ML111400480
| ML111400480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/2011 |
| From: | Anton Vegel Division of Reactor Safety IV |
| To: | Peter Dietrich Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| EA-11-083 IR-11-012 | |
| Download: ML111400480 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000361/2011012
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Mr. Peter Dietrich
Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125
May 19, 2011
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - NRC INSPECTION
REPORT 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
This letter refers to the in-office inspection conducted from March 2, 2011, to April 18, 2011,
for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The purpose of the inspection was to determine
whether any violations of regulatory requirements occurred when an inactive and medically
disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed licensed duties (core alterations) as
Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010. The enclosed report
presents the results of this inspection.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions in your license.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a review of selected procedures, an Apparent
Cause Evaluation, and other records and documents generated by your staff as a result of the
refuel watch standing issue and in response to additional questions from the inspector.
Based on the results of this inspection, one apparent violation was identified and is being
considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violation involved a failure to comply
with 10 CFR 55.53(f), which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid prior to the
operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, a medically disqualified
and inactive SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor
on October 21, 2010, and again on October 27. 2010.
The circumstances surrounding this apparent violation l the significance of the issues) and the
need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your staff at the
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Mr. Peter Dietrich
Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125
May 19, 2011
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - NRC INSPECTION
REPORT 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
This letter refers to the in-office inspection conducted from March 2, 2011, to April 18, 2011,
for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The purpose of the inspection was to determine
whether any violations of regulatory requirements occurred when an inactive and medically
disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed licensed duties (core alterations) as
Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010. The enclosed report
presents the results of this inspection.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions in your license.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a review of selected procedures, an Apparent
Cause Evaluation, and other records and documents generated by your staff as a result of the
refuel watch standing issue and in response to additional questions from the inspector.
Based on the results of this inspection, one apparent violation was identified and is being
considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violation involved a failure to comply
with 10 CFR 55.53(f), which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid prior to the
operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, a medically disqualified
and inactive SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor
on October 21, 2010, and again on October 27. 2010.
The circumstances surrounding this apparent violation l the significance of the issues) and the
need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your staff at the
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Mr. Peter Dietrich
Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125
May 19, 2011
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - NRC INSPECTION
REPORT 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
This letter refers to the in-office inspection conducted from March 2, 2011, to April 18, 2011,
for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The purpose of the inspection was to determine
whether any violations of regulatory requirements occurred when an inactive and medically
disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed licensed duties (core alterations) as
Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010. The enclosed report
presents the results of this inspection.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions in your license.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a review of selected procedures, an Apparent
Cause Evaluation, and other records and documents generated by your staff as a result of the
refuel watch standing issue and in response to additional questions from the inspector.
Based on the results of this inspection, one apparent violation was identified and is being
considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violation involved a failure to comply
with 10 CFR 55.53(f), which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid prior to the
operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, a medically disqualified
and inactive SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor
on October 21, 2010, and again on October 27. 2010.
The circumstances surrounding this apparent violation l the significance of the issues) and the
need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your staff at the
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Mr. Peter Dietrich
Senior Vice President and
Chief Nuclear Officer
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125
May 19, 2011
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - NRC INSPECTION
REPORT 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Dear Mr. Dietrich:
This letter refers to the in-office inspection conducted from March 2, 2011, to April 18, 2011,
for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The purpose of the inspection was to determine
whether any violations of regulatory requirements occurred when an inactive and medically
disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed licensed duties (core alterations) as
Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010. The enclosed report
presents the results of this inspection.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions in your license.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a review of selected procedures, an Apparent
Cause Evaluation, and other records and documents generated by your staff as a result of the
refuel watch standing issue and in response to additional questions from the inspector.
Based on the results of this inspection, one apparent violation was identified and is being
considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violation involved a failure to comply
with 10 CFR 55.53(f), which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid prior to the
operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, a medically disqualified
and inactive SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor
on October 21, 2010, and again on October 27. 2010.
