ML20076G406
| ML20076G406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | Bresnahan E, Mathis H, Pilmer D SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309B320 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308310251 | |
| Download: ML20076G406 (78) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ .. . _ - . _ - _ . . . .. SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 l PLANT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL REVIEW February 1983 l l h5 Southern California Edison Company
\ > San Diego Gas & Electric Company City of Anaheim l City of Riverside l
$$8eg0gggiggggj!1 g
p PDR
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 PLANT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL REVIEW February 1983 gE southern caritornia esison company l San Diego Gas & Electric Company City of Anaheim City of Riverside
Eebruary 15, 1983 Chairman of the Nuclear Control Board Southern California Edison In accordance with SCE's letter to the NRC of November 15, 1982, we hereby transmit to you the final report of the Plant Operations Personnel Review Committee.
' = 1's =%
Earl J. Bresnahan Chairman Lou bernatn harr . Mathis C.=- Jarlath M. Curran 8+v/2b David F. Pilmer Con ultant to e Committee
. Y$
Ben C. Rusche
/
Vice President ~ hanagement Analysis Company
. ii _
I SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF Mark 0. Medford, Supervisor Gerard P. van Noordennen, Secretary to the Committee and Senior Writer Dr. Kathleen Kappy, Questionnaire Administrator and Contributing Writer William E. McRory, Contributing Writer iii -
CONTENTS Executive Sumnary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
- 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 l
- 2. Readiness of Plant Operating Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Introduction ..................... 2-1 2.2 Staffing ....................... 2-1 2.2.1 Sta f fing Hi sto ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2.2 Present Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.2.3 Staffing Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.2.4 License Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.2.5 SCE Commitments ................ 2-6 2.2.6 Conclusions .................. 2-6 2.3 Operator Quali fications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.3.1 Licensed Operator Education and Experience . . . 2-6 2.3.2 Non-Licensed Operator Education and Experience . 2-7 2.3.3 Job Descriptions and Responsibilities ..... 2-7
.1 Shift Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
.2 0perations Supervisor ........... 2-9
.3 Control Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 4 Assistant Control Operator . . . . . . . . . 2-10
.5 Nuclear Plant Equipment Operator . . . . . . 2-10
.6 Plant Equipment Operator . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
.7 Apprentice Plant Equipment Operator. . . . . 2-11 2.3.4 Contract Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 2.4 Overtime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.1 Overtime Hi sto ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.2 Present Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.3 Future Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.4 License Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 2.4.5 Conclusions .................. 2-13 2.5 Turnover Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
+
2.5.1 Tu rn o ve r H i s t o ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 2.5.2 Present Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 2.5.3 Assumptions on Future Attrition ........ 2-16 2.5.4 Comparison to Nuclear Industry Rates . . . . . . 2-17 2.5.5 Conclustons .................. 2-17 2.6 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
+
l j -iv-
i i i
- 3. Past Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Introduction ..................... 3-1 3.2 Compliance History .................. 3-1 3.2.1 SALP Findings ................. 3-1
.1 Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
.2 Units 2 and 3 ............... 3-2 3.2.2 INP0 Findings on Unit 1 ............ 3-3 3.2.3 Conclusions .................. 3-4 3.3 Procedural Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.3.1 Adherence to Procedures ............ 3-4 3.3.2 Meeting Surveillance Requirements ....... 3-4 3.3.3 Computer Based Surveillance Scheduling . . . . . 3-5 3.3.4 Conclusions .................. 3-5 3.4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
- 4. Operator Training ..................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ..................... 4-1 4.2 Current Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2.1 Cold License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2.2 Hot License .................. 4-2 4.2.3 Requalification ................ 4-2 4.2.4 Simulator Requalification ........... 4-2 4.2.5 Saddleback Community College . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.2.6 Plant Equipment Operators ........... 4-3 4.3 Proposed Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.3.1 Non-licensed Operator ............. 4-4 4.3.2 Reactor Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.3.3 Senior Reactor Operator ............ 4-4 4.3.4 Shift Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.4 Comparison with Other Utility Programs ........ 4-5 4.5 Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.6 Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.7 Evaluation of Training Practices ............ 4-6 4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 i
i -v-l
l l
- 5. Operator Feedback ..................... 5-1 1
5.1 Introduction ..................... 5-1 l l 5.2 Background ...................... 5-1 5.3 Interviews ...................... 5-1 5.4 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 i 5.4.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 5.4.2 Questionnaire Content ............. 5-3 5.4.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.4.4 Results .................... 5-4
.1 Questicanaire ............... 5-4
.2 Retention and Turnover Factors . . . . . . . 5-4
.3 Job Attitudes ............... 5-6
.4 Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 5.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17 5.6 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
- 6. Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 6-1 References ........................... R-1 4
-vi-
I 1 l FIGURES l 2-1 Operations Department Organization ........... 2-2 2-2 S hi f t Ma nn i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
> 2-3 Overtime Summary for 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 4-1 Training Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 TABLES 2.1 1982 Operator Staffing by Classification ........ 2-5 2.2 Licensed Operator Qualifications Summary ........ 2-8 2.3 1982 Overtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2.4 Turnover History .................... 2-16 2.5 Turnover Rates, 1980 and 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 2.6 Onsite and Offsite Employee Turnover Rates at INP0 Member Utilities,1981 Industry and Southern California Edison ............... 2-18 5.1 Relative Importance of 20 Job Characteristics for Retention (N=104) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5.2 Relative Importance of 20 Job Characteristics for Turnover ...................... 5-7 5.3 Ratings of Job Attitude Statements by Content Categories ................... 5-9 5.4 Agreement Ratings for 10 Job Attitude Statements ....................... 5-10 l 5.5 Open Ended Attitude Survey Questions .......... 5-12 I
-vii-
l EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
On November 15, 1982, Southern California Edison (SCE) committed to establish a committee to perform a review of the staffing and training of operations personnel at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3.
