**Statement**

**By**

**The Honorable Joseph F. Bader**

**Member**

**Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board**

**Presented**

**at the**

**Department of Energy\'s**

**13th Annual Facility Representative Workshop**

**May 16, 2006**

**Knoxville Convention Center**

**Knoxville, TN**

Good morning. It is good to be here for a second year at the Thirteenth
Annual Facility Representative Workshop. I was very happy to hear Dr.
Inés Triay (Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Environmental Management and Keynote Speaker) talk about one
of my favorite subjects, MBWA or "Management By Walking Around," because
it represents a clear indicator of senior field managers' attention to
facility safety.

The Facility Representative Program continues to be the "point of the
spear" for safety and technical competence. I would like once again to
extend my compliments to Mark Whitaker, John Evans, and the others who
help make this forum possible. Right behind MBWA in importance is the
gathering of people like this to share their experiences from the field.

Let me first give sincere congratulations to the 2006 Facility
Representative of the Year, Mr. Dary Newbry from the Idaho Operations
Office. This is an honor and recognition among your peers of your
outstanding accomplishments out in the field! Well done! I saw Dary in
action out in Idaho in the Pu-238 Fuel Facility during one of my recent
trips. Beth Sellers (DOE Idaho Operations Office Manager) should be very
proud with two winners in a row of the Facility Representative of the
Year.

About two years ago, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board)
highlighted areas that warranted strengthening in the Facility
Representative Program, primarily a better evaluation of Facility
Representative staffing levels at the sites, and continuing training
directed at changing facility or activity conditions. Since the issuance
of the Board's letter, John Evans and his team have done a good job in
revising the Facility Representative Program Standard and have addressed
the bulk of the Board's concerns. This is particularly true in
determining appropriate staffing levels and having rigorous continuing
training. Now, you need to implement the standard effectively at the
sites. One area, in particular, needs your attention and that is the
aggressive hiring to fill vacant Facility Representative positions to
get to staffing levels that site offices have determined are needed. The
main source of Facility Representatives should be technically capable
personnel from within DOE and from relevant external sources, such as
Navy nuclear trained personnel, NRC inspectors, or naval shipyard
personnel. The DOE Technical Intern programs, such as the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Future Leaders Program, can be an
effective supplemental source of candidates, if the proper training,
education, and mentoring occur. Senior Facility Representatives should
be expected, as part of their duties, to be assigned new Facility
Representative candidates to coach, challenge, and mold, that is, "show
them the ropes."

DOE has been busy working on its oversight responsibilities and
practices in response to Board Recommendation 2004-1. Facility
Representatives play a large role in the DOE field element line
management oversight processes, such as inspections, reviews,
surveillances, surveys, operational awareness, and walkthroughs. So you
collectively are an important key to determining if the contractor
organization is accomplishing work in a safe manner. As I mentioned last
year, your position of oversight responsibility requires careful
balancing and prioritization of your primary responsibilities in order
to maintain the primary intent of this key position . . . being the
"eyes and ears" for DOE and providing that valuable operational
awareness. However, we have observed that some Facility Representatives
are still spending too much time on collateral or special project
duties, thereby leaving some facilities without a critical look. The
improved staffing analysis methodology should help to identify any
workload imbalances, or point to the need to re-assign certain
collateral duties to others, or to add another Facility Representative
to the site. This issue will continue to require a concerted effort by
you and your management to ensure the balance is maintained. Also, when
I go from site to site, I ask, "how many Facility Representatives have
been promoted to senior positions?" I noted that there has been a good
promotion rate of Facility Representatives.

The Board continues to keep a wary eye on oversight activities at DOE
and NNSA. You may have heard Ambassador Brooks announce that a 2-year
pilot of NNSA's oversight model will begin in the near future at Los
Alamos. The thrust of the pilot is stated as encouraging the contractor
to establish a strong contractor assurance system and to allow NNSA to
reduce its direct oversight. There are three points that I would like to
make concerning the pilot. First, Ambassador Brooks has stated that this
initiative "does not apply to nuclear operations or, for that matter, to
security." Therefore, it should have no impact on much of the work that
Facility Representatives perform "in nuclear facilities." Second,
consistent with 10CFR830, we view nuclear operations to be not only
Hazard Category 2 and 3 facilities, but also radiological facilities.
Third and an important point to understand, we are strongly interested
in key support facilities and activities, such as emergency operations,
power supply systems and fire protection, that are typically shared
between nuclear and non-nuclear facilities and operations, but which are
vital to supporting nuclear safety.