The circumstances surrounding this apparent violation l the significance of the issues) and the
need for lasting and effective corrective action were discussed with members of your staff at the
Southern California Edison Company
- 2 -
1-083
telephonic inspection exit meeting on April 18, 2010. The NRC believes that it has sufficient
information to make an informed enforcement decision regarding these circumstances.
Therefore, it may not be necessary to conduct a pre-decisional enforcement conference in order
to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision.
In addition, based on our understanding of your corrective actions, a civil penalty may not be
warranted in accordance with Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. The final decision will be
based on your confirming on the license docket that the corrective actions previously described
to the staff have been or are being taken.
Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either
(1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the
date of this letter, or (2) request a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC). If a PEC is
held, it will be open for public observation and the NRC will issue a press release to announce
the time and date of the conference. If you decide to participate in a PEC, please contact Mark
Haire at (817) 860-8159 within 10 days of the date of this letter. A PEC should be held within
30 days of the date of this letter.
If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to
Apparent Violation in Inspection Report No. 05000361/2011012 and 50000362/2011012;
EA-11-083' and should include the following: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been
taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may
reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time
specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with
its enforcement decision or schedule a pre-decisional enforcement conference.
If you choose to request a PEC, the conference will afford you the opportunity to provide your
perspective on the apparent violation and any other information that you believe the NRC
should take into consideration before making an enforcement decision. The topics discussed
during the conference may include the following: information to determine whether a violation
occurred, information to determine the significance of a violation, information related to the
identification of a violation, and information related to any corrective actions taken or planned to
be taken. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the promptness and
comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any civil penalty for the
apparent violation.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You
will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosure, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available
electronically for public inspection in the ~~RC Public Document Room or from the ~JRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the
Southern California Edison Company
- 2 -
1-083
telephonic inspection exit meeting on April 18, 2010. The NRC believes that it has sufficient
information to make an informed enforcement decision regarding these circumstances.
Therefore, it may not be necessary to conduct a pre-decisional enforcement conference in order
to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision.
In addition, based on our understanding of your corrective actions, a civil penalty may not be
warranted in accordance with Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. The final decision will be
based on your confirming on the license docket that the corrective actions previously described
to the staff have been or are being taken.
Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either
(1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the
date of this letter, or (2) request a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC). If a PEC is
held, it will be open for public observation and the NRC will issue a press release to announce
the time and date of the conference. If you decide to participate in a PEC, please contact Mark
Haire at (817) 860-8159 within 10 days of the date of this letter. A PEC should be held within
30 days of the date of this letter.
If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to
Apparent Violation in Inspection Report No. 05000361/2011012 and 50000362/2011012;
EA-11-083' and should include the following: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been
taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may
reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time
specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with
its enforcement decision or schedule a pre-decisional enforcement conference.
If you choose to request a PEC, the conference will afford you the opportunity to provide your
perspective on the apparent violation and any other information that you believe the NRC
should take into consideration before making an enforcement decision. The topics discussed
during the conference may include the following: information to determine whether a violation
occurred, information to determine the significance of a violation, information related to the
identification of a violation, and information related to any corrective actions taken or planned to
be taken. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the promptness and
comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any civil penalty for the
apparent violation.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You
will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosure, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available
electronically for public inspection in the ~~RC Public Document Room or from the ~JRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the
Southern California Edison Company
- 2 -
1-083
telephonic inspection exit meeting on April 18, 2010. The NRC believes that it has sufficient
information to make an informed enforcement decision regarding these circumstances.
Therefore, it may not be necessary to conduct a pre-decisional enforcement conference in order
to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision.
In addition, based on our understanding of your corrective actions, a civil penalty may not be
warranted in accordance with Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. The final decision will be
based on your confirming on the license docket that the corrective actions previously described
to the staff have been or are being taken.
Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either
(1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the
date of this letter, or (2) request a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC). If a PEC is
held, it will be open for public observation and the NRC will issue a press release to announce
the time and date of the conference. If you decide to participate in a PEC, please contact Mark
Haire at (817) 860-8159 within 10 days of the date of this letter. A PEC should be held within
30 days of the date of this letter.
