IR 05000361/1989033
| ML20043A320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1990 |
| From: | Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005210192 | |
| Download: ML20043A320 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,' ' < v.
. , . 'e - . . e > -
ig L MAY 11.19:0- .ij L Docket Nos. 50-361,.50-362 " [ , Southern California Edison Company 'Irvine Operations Center.
23 Parker Street .Irvine, California 92718'- . !
Attention: Mr. Harold.B. Ray, Vice President "
- Nuclear Engineering, Safety _and Licensing Department Gentlemen
Thank you for your letter of March .~in response'to our Notice of 5, 1990,/89-33 and 50-362/89-33, dated-c - L Violation and Inspection Report Nos. 50-361 ' February 5,1990, informing us:of.the steps you have taken to correct the l: . items which we brought to your attention. ; Your corrective actions will' be l verified during a future inspection.. , y - Your cooperation with us is appreciated.- ! o l
l
Sincerely
" t
- 5
' S.'A. Richards, Chief < ' Reactor'ProjectsBranch-bec w/ copy.of letter dated 3/5/90: d docket file State.of California a A. Johnson G. Cook j B. Faulkenberry J. Martin i - Resident Inspector ProjectInspector
J. Zollicoffer.
M. Smith ! RE(kV -{ - . PJhW n sri hards Johns fee $/II /S f/I/90
/ Y ] ] ] ' v ( h ' , SEND,TO PDR. ! YES )/ NO
h52101929005gg t\\ , o ADOCK 05000361 PDC c' ~" - ., - . -.. .. . .
y . - -
~.. , , ' ' . .
. .. . . '
. - i Southem Calibmia Edison Company 23; RMER STREET INb. A6WORNIA 92718 (. j .
- dM HAROLD D MAY
- -
Tt6t*acht. .j , March 5, 1990 ~ '+'" - o o ' ..u....' i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Attention Document: Control Desk Washington, D.C.'20555_ ! Gentlement- , Subject Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 . Reply to a Notice of3 Violation' .- ' San Onofre Nuclear Generatine-station. Unita 2'and 3 In a. letter. dated February.5,. 1990,'Mr. A. E 'Chaffee-(NRC) . forwarded NRC Inspection Report.No.189-33;and a Notice-of
Violation-(NOV)-concerning personnel' overtime.
In.accordance' l with.10 CFR 2.201,nthe enclosure to this' letter provides the Southern California Edison replysto this NOV.
This reply is consistent with my : letter. to Mr. Roy, Zimmerman.^(NRC)t dated? January _ 18,-1990- which discusses use=and) control of personnel , ' overtime.
' q If you have any questions, or if.you' require additional { information, please let.me:know..- , ,
Sincerely, ! - . V ' C . .. . l h Enclosure i ce s.
John B. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator, Region V ' C. W. Caldwell, NRC Senior Resident. Inspector, San Onofre
- i E
- no4 pp - ,a AA ^f Mkp)uc.sva . . ..-. . -.. . . .... .. -.. . - -
. . - - - , .. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ - - . . -.- '
. .. _ Enclosure March:5, 1990 ]
- -REPLY To A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
i Appendix A to Mr. Chaffee's letter dated-February 5, in.part: 1990 states-
"A.
The Unit 3 Technical specifications, paragraph 6.2.2,
Unit Staff, states'in part that: . ' 'f.
Adequate shift _ coverage shall be maintained'without , routine; heavy ~use of overtime. -The objective-ehallybe- - ; ~ to have operating personnel work a normalL8-hour' day, 40-hour' week while-the plant-is operating.' - ' ! contrary ;to the above, during Septemb'er 4 - November:19, 1989,'while Unit 3.was operating in Mode 1, the' reactor operations and health physics: staffs _were assigned a
- !
work' routine of 12 hours per-day, five days per, week.E This' comprised an average. work. week ' of' 55 hours excluding shift , turnover and meals.
j , B.
Unit 2. License condition-(19)b,(Shift Manning, states in part that: ' , '2.