, This report details the results of the Plant Operations Personnel Review Committee's (P0PRC) review including conclusions and recommendations on how SCE management can assist in improving the overall effectiveness of the Unit 3 operating staff. Mr. Ben C. Rusche of Management Analysis Company was retained by SCE to actively participate in the P0PRC's review.
The review was conducted by developing an action plan structured into five major tasks. The major tasks (A, B, C, D and E) were designed to verify the operational readiness of the plant operating staff by (a) reviewing staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rates; (b) reviewing past performance; (c) reviewing operator training; (d) obtaining operator feedback; and (e) summarizing conclusions and proposing recommendations. The action plan provided a basis for evaluating the readiness of plant operations personnel in terms of these parameters. This executive summary provides a synopsis of the review, the conclusions and recommendations. 1.2 SCOPE The scope of this effort was to conduct an independent review of the operational readiness of the plant operating staff of San Onofre Unit 3 in terms of certain defined parameters. This review included the administering of questionnaires to all levels of the shift operating staff. The review focused on licensed and non-licensed shift operations personnel and focused on the Operations Department interface with other station and general office departments. The operator training portion was limited to a review of those activities affecting Units 2 and 3. The P0PRC reviewed and evaluated the:
- 1. Readiness of plant operations personnel to conduct intended operation and testing, including the adequacy of staffing levels and ;
the effectiveness of measures to control and reduce required 1 overtime.
- 2. Past performance in plant operations and adherence to procedures and I administrative controls.
i ES-1
+w-- - - ,
1 l
- 3. Adequacy of the operator training program, including a comparison with other PWR training programs.
- 4. In performing the review and evaluation the POPRC considered how company management can assist in improving the overall effectiveness of the plant operating staff.
The action plan consisted of five tasks: A. Task A, Readiness of Plant Operating Personnel, focused on a review and evaluation of staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rates. Past and present data and future estimates were evaluated for the staffing, overtime and turnover rates. The intent of this task was to evaluate areas relevant to the operational readiness of plant operating personnel. B. Task B, Past Performance, consisted of a review of station compliance history, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports, an Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) evaluation of San Onofre Unit 1 and procedural controls. The intent of this task was to review plant history concerning operator performance and adherence to procedures. C. Task C, Operator Training, consisted of a review of the content of the licensed and non-licensed operator training programs, the requalification program, and the training staff qualificaticns. The training programs were compared with othar PWR training programs. The Saddleback Community College Nuclear Technology Work Study Program was also reviewed relative to its potential for providing future operators. The intent of this task was to provide assurance that the training programs are adequate to meet the needs of current operators and the demands of increased staffing levels for both units. D. Task D, Operator Feedback, involved the administration of a - questionnaire to shift plant operations personnel and training staff. The intent of this task was to gain operator feedback in order to identify problem areas for the purposec of evaluating their impact on readiness and to recommend corrective action. E. Task E, Review and Evaluation, irvolved processing and evaluating the assembled data and formulating the conclusions and recommendations identified in Tasks A, B, C and D. The individual conclusions were regrouped and summarized. This entire action plan provided the basis on which the readiness of the plant operations staff was evaluated. k 3 ES-2
l l l 1.3 TASKS Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.4 suramarize the review activities conducted for each task. Ine conclusions and recommendations are suanarized in Section 1.3.5. 1.3.1 Readiness of Plant Operating Personnel, Task A 00jective The objective of Task A was to review and evaluate plant operations department staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rate. Past and present data and future estimates were gatnered.