At the public meeting in Los Alamos on March 22 of this year, we heard
testimony from Ambassador Brooks and from Ed Wilmot, the manager of the
Los Alamos Site Office. They said that nuclear operations should, in
fact, be strengthened by the oversight pilot because resources would be
freed from non-nuclear oversight activities. We are watching intently
the new oversight model. We are interested in how it actually performs.
Again, don\'t just tell me how good it is, show me.

Last year, I discussed some of my thoughts on how a Facility
Representative's expertise could help in facility design and
construction. So in answer to Dr. Triay's question on whether the
Facility Representatives should be plugged into the Federal Project
Director's portfolio - I say absolutely! Facility designers, project
directors, and safety system oversight personnel need to have the
Facility Representatives' thorough understanding of operations to design
facilities to operate safely. As an example of this already occurring,
Ted Sherry has Jerry Lipsky (who was the Facility Representative of the
Year at Los Alamos Site Office three years ago) working at HEUMF (Highly
Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at Y-12). Projects, including
substantial refurbishments, need the experienced operational presence of
a Facility Representative on each Integrated Project Team. The Facility
Representative's experience is unique in DOE and prepares you to bring
knowledge of operations to the development of newly designed facilities.
In the commercial nuclear industry, getting operational personnel in the
design phase was critical. Such experience is critical to the success of
future design projects, in particular when reviewing design deliverables
to ensure that operational safety requirements are addressed. Only
through a thorough understanding of operations can effective engineered
safety controls be incorporated into the design. As I said last year and
I'll say it again, the best way to design and build a facility which can
be operated safely is to design safety into it from the beginning. That
is a mantra with the Board, and starting to be a mantra with DOE, which
is a good thing.

The operationally-oriented perspective of DOE Facility Representatives
should also play a major role in the oversight of quality in nuclear
facility construction. As DOE undertakes an increasing number of large
complex nuclear construction projects, there is an increasing need to
ensure that the requisite quality is rigorously constructed into these
facilities. Proper design and construction relies on personnel being
trained in and adhering to established methods and procedures of nuclear
facility construction and on proper execution of quality requirements
and quality control inspections. However, the substantial skill base and
supplier base in the commercial nuclear industry do not exist as they
did in the past. Nuclear design and construction experience is however
painfully being gained at DOE sites. It will be a challenge for DOE to
maintain these skill bases and suppliers as the commercial nuclear
industry revives.

Right now, Facility Representative roles, responsibilities, and
qualifications are well-defined for operating facilities. DOE should
explore and better define the Facility Representatives' roles and any
specific training needed such as building codes, construction practices,
concrete, new industrial hazards, QA, welding, startup testing for
design and construction. New facility projects such as the Waste
Treatment Plant at Hanford or the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility at Y-12, may serve as good case studies to review in helping to
determine the role and training needs for Facility Representatives in
reviewing design deliverables to ensure that operational safety
requirements are addressed and in overseeing construction of new
facilities. I am not advocating pulling Facility Representatives away
from their assigned operating facilities, nor should this type of job be
a collateral duty. Instead, DOE needs to consider factoring into your
staffing analysis dedicated Facility Representative billets during the
planning phase for new facilities. It will fall to personnel such as DOE
Facility Representatives to perform as part of the "demanding owner"
function of DOE in establishing quality nuclear construction through
insisting that the quality requirements, procedures and practices are
maintained and improved upon.

As a whole, the Facility Representative community continues to enjoy a
well-deserved reputation for excellence. The challenge is not to become
complacent with this status but to strive to improve your technical
capability in all dimensions of your job. It is always advisable to get
more technical education and formal technical training such as advanced
technical degrees and professional certifications. The Board is in the
same business of oversight and 96% of our technical staff have advanced
technical degrees (the remaining 4%, which amounts to two technical
staff members, are enrolled in graduate degree programs). 21% of our
technical staff have PhDs. Opportunities to get advanced technical
degrees exist in several different venues (local universities to online
graduate degree programs), so take advantage of them. DOE is a highly
technical organization, involved in unique and hazardous work
activities-many are a first-of-a-kind. You can and should continue to
lead in striving for technical excellence. The Board encourages DOE to
sustain the vigor of the current Facility Representative Program and
look for ways to transfer lessons learned to build technical competence
throughout the DOE workforce. One final note, the Facility
Representatives serve as a good pool for future managers in the DOE
Complex.

Thank you.