An individual:ahall not_be perm'tteduto; work....more1 i than 72 hours irt any shift turnover-time)~ seven dayJperiod...-(excluding . _' t contrary tofthe above,:during the period between August 27 and September 10, 1989 Lone' health physicsLtechnician worked 76 hours _during seven c,onsecutive days _without' proper authorization from responsible management.
'.t - This is a severity Level IV violation.(supplement 1), applicable ! to Units 2 and 3."
, RESPONSE . < 1.
Re' mons for the violation. if admitted, a Part A , Because of the dual-unit' design of San Onofre~ Units 2 and?3, it is operated and maintained as'a single entity with-respect to many organizational and management systems.- , Among these is the system for the management of overtime.
,
For represented er.ployees, the single entity character of the dual units is also reflected in the negotiated: working-agreement which describes'-how overtine will be administered.
. . - - - .. - -... . - - - -. . a
, n, , -, +,,.,, ,a yn.
- ,. _...
, -
. - - - - - - . - - , - - -. - -.. .E I - v
- s
' ' . '.
<
Reply to a Notice'of Violation-2- -March 5, 1990 l During the' September.4l-November 19 period of the violation j
L on Unit'3,. Unit 2 was undergoing a refuelingioutage.
As a
- l
^ change from past practice, in managing the1 overtime-required-j by the Unit 2 outage,.among other things SCEJsought to
respond to employees concerns about the. disruptive effect:
of unpredictable-schedules by adhering.to a fixed schedule
i of planned. overtime throughout the outage.
Because the
' overtime required toisupport the Unit 2-outageLwas fixed and-predictable,femployees:were assured that they would not be V.
called in;during: periods of planned time.off, and we ' believed the: increased overtimeLwould have-a less: negative- 'effect.
, At the time the fixed overtime' schedule w$sLimplemented, ' SCE' did not consider thatzit: represented routine heavy use of- .l overtime for Unit 3,icontrary.to-the Technical < u Specifications,-because the scheduleLwasflimited to'the " , duration'of the refueling outage, and the duration beyond g*J which heavy use-of overtime becomes routine is not-defined.
our survey of similar,Ldual-unit plants /indicatastthat-the average level of'personneliovertime-for an operating unit is
- !
.normally increased;throughout the~ period of a refueling ? . outage on.the' associated unit, and.this was considered-
o - normal for San:onofre1 Units:2 and-3 as well.. .a In summary, theLviolation' occur ~ red because SCE had'concludedL l that use of-fixed overtime schedules would beibeneficial to
the personnel involved andswould not1significantly increase 'j the average!1evel of1 overtime considered ~acceptablefin-an j operating unit for the duration of a refueling outage on the-associated unit.
[ ! Part B
. Review. of. records indicates: that having allowed a ' health , L . physics technician to-work 76; hours on;an outage unit, i ' instead of 721 hours, during a 7: day period without. proper' - authorization-was an isolated incident resulting from ~ .
supervisor: error.
. ... - % 2.- Corrective stens that-have been taken and'the results- , achieved
Part A L Fixed overtime schedules for-the duration of a refueling, j outage will no longer-be implemented-for those personnel H identified in the Technical Specifications who are' assigned
to an operating unit.
Recognizing the dual-unit design of , Units 2 and 3, and the inability to temporarily increase certain critical personnel resources (e.g., licensed
- ,__________________m . . . - , __ , ~-.4-. -
. > . .,
.= , _ + . l .. Reply to a Notice of Violation-3-March 5, 1990 operators), we may in'the future implement fixed overtime ' schedules for these personnel for auch shorter durations' (e.g., shutdown and startup).
Part B Action has been taken with the responsible supervisor to ensure that health physics technician overtime is controlled and authorized-in accordance with administrative procedures in the future.
3.
Corrective stans that will be'taken to avoid further violations The error in not controlling and authorizing overtime in accordance with administrative procedures will be discussed with all Health Physics supervision by April 16, 1990.
4.
Date when full comoliance will be achieved ~ Full compliance was achieved on' November 19, 1989 when use of planned overtime was; terminated following the restart of Unit 2 from its refueling outage.
i . i l l i , >j - . - . . }}