If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to
Apparent Violation in Inspection Report No. 05000361/2011012 and 50000362/2011012;
EA-11-083' and should include the following: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been
taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may
reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time
specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with
its enforcement decision or schedule a pre-decisional enforcement conference.
If you choose to request a PEC, the conference will afford you the opportunity to provide your
perspective on the apparent violation and any other information that you believe the NRC
should take into consideration before making an enforcement decision. The topics discussed
during the conference may include the following: information to determine whether a violation
occurred, information to determine the significance of a violation, information related to the
identification of a violation, and information related to any corrective actions taken or planned to
be taken. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the promptness and
comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any civil penalty for the
apparent violation.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You
will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosure, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available
electronically for public inspection in the ~~RC Public Document Room or from the ~JRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the
Southern California Edison Company
- 2 -
1-083
telephonic inspection exit meeting on April 18, 2010. The NRC believes that it has sufficient
information to make an informed enforcement decision regarding these circumstances.
Therefore, it may not be necessary to conduct a pre-decisional enforcement conference in order
to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision.
In addition, based on our understanding of your corrective actions, a civil penalty may not be
warranted in accordance with Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. The final decision will be
based on your confirming on the license docket that the corrective actions previously described
to the staff have been or are being taken.
Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either
(1) respond to the apparent violation addressed in this inspection report within 30 days of the
date of this letter, or (2) request a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC). If a PEC is
held, it will be open for public observation and the NRC will issue a press release to announce
the time and date of the conference. If you decide to participate in a PEC, please contact Mark
Haire at (817) 860-8159 within 10 days of the date of this letter. A PEC should be held within
30 days of the date of this letter.
If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to
Apparent Violation in Inspection Report No. 05000361/2011012 and 50000362/2011012;
EA-11-083' and should include the following: (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if
contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been
taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further
violations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may
reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately
addresses the required response. If an adequate response is not received within the time
specified or an extension of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with
its enforcement decision or schedule a pre-decisional enforcement conference.
If you choose to request a PEC, the conference will afford you the opportunity to provide your
perspective on the apparent violation and any other information that you believe the NRC
should take into consideration before making an enforcement decision. The topics discussed
during the conference may include the following: information to determine whether a violation
occurred, information to determine the significance of a violation, information related to the
identification of a violation, and information related to any corrective actions taken or planned to
be taken. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the promptness and
comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any civil penalty for the
apparent violation.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review. You
will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosure, and your response, if you choose to provide one, will be made available
electronically for public inspection in the ~~RC Public Document Room or from the ~JRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the
Southern California Edison Company
- 3
NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that
it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mark Haire of my staff at
(817) 860-8159.
Dockets: 50-361; 50-362
Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
cc w/Enciosure: Distribution via ListServe
Southern California Edison Company
- 3
NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that
it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mark Haire of my staff at
(817) 860-8159.
Dockets: 50-361; 50-362
Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
cc w/Enciosure: Distribution via ListServe
Southern California Edison Company
- 3
NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that
it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mark Haire of my staff at
(817) 860-8159.
Dockets: 50-361; 50-362
Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
cc w/Enciosure: Distribution via ListServe
Southern California Edison Company
- 3
NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your
response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that
it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mark Haire of my staff at
(817) 860-8159.
Dockets: 50-361; 50-362
Enclosure: Inspection Report 05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
cc w/Enciosure: Distribution via ListServe
Dockets:
Licenses:
Report:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspector:
Approved by:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
50-361; 50-362
REGION IV
05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
5000 S Pacific Coast Hwy
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
March 2 through April 18, 2011
B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer
Mark S Haire, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
- 1 -
Enclosure
Dockets:
Licenses:
Report:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspector:
Approved by:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
50-361; 50-362
REGION IV
05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
5000 S Pacific Coast Hwy
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
March 2 through April 18, 2011
B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer
Mark S Haire, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
- 1 -
Enclosure
Dockets:
Licenses:
Report:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspector:
Approved by:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
50-361; 50-362
REGION IV
05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
5000 S Pacific Coast Hwy
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
March 2 through April 18, 2011
B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer
Mark S Haire, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
- 1 -
Enclosure
Dockets:
Licenses:
Report:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspector:
Approved by:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
50-361; 50-362
REGION IV
05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
5000 S Pacific Coast Hwy
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
March 2 through April 18, 2011
B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer
Mark S Haire, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
- 1 -
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012; March 2-April18, 2011; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Refueling and Other Outage Activities.
