ML19208A872

Discusses Statements Made by Util Personnel Before ACRS Re Facility Staffing Plans.Util Had No Intention of Misrepresenting Staffing Plans

ML19208A872
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	05/18/1979
From:	Borgmann E CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML19208A866	List: ML19208A872
References
NUDOCS 7909180103
Download: ML19208A872 (2)

Text

y (1

a y. -

3 g. Ed THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY C- " -

einemumomo 4 2 o, May 18, 1979 C. A BORGM AN N

.c..............

James G. Keppler .

Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Dear Mr. Keppler:

I am writing you concerning our telephone conversation of May 14 during which you indicated that Region III wished to interview.

some of our people further with regard to certain statements made to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). These

. statements apparent?y concerned our staffing plan and some con-flict between the statements made and our actual staffing inten-tions. Obviously, I was quite concerned and looked into the matter promptly. The facts in this matter from our standpoint are as follows:

Following the subcommittee meeting, Mr. Harpster, your inspector, along with his supervisor, Mr. Warnick, telephoned Mr.

James R. Schott, our plant superintendent, and voiced his feelings to the effect that CG&E's plans with respect to backup personnel should be clarified at the full ACRS meeting. Mr. Schott advised Mr. Harpster that he had not seen the transcript but indicated that he had not tried to mislead anyone with his testimony.

After Mr. Harpscer's call to Mr. Schott, we reviewed the transcript of the ACRS subcommittee meeting of February 27 and concluded that we agreed with Mr. Schott's testimony concerning backup capability. Apparently any problem stems from the discus-sion of backup to operating personnel between Subcommittee Chairman Bender and Mr. Schott. In essence, Mr. Bender was trying to assure himself that adequate backup would exist for each key supervisor. The maintenance supervisor was used as the example in the discussion which was prompted in part by the fact that our former maintenance supervisor Had resigned.

What Mr. Schott stated was that backup capability would be assured at the second line supervisory level and would be full time. Our intention is to have a dedicated backup for each of the following sections: operating, maintenance, I & C, rad-chem, technical, and training. It was not our intention, however, to l

009y

, y 21 $IS ,ah,[85 AHuAmt 4

?

James R. Keppler Page 2 May 18, 1979 necessarily give these backup personnel the title of " Assistant" per.se.

Both CG&E and Mr. Schott personally believe that' our inten-tions were clarified at the full committee meeting by describing the roles of the maintenance engineer and the other supervisors, including their support. This was done through the use of a view graph and Xerox copies of the plant organization chart which were distributed to members of the committee. It was not until your call that anyone at CG&E had knowledge that this matter had not been fully resolved to Mr. Harpster's satisfaction.

I hope this letter now resolves this matter to the satis-faction of Region III. However, in the event you wish to discuss the subject further with our personnel, we will be pleased to cooperate. As you know, the pre-hearing conferences are scheduled for May 21-23 with the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on June 19. For this reason, timely resolution of this apparent misunderstanding is essential.

Very truly yours,

= _

E. A. Borgmann Senior Vice-President e

, S.

.