Conclusion:
An agenda had been distributed and all participants had reviewed the actions to be taken at the meeting. The members of Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) discussed each of these items in detail and reached an agreement as to what actions needed to be taken. The members were well prepared to discuss in detail each of these agenda items. It appeared that on some of these items, the CARD went into too much detail before coming to a conclusion.

3.12 DCISC Member Meeting with DCPP Management

Dr. Rossin, DCISC Member, met with Jim Becker, VP Diablo Canyon Operations @ Station Director to discuss items reviewed in the Fact-finding meeting and other items of interest.

4.0 Conclusions

4.1
It appears that DCPP has made improvements in the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) area through training and utilization of experienced employees from other areas of the plant. They appear to be somewhat lacking in the area of operations experience. The plans for 2007 are to review the Apparent Cause Evaluation (ACE) Program at other plants in order to make improvements. DCPP plans to make changes to RCA and ACE programs as necessary to maintain pace with the industry. They need to accomplish this before industry leadership can be referenced in plant goals.
4.2
It appears that DCPP has been performing the Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program successfully as per requirements. DCPP might need to install new surveillance capsules in Unit 2 if life extension is pursued. The NRC will probably be revising the Regulatory Guide on Reactor Vessel start up requirements on temperature and time.
4.3
It appears that DCPP has a good Margin Management Program and continues to sustain its effectiveness as industry improvements occur. DCPP has many experienced people retiring and the need for knowledge transfer of margins is very important. The new employees need this knowledge transfer so that they understand the margin concept and changes made to margin. They also have now met all of INPO expectations for Margin Management.
4.4
During the visit to the Control Room, both units were operating at 100% power and operations appeared to be operating normal. The DCISC Fact-finding Team was able to have a long discussion with one of the Shift Foremen about working conditions and operator overtime. Overall the material condition of the plant was good, and it appeared the DG rooms were in the best condition they have been compared to previous visits. The DCISC should continue to have plant tours when practicable during Fact-finding Meetings.
4.5
It appears that the DCPP Performance Improvement Program and the Performance Improvement Roll-up program can make improvements in performance at the plant. DCPP thinks the Performance Improvement Program (PIP), if implemented properly, will be able to take DCPP to the next level in performance improvement. They are also benchmarking other plants to learn from their performance improvement. The goal of the Management Review Meetings (MRMs) is for the line organizations to analyze and determine action, implement improvement, and monitor performance metrics. DCPP reported that PI Roll-ups have been used successfully at top performing plants, and DCPP has been benchmarking these plants to develop its program. DCPP needs line organization acceptance in order to be able to sustain these improvements. DCISC should review these programs at a Fact-finding Meeting in the 1st quarter of 2008.
4.6
It appeared that the Management Review Meeting (MRM) was well organized with good presentations by each of the presenters. There was good feedback to the speakers after each presentation. Sometimes it was difficult to hear the speakers in such a large room and so many people. DCPP might consider having a sound system to improve communication. Overall the MRM appeared to be effective in identifying items needing attention and communicating this to all the necessary personnel for problems resolution. DCISC should continue to attend the MRM when they are meeting during Fact-finding Meetings.
4.7
It appears that DCPP has made significant progress with the Supervisor Effectiveness and Training Program. It was reported that there has been a major change in the DCPP leadership team which is encouraging feedback from employees at the various meetings. DCPP needs to improve the Performance Improvement (PI) Roll-up by obtaining more involvement by craft and individual contributors. DCPP will improve the coaching skills of the extended leadership team by having each leader assigned to a coach from the PG&E Leadership Coaching and Development (LCD) group by March 30, 2007. DCPP hopes to make large improvements in their extended leadership team when they complete the coaching process. Coaching is an important area of interest to DCISC, and should be included when practical at future Fact-finding Meetings.
4.8
There was a minimum of activity at the ISFSI site as most of the large construction work has been complete. The work area seemed orderly and well maintained.
4.9
The INPO Self-Assessment Team concluded that there has been significant improvement in plant performance since the last INPO Evaluation; however, areas in need of improvement (AFIs) were identified. All original AFIs and the mid-term AFIs have been closed, but there are still two concerns (maintenance work package quality and operator equipment mispositionings) left from the evaluations.
4.10
The PG&E Performance Management Model is designed to move PG&E toward their vision by identifying and monitoring employee performance. In the new model, Officers will set line-of-business goals. Directors and Managers will set department goals. Managers and Supervisors will set individual goals with employees with employee input and discussion. Setting expectations is a collaborative process between an employees and their supervisor. This new model involves the employees more than in the past and allows employees to better understand the process and expectations. It appears that the process should provide a good tool to define individual employee goals tied to corporate and plant goals and to measure and reward individual performance.
Training and coaching is a key strategy to create a leadership curriculum to prepare people to lead within PG&E. The Leadership Academy and the Culture Workshops should provide good training for all leadership employees at DCPP. DCISC should continue to follow the Performance Management Program, Training and Coaching at DCPP in future Fact-finding Meetings.
4.11
An agenda had been distributed and all participants had reviewed the actions to be taken at the meeting. The members of Corrective Action Review Board (CARB) discussed each of these items in detail and reached an agreement as to what actions needed to be taken. The members were well prepared to discuss in detail each of these agenda items. It appeared that on some of these items, the CARD went into too much detail before coming to a conclusion.
5.0 Recommendations:
None

6.0 References

6.1
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on September 6-7, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.2, Section 3.10 & 3.4.
6.2
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on October 25-26, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.3, Section 3.
6.3
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on May 31-June 1, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.10, Section 3.3.
6.4
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on November 28-29, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.4, Section 3.11.
6.5
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on February 15, 2005 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.9, Section 3.3.
6.6
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on October 25-26, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.3, Section 3.7.
6.7
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on January 18-19, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.6, Section 3.1.
6.8
“Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee Report” on May 5-9, 2006 Fact-finding Meeting, Exhibit D.9, Section 3.3.

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