One NRC regional inspector evaluated whether any violations of regulatory requirements
occurred when an inactive and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed
licensed duties (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and
October 27,2010. One Apparent Violation was identified.
A.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
Cornerstone: Initiating Events
4&
TBD. The inspector identified one Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 55.53(f)
which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and
valid prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license.
Specifically, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, an SRO performed
licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his
license was INACTIVE. Additionally, the SRO was on a temporary medical hold
from licensed activities on the dates identified. On October 27, 2010, the SRO's
license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the
SRO was relieved from his watch station. The licensee has entered this AV into
their corrective action program as NN 201174957. Corrective actions are still
being evaluated.
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify
licensed operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations
up-to-date with licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions
could potentially impede the regulatory process by not providing complete and
accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4,
Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed
operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that
position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a condition stated on the
individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation exists.
(Section 1 R20.1)
B.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
- 2 -
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012; March 2-April18, 2011; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Refueling and Other Outage Activities.
One NRC regional inspector evaluated whether any violations of regulatory requirements
occurred when an inactive and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed
licensed duties (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and
October 27,2010. One Apparent Violation was identified.
A.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
Cornerstone: Initiating Events
4&
TBD. The inspector identified one Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 55.53(f)
which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and
valid prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license.
Specifically, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, an SRO performed
licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his
license was INACTIVE. Additionally, the SRO was on a temporary medical hold
from licensed activities on the dates identified. On October 27, 2010, the SRO's
license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the
SRO was relieved from his watch station. The licensee has entered this AV into
their corrective action program as NN 201174957. Corrective actions are still
being evaluated.
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify
licensed operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations
up-to-date with licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions
could potentially impede the regulatory process by not providing complete and
accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4,
Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed
operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that
position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a condition stated on the
individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation exists.
(Section 1 R20.1)
B.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
- 2 -
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012; March 2-April18, 2011; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Refueling and Other Outage Activities.
One NRC regional inspector evaluated whether any violations of regulatory requirements
occurred when an inactive and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed
licensed duties (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and
October 27,2010. One Apparent Violation was identified.
A.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
Cornerstone: Initiating Events
4&
TBD. The inspector identified one Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 55.53(f)
which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and
valid prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license.
Specifically, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, an SRO performed
licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his
license was INACTIVE. Additionally, the SRO was on a temporary medical hold
from licensed activities on the dates identified. On October 27, 2010, the SRO's
license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the
SRO was relieved from his watch station. The licensee has entered this AV into
their corrective action program as NN 201174957. Corrective actions are still
being evaluated.
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify
licensed operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations
up-to-date with licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions
could potentially impede the regulatory process by not providing complete and
accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4,
Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed
operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that
position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a condition stated on the
individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation exists.
(Section 1 R20.1)
B.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
- 2 -
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IR05000361/2011012; 05000362/2011012; March 2-April18, 2011; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Refueling and Other Outage Activities.
One NRC regional inspector evaluated whether any violations of regulatory requirements
occurred when an inactive and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) performed
licensed duties (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor on October 21, 2010, and
October 27,2010. One Apparent Violation was identified.
A.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
Cornerstone: Initiating Events
4&
TBD. The inspector identified one Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR 55.53(f)
which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that the
qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and
valid prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license.
Specifically, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, an SRO performed
licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his
license was INACTIVE. Additionally, the SRO was on a temporary medical hold
from licensed activities on the dates identified. On October 27, 2010, the SRO's
license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the
SRO was relieved from his watch station. The licensee has entered this AV into
their corrective action program as NN 201174957. Corrective actions are still
being evaluated.
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify
licensed operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations
up-to-date with licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions
could potentially impede the regulatory process by not providing complete and
accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4,
Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed
operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that
position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a condition stated on the
individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation exists.
