ML19347B426
| ML19347B426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1980 |
| From: | Bossenmaier W SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347B424 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010150064 | |
| Download: ML19347B426 (2) | |
Text
,
n Sk1UD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street Box 15830. Sacramento, California 95943, (916) 452-3211
,c, September 16, 1980
' K/ p f
s
<A
,~
A 2\\
~>. -.
Mr.
R. H.
Engelken. Director
' [*
Region V Office of Inspection & Enforcement
'T U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f3 d[{'77'7 {(Y' 1990 ?!crth Cali fornia Rou!evard Walnut Creek Plaza. Suite 202 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Re:
Operating License DPR-54 Docket No. 50-312 IE inspection Report No. 50-312/80-21
Dear tir. Engelken:
In reply to your inspection conducted by,Mr.
G.
B. Zwetzig on July 7 through July 11, 1980, we offer the following explanations.
Paragraph A of Appendix A of your letter notes the following deviation:
Contrary to the licensee's commitment in Section 12.3.2 of the Rancho Seco FSAR, five full strength shift crews were not maintained for a period of about one year during 1979 As a result, a full relief crew could not be assigned to the day shift where training could be conducted "in an atmosphere conducive to learning" as stated in the F S A P..
Instead, most formal classroom training of licensed operators irplemented by requesting operators assigned to the 1600 to 2400 was shift to come to work a few hours before the start of their shift.
Such a practice does not appear to be " conducive to learning" nor conducive to maximum effectiveness during the subsequent shift assign-ment.
SMUD REPLY:
The District acknowledges that a full relief crew could not be assigned to the day shift solely for training during the referenced time period.
This can be attributed to the inherent deficiency in the 5-crew rotation system itself.
To assure adequate crew coverage with allowances for vacations, sick days, etc., the training requirements were met by utilizing overtime for licensed operators.
The ne2d was recognized several years ago for i sixth operating crew.
Individuals have been placed into training with the intent of going to six crews as soon as possible.
With the trainees presently in the District's p10M AN EttCT"!C SYSTEM S E RVI N G MORE THAN 600.00.0 IN THE HEART OF C A tir0 R N f A b'
4 4
W j
l i
i Mr. R. H.
Engelken. Director Page Two September 16, 1980 1
hot license training program, a sixth crew could have been achieved by
}
April of 1981.
However, the July 31, 1980 letter from Darrell G. Eisenhut.
Director, Division-of Licensing concerning "Interin Criteria for Shift 1
Staffing" will, in fact, extend that time frame considerably.
1 1
in the interim, the District intends to comply with both the minimum j
shift crew personnel staffing in accordance with Technical Specification Table 6.2-1 as well as other applicable commitments made i n this area and v
j licensed operator retraining requirements.
The latter will most likely con-i tinue to be met via the use of overtime. The overtime will, of course, con-tinue to be within the guidelines established in the Darrell G. Eisenhut
]
letter concernina overtime work for senior reactor operators and reactor 1
operators.
1
)
Overtine training will terminate when sufficient operations l
personnel have been licensed. The date of full compliance with this deviation as predicted by a manpower study will be llovember 1983 The schedule j
to comply with the July 31, 1980 request from Mr. Eisenhut will be fully addressed in the District's 90-day response to the letter.
I Respectfully submitted, I
Q W G u Chi,. L.L \\-
l W. S. Bossenmaier 1
Acting General Manager 4
l WSB:RWC:HH:sc i
i i
1 1
1 j
1 1
d d
1 7
v w
y-+y 1g.s,g e-e,y-gm-s y-9.---
g 9 -
---w
-+q-gg.
e
--rr-y,-
m--
-,,yy-------gg st.q-.i-
,p-.-y+---
,,m-
-im M
ny-g-u pg.m+y----yrm-r-W-g-T' 9r