ML061160375

E-mail from J. White, Ri, to G. Smith, P. Cataldo and R. Barkley of Ri, Proposed Notification Schedule for Guard Working Hours at Beaver Valley

ML061160375
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	02/23/2005
From:	Jason White Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
To:	Barkley R, Paul Cataldo, Galen Smith Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0235
Download: ML061160375 (1)

Text

JUN-22-2005 15:51 NRC BEAUER VALLEY P.10

~aul U~azalco - He: iProposed Not6Icaflon crneouie ior Uuard WorKing Hours al beaver valley '-Page From: John White i 2 l C m To: Galen Smith: Paul Cataldo; Richard Barkley Date: 2/23/05 9:48AM

Subject:

Re: Proposed Notification Schedule for Guard Working Hours at Beaver Valley This sounds appropriate...the only caveat I would add is: if Pete detects an issue developing that could be adverse to meeting the requirement, such as excessive call outs that have the potential to affect group average or individual work-hours, or conditions that are likely to drive work-hours in excess of the requirement...the information should be identified early.

>>> Richard Barkley 02/23/05 08:55AM >>>

John, Yesterday, we left it open how often Paul/Galen would get with FENOC Security (or, preferably they would get with us) on whether they are currently meeting the security order working hour provisions.

Since they are currently meeting the order provisions (but with little margin) and should get out of the staffing "hole' they are in come April 4, 2005, when they finish qualifying a number of new guards, how about this:

1) FENOC Security will contact Paul early Monday morning regarding guard working hours for the pror week and their schedule for the coming week. We can report that data to you (or your actor) by the Monday 8 a.m. meeting.

2) FEN OC Security will contact Paul on Thursday afternoon regarding their progress that week and projection for the remainder of the week. We can report that data to you (or your actor) by the Friday B a.m. meeting.

This process with continue until April 4 (unless FENOC's scheduling of their new employees changes, in which case this date can be moved up or back).

Sound reasonable to you? We can do it more frequently, but since guard hours are averaged over a six week interval per the Order, a twice Weekly notification seems prudent and not overly burdensome to either u:s or FENOC.

Please !3et back to me when you can as to whether this proposal is acceptable. Thanks!

Richard S. Barkley, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer, NRC Region I 610/337-5065 Fax 610/337-5349/5354 CC: Pete Eselgroth; Wayne Lanning