(Section 1 R20.1)
B.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
- 2 -
Enclosure
REPORT DETAILS
1.
REACTOR SAFETY
1 R20
Refueling and Other Outage Activities
.1
Refueling Activities
a. Scope
One regional inspector conducted an in-office review of selected procedures, an
Apparent Cause Eva!uation and other records and documents generated by the iicensee
staff as a result of an INACTIVE and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) performing an activity requiring a license (core alterations). Based on the
reviews, the inspector asked additional questions that were answered by members of
the licensee staff.
b.
Findings
Introduction. The inspector identified one apparent violation of 10 CFR 55.53(f) for
failing to certify that a Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) qualifications and status were
current and valid before the operator resumed functions authorized by his license.
Description. On April 20, 2010, the SRO was removed from licensed duties (temporary
medical disqualification). On October 1, 2010, the SRO's license became INACTIVE
due to not actively performing the functions of a senior operator for a minimum of seven
8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter as identified in 10 CFR 55.53(e). On
October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the licensee failed to ensure that the
Refueling SRO Supervisor was medically qualified and maintained an ACTIVE SRO
license (or an SRO license limited to fuel handling only) before allowing him to resume
functions authorized by his license. Specifically, a SRO performed licensed activities
(core alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE and
not medically qualified (temporary medical hold from licensed activities) on the dates
identified. The systems used by the facility to track qualification and proficiency did not
identify either the medical hold or the INACTIVE license status of the operator. On
October 27, 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations
personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station.
Analysis. The facility licensee site standard for verifying worker qualifications was the
program electronic Qualifications Information System (eQIS). This program did not
include licensed operator qualifications. Also, the program used by the scheduling
group when generating watch schedules was Site Worker Scheduling (SWS). This
program did not contain criteria required to validate qualifications for the Refuel SRO
Supervisor position. FailUie to maintain these two programs up-to-date with licensed
operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede the
regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC
inspectors.
- 3-
Enclosure
REPORT DETAILS
1.
REACTOR SAFETY
1 R20
Refueling and Other Outage Activities
.1
Refueling Activities
a. Scope
One regional inspector conducted an in-office review of selected procedures, an
Apparent Cause Eva!uation and other records and documents generated by the iicensee
staff as a result of an INACTIVE and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) performing an activity requiring a license (core alterations). Based on the
reviews, the inspector asked additional questions that were answered by members of
the licensee staff.
b.
Findings
Introduction. The inspector identified one apparent violation of 10 CFR 55.53(f) for
failing to certify that a Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) qualifications and status were
current and valid before the operator resumed functions authorized by his license.
Description. On April 20, 2010, the SRO was removed from licensed duties (temporary
medical disqualification). On October 1, 2010, the SRO's license became INACTIVE
due to not actively performing the functions of a senior operator for a minimum of seven
8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter as identified in 10 CFR 55.53(e). On
October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the licensee failed to ensure that the
Refueling SRO Supervisor was medically qualified and maintained an ACTIVE SRO
license (or an SRO license limited to fuel handling only) before allowing him to resume
functions authorized by his license. Specifically, a SRO performed licensed activities
(core alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE and
not medically qualified (temporary medical hold from licensed activities) on the dates
identified. The systems used by the facility to track qualification and proficiency did not
identify either the medical hold or the INACTIVE license status of the operator. On
October 27, 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations
personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station.
Analysis. The facility licensee site standard for verifying worker qualifications was the
program electronic Qualifications Information System (eQIS). This program did not
include licensed operator qualifications. Also, the program used by the scheduling
group when generating watch schedules was Site Worker Scheduling (SWS). This
program did not contain criteria required to validate qualifications for the Refuel SRO
Supervisor position. FailUie to maintain these two programs up-to-date with licensed
operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede the
regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC
inspectors.
- 3-
Enclosure
REPORT DETAILS
1.
