ML20044F886
| ML20044F886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Buffalo |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1993 |
| From: | Landi D BUFFALO MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER |
| To: | Joyner J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044F881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306010160 | |
| Download: ML20044F886 (3) | |
Text
~
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO oma d
- w
,
- ice Pwsiderd for Res.carch STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK slo caen Hall Nx 601611 Buffakt New h>rk 142$1611 9 16) 644 3321 iAA 916)d452933 April 29, 1993 James H. Joyner, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 194 06-J.415 Re: Docket 50-57 License R-77
Dear Mr. Joyner:
I am writing in response to your recent request by phone (April 22, 1993) for information supplementing the report conveyed with Mr. Louis Henry's letter of March 29, 1993.
In particular you asked the University to describe actions taken to ensure that reactor operator inattentiveness was not a problem that extended beyond the event alleged to have occurred in November, 1992.
Since your call this matter has been reviewed once again with Mr. Henry, general manager at BMRC.
Mr. Henry's report is enclosed fm your review.
The University is satisfied that all reasonable s: e?s have been taken and we concur with Mr.
Henry's conclusion.
Sincerely, y
Dale M.
Landi Vice President for Research DML 618 Encl.
cc:
Y. Henkin L. Henry 9306010160 930520 PDR ADOCK 05000057 O
' 5S) W RED o
o a
BUFFALO MATERIALS RESEARCH CENTER a
w g (j g To:
Vice President Dale M.
Landi RECEIVED From:
Louis Henry wf 4.L APR 2 81933 Date:
April 26, 1993 C7.a rim r.rt Vce h-e:me
Subject:
Operator Attentiveness C;~r ;n' q" The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to f
you regarding our determination that operator in-attentiveness is not a problem at. EMRC that extends beyond the Operator in-t volved in the No' ember 92 Event.
Discussions with the Staff - EMRC is a small facility, and the event in question has been discussed in detail by every member of the Operations staff.
While some do not agree with our response to the event, (thinking it is too harsh, or that the charges are not adequately substantiated), there has been no indication whatsoever that any operator feels it is acceptable to be inattentive to the reactor.
I discussed the specific issue with the other operator routinely assigned to the Midnight shift.
Mark Pierro, Radiation Safety Officer, has also talked with the operators.
Please amember that there are only two operators on each back shift, and that there are only eight SRO's total.
My experience is that it would be imposeible for a pervasive inattentiveness problem to go undetected.
In addition, the second shift supervisor is an extremely conscientious individual.
I Training - We reviewed the records of training and instruction and verified that all operators were specifically and directly instructed and counseled with regards to their responsibilities f
to be fit for duty, and specifically with regards to fatigue.
We also outlined clearly during the training what steps an operator ehould take if he or she feels there is a problem with their shift partner (who may be their supervisor).
Scheduling - The evening and third shift schedules are eight hours in durstion.
No one is routinely assigned overtime.
On l
rare occasion an individual may be called upon to woix 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to cover when an operator calls in sick.
On occasion operators are required to work 4 P.M.
to Midnight and then report back for duty the next morning.
We feel therefore that our overall scheduling and work patterne do not facilitate excessive operator fatigue.
SUNY-BUFFALO. ROTARY ROAD. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14214-3096-TELEPHONE (716) 829-2826
- FAX (716) 829 2030 e
P i
Quality of Work - If inattentiveness at the console were a
{
problem,'I expect thtt there would be subtle symptoms relating to
{
quality of work.
I have not seen this.
Log keeping seems reasonable and accurate, samples have been inserted and removed i
at the proper time.
Assigned shift tacks have been completed.
[
f Sick Leave There is no evidence of sick leave abuse by any operator.
In fact I consider performance in this area to be very j
good.
I mention this because sick leave abuse could be a eymptom j
of a fitnese probl'm.
3 Conclusion - There have been no problems detected within BMRC j
with operatore being inattentive to their duties (other than the November 92 Event),
i t
We have provided adeguate training to the operators in this area as mandated by NRC regulation and etandards for professional conduct.
I i
i Shift schedules and management policies do not promote or l
encourage excessive fatigue on the part of the operators.
i Actions taken to date with regards to the events of November, l
1992, have demonstrated to the staff that inattentiveness is i
considered a cerious breach of an operators responsibilities.
I l
I i
1 1
E E
I i
f i
i i
i I
I i
i f
fu f
t
...