REACTOR SAFETY
1 R20
Refueling and Other Outage Activities
.1
Refueling Activities
a. Scope
One regional inspector conducted an in-office review of selected procedures, an
Apparent Cause Eva!uation and other records and documents generated by the iicensee
staff as a result of an INACTIVE and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) performing an activity requiring a license (core alterations). Based on the
reviews, the inspector asked additional questions that were answered by members of
the licensee staff.
b.
Findings
Introduction. The inspector identified one apparent violation of 10 CFR 55.53(f) for
failing to certify that a Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) qualifications and status were
current and valid before the operator resumed functions authorized by his license.
Description. On April 20, 2010, the SRO was removed from licensed duties (temporary
medical disqualification). On October 1, 2010, the SRO's license became INACTIVE
due to not actively performing the functions of a senior operator for a minimum of seven
8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter as identified in 10 CFR 55.53(e). On
October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the licensee failed to ensure that the
Refueling SRO Supervisor was medically qualified and maintained an ACTIVE SRO
license (or an SRO license limited to fuel handling only) before allowing him to resume
functions authorized by his license. Specifically, a SRO performed licensed activities
(core alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE and
not medically qualified (temporary medical hold from licensed activities) on the dates
identified. The systems used by the facility to track qualification and proficiency did not
identify either the medical hold or the INACTIVE license status of the operator. On
October 27, 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations
personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station.
Analysis. The facility licensee site standard for verifying worker qualifications was the
program electronic Qualifications Information System (eQIS). This program did not
include licensed operator qualifications. Also, the program used by the scheduling
group when generating watch schedules was Site Worker Scheduling (SWS). This
program did not contain criteria required to validate qualifications for the Refuel SRO
Supervisor position. FailUie to maintain these two programs up-to-date with licensed
operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede the
regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC
inspectors.
- 3-
Enclosure
REPORT DETAILS
1.
REACTOR SAFETY
1 R20
Refueling and Other Outage Activities
.1
Refueling Activities
a. Scope
One regional inspector conducted an in-office review of selected procedures, an
Apparent Cause Eva!uation and other records and documents generated by the iicensee
staff as a result of an INACTIVE and medically disqualified Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) performing an activity requiring a license (core alterations). Based on the
reviews, the inspector asked additional questions that were answered by members of
the licensee staff.
b.
Findings
Introduction. The inspector identified one apparent violation of 10 CFR 55.53(f) for
failing to certify that a Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) qualifications and status were
current and valid before the operator resumed functions authorized by his license.
Description. On April 20, 2010, the SRO was removed from licensed duties (temporary
medical disqualification). On October 1, 2010, the SRO's license became INACTIVE
due to not actively performing the functions of a senior operator for a minimum of seven
8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter as identified in 10 CFR 55.53(e). On
October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the licensee failed to ensure that the
Refueling SRO Supervisor was medically qualified and maintained an ACTIVE SRO
license (or an SRO license limited to fuel handling only) before allowing him to resume
functions authorized by his license. Specifically, a SRO performed licensed activities
(core alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE and
not medically qualified (temporary medical hold from licensed activities) on the dates
identified. The systems used by the facility to track qualification and proficiency did not
identify either the medical hold or the INACTIVE license status of the operator. On
October 27, 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations
personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station.
Analysis. The facility licensee site standard for verifying worker qualifications was the
program electronic Qualifications Information System (eQIS). This program did not
include licensed operator qualifications. Also, the program used by the scheduling
group when generating watch schedules was Site Worker Scheduling (SWS). This
program did not contain criteria required to validate qualifications for the Refuel SRO
Supervisor position. FailUie to maintain these two programs up-to-date with licensed
operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede the
regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC
inspectors.
- 3-
Enclosure
Because the performance deficiency \\,vas an apparent violation that impacted the
regulatory process, the NRC Enforcement Policy was reviewed. Enforcement Policy,
Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1 (c) states that a licensed senior
operator actively performing the functions covered by that position while in
noncompliance with a condition stated on the individual's license is an example of a
Severity Level III violation.
Enforcement. 10 CFR 55.53(e) states, in part, that if the [senior operator] licensee has
not been actively performing the functions of a senior operator, the [senior operator]
licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued under this part except
as permitted by paragraph (f) of this section.
10 CFR 55.53(f) states, in part, that before resumption of functions authorized by a
license issued under this part, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall
certify the following: (1) that the qualifications and status of the licensee [senior
operator] are current and valid; and (2) that the licensee [senior operator] has
completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of an operator or
senior operator as appropriate and in the position to which the individual will be
assigned.
Contrary to the above, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the facility licensee
did not certify that the qualifications and status of the [senior operator] licensee were
current and valid and that the [senior operator] licensee had completed the required
minimum shift functions as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f). Specifically, the facility
licensee did not certify that qualifications of the [senior reactor] licensee were current
and valid before allowing the senior operator to perform licensed activities (core
alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor. In fact, the license of the senior operator in
question was INACTIVE. Additionally, the senior operator was not medically qualified
to perform licensed duties on the dates identified due to a temporary medically
disqualifying condition. On October 27, 2010, the senior operator's license restrictions
were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the senior operator was relieved
from his watch station.
This is an apparent Severity Level III violation.
40A6 Meetings, Including Exit
The regional inspector presented the inspection results to Messrs. D. Bauder,
Vice President and Station Manager, R. St. Onge, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs,
and other members of the licensee's staff on April 18, 2011. The circumstances
surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issues, and the need for
lasting and effective corrective action were discussed.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspection results presented. The
inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection
shouid be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
- 4 -
Enclosure
Because the performance deficiency \\,vas an apparent violation that impacted the
regulatory process, the NRC Enforcement Policy was reviewed. Enforcement Policy,
Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1 (c) states that a licensed senior
operator actively performing the functions covered by that position while in
noncompliance with a condition stated on the individual's license is an example of a
Severity Level III violation.
Enforcement. 10 CFR 55.53(e) states, in part, that if the [senior operator] licensee has
not been actively performing the functions of a senior operator, the [senior operator]
licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued under this part except
as permitted by paragraph (f) of this section.
10 CFR 55.53(f) states, in part, that before resumption of functions authorized by a
license issued under this part, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall
certify the following: (1) that the qualifications and status of the licensee [senior
operator] are current and valid; and (2) that the licensee [senior operator] has
completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of an operator or
senior operator as appropriate and in the position to which the individual will be
assigned.
Contrary to the above, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the facility licensee
did not certify that the qualifications and status of the [senior operator] licensee were
current and valid and that the [senior operator] licensee had completed the required
minimum shift functions as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f). Specifically, the facility
licensee did not certify that qualifications of the [senior reactor] licensee were current
and valid before allowing the senior operator to perform licensed activities (core
alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor. In fact, the license of the senior operator in
question was INACTIVE. Additionally, the senior operator was not medically qualified
to perform licensed duties on the dates identified due to a temporary medically
disqualifying condition. On October 27, 2010, the senior operator's license restrictions
were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the senior operator was relieved
from his watch station.
This is an apparent Severity Level III violation.
40A6 Meetings, Including Exit
The regional inspector presented the inspection results to Messrs. D. Bauder,
Vice President and Station Manager, R. St. Onge, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs,
and other members of the licensee's staff on April 18, 2011. The circumstances
surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issues, and the need for
lasting and effective corrective action were discussed.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspection results presented. The
inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection
shouid be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
- 4 -
Enclosure
Because the performance deficiency \\,vas an apparent violation that impacted the
regulatory process, the NRC Enforcement Policy was reviewed. Enforcement Policy,
Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1 (c) states that a licensed senior
operator actively performing the functions covered by that position while in
noncompliance with a condition stated on the individual's license is an example of a
Severity Level III violation.
Enforcement. 10 CFR 55.53(e) states, in part, that if the [senior operator] licensee has
not been actively performing the functions of a senior operator, the [senior operator]
licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued under this part except
as permitted by paragraph (f) of this section.
10 CFR 55.53(f) states, in part, that before resumption of functions authorized by a
license issued under this part, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall
certify the following: (1) that the qualifications and status of the licensee [senior
operator] are current and valid; and (2) that the licensee [senior operator] has
completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of an operator or
senior operator as appropriate and in the position to which the individual will be
assigned.
Contrary to the above, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the facility licensee
did not certify that the qualifications and status of the [senior operator] licensee were
current and valid and that the [senior operator] licensee had completed the required
minimum shift functions as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f). Specifically, the facility
licensee did not certify that qualifications of the [senior reactor] licensee were current
and valid before allowing the senior operator to perform licensed activities (core
alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor. In fact, the license of the senior operator in
question was INACTIVE. Additionally, the senior operator was not medically qualified
to perform licensed duties on the dates identified due to a temporary medically
disqualifying condition. On October 27, 2010, the senior operator's license restrictions
were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the senior operator was relieved
from his watch station.
This is an apparent Severity Level III violation.
40A6 Meetings, Including Exit
The regional inspector presented the inspection results to Messrs. D. Bauder,
Vice President and Station Manager, R. St. Onge, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs,
and other members of the licensee's staff on April 18, 2011. The circumstances
surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issues, and the need for
lasting and effective corrective action were discussed.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspection results presented. The
inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection
shouid be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
- 4 -
Enclosure
Because the performance deficiency \\,vas an apparent violation that impacted the
regulatory process, the NRC Enforcement Policy was reviewed. Enforcement Policy,
Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1 (c) states that a licensed senior
operator actively performing the functions covered by that position while in
noncompliance with a condition stated on the individual's license is an example of a
Severity Level III violation.
Enforcement. 10 CFR 55.53(e) states, in part, that if the [senior operator] licensee has
not been actively performing the functions of a senior operator, the [senior operator]
licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued under this part except
as permitted by paragraph (f) of this section.
10 CFR 55.53(f) states, in part, that before resumption of functions authorized by a
license issued under this part, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall
certify the following: (1) that the qualifications and status of the licensee [senior
operator] are current and valid; and (2) that the licensee [senior operator] has
completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of an operator or
senior operator as appropriate and in the position to which the individual will be
assigned.
Contrary to the above, on October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, the facility licensee
did not certify that the qualifications and status of the [senior operator] licensee were
current and valid and that the [senior operator] licensee had completed the required
minimum shift functions as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f). Specifically, the facility
licensee did not certify that qualifications of the [senior reactor] licensee were current
and valid before allowing the senior operator to perform licensed activities (core
alternations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor. In fact, the license of the senior operator in
question was INACTIVE. Additionally, the senior operator was not medically qualified
to perform licensed duties on the dates identified due to a temporary medically
disqualifying condition. On October 27, 2010, the senior operator's license restrictions
were questioned by on-shift operations personnel and the senior operator was relieved
from his watch station.
This is an apparent Severity Level III violation.
40A6 Meetings, Including Exit
The regional inspector presented the inspection results to Messrs. D. Bauder,
Vice President and Station Manager, R. St. Onge, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs,
and other members of the licensee's staff on April 18, 2011. The circumstances
surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issues, and the need for
lasting and effective corrective action were discussed.
The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspection results presented. The
inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection
shouid be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
- 4 -
Enclosure
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
D. Axline, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
NRC Personnel
G. Warnick, Senior Resident Inspector
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
Apparent Cause Evaluation 201174957, Refueling Activities Supervised by SRO Without Active
License
S0123-0-A2, Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities, Rev 24.
A-1
Attachment
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
D. Axline, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
NRC Personnel
G. Warnick, Senior Resident Inspector
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
Apparent Cause Evaluation 201174957, Refueling Activities Supervised by SRO Without Active
License
S0123-0-A2, Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities, Rev 24.
A-1
Attachment
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
D. Axline, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
NRC Personnel
G. Warnick, Senior Resident Inspector
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
Apparent Cause Evaluation 201174957, Refueling Activities Supervised by SRO Without Active
License
S0123-0-A2, Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities, Rev 24.
A-1
Attachment
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
D. Axline, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
NRC Personnel
G. Warnick, Senior Resident Inspector
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
Apparent Cause Evaluation 201174957, Refueling Activities Supervised by SRO Without Active
License
S0123-0-A2, Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities, Rev 24.
A-1
Attachment