.1 Staffing Staffing level history for Units 2 and 3 was gathered from 1977 to present. Present staffing levels were compared to station needs and NRC regulations. Future staffing require-ments were presented to tne Committee by the Station Operations Manager.
Conclusions This review determined that present staffing levels with a five snift rotation are adequate to operate Units 2 and 3 ootn
- in terms of actual operating needs and NRC requirements. Six shift rotation will not be implenented until mid-1983 due to the decision to license tne common operator position and the I ability to nandle planned vacancies. This schedule was considered acceptable by the POPAC.
Sufficient nunoers of personnel are Deing trained to meet current staffing goals. Historically, efforts were made not to deplete the Unit 1 staff during staffing of Units 2&3. Future plant staffing is Deing pursued from a variety of sources.
.2 Operator Qualifications Education and experience data for tne Units 2 and 3 operators were gatnered. Job descriptions of tne shift personnel were reviewed. The future need for contract personnel was discussed.
i ES-3
1 I Conclusion I Relevant average experience of the staff is 3.5 years for I operators and 5 years for supervisors at San Onofre which is ) considered adequate. Commercial nuclear power plant experience is comparable to industry averages of 2.8 years for ' RO's and 6.4 years for SR0's as reported in NUREG/CR-1750.
.3 Overtime Overtime history was collected since the receipt of the Unit 2 operating license. Data is presented showing overtime by operator classification. Future overtime projections and license requirements were discussed.
Conclusions Planned overtime has been decreasing steadily since May 1982 to an average amount of 4% per month for December 1982. Adequate controls are now in place to keep planned overtime near present levels. The Station Operations Manager estimates that approxir..ately 10% per month per operator planned overtime would be worked on the average for 1983. The POPRC found this level of overtime acceptable.
.4 Turnover Rate Data was gathered on operator turnovers for four years and compared with recent INP0 industry figures. Future turnover was estimated at 10%.
Conclusions Turnover has decreased steadily since 1979 to a present level of 11.2% which compares favorably with an industry average of 12.6%. Adequate provisions have been made to train replacements to offset anticipated attrition of 10%. Recommendations None 1.3.2 Past Performance, Task B Objective The objective of Task B was to review available plant history concerning operator performance and adherence to procedures and administrative controls. This review determined if there was a need to improve procedural compliance of operators based on past performance. ES-4
.1 Compliance History The NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports were reviewed for all three units. The 1981 INPO evaluation of Unit I was also reviewed.
, Conclusions Insufficient data was available to discern any pattern on which a conclusion could be reached due to the limited amount of operational data available from Units 2 and 3.
.2 Procedural Controls The SALP reports were reviewed for all three units. Recent SALP reports indicate that a potential problem exists regarding performing and scheduling surveillances. The plans to inplement a computer-based surveillance and scheduling program were reviewed.
Conclusions Adequate corrective measures are now underway. However, results must be monitored on a continuing basis. Data to date does not show a problem with adherence to procedures on Unit 2 based on a review of the SALP reports. Recommendations Adherence to procedures should be continually emphasized. The computer-based surveillance and scheduling program should be implemented promptly for both units. 1.3.3 Operator Training, Task C Objective The objective of Task C was to review the content of the training and requalification programs. The training staff qualifications were reviewed by the Committee's staff. SCE's
- aining programs were compared with other PWR training programs. The Saddleback Community College program was also reviewed.
ES-5 -
.1 Current and Proposed Programs The following training program documents were reviewed: cold license, hot license, requalification including the simulator; and the four proposed programs for non-licensed operator, reactor operator, senior reactor operator and shift i supervisor. The Saddleback Community College Program was also reviewed.
Conclusions The individual training program documents were reviewed and found to be acceptable. The Saddleback Community College Program will provide San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) with trainees for Nuclear Plant Equipment Operator (NPEO) positions starting in 1983. This innovative program shows great promise. It has the potential of enhancing both the educational level and retention rate for operators. The program will augment some of the reliance now placed on hiring ex-Navy personnel. It will also tend to increase the educational level of the operating staff.
.2 Comparison With Other Utility Programs The initial SCE training programs were compared with the programs of four other utilities; GPU (Three Mile Island),
Commonwealth Edison (Zion), Northeast Utilities (Millstone 2), and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee). The requalification program was compared with the regulatory requirements and INP0 Guidelines. In addition, Management Analysis Company performed an independent review of the content of the training programs. Conclusions The content of the training programs compares favorably with other utility programs, but a need for additional training was noted in certain non-technical operating training areas, e.g., stress management.
.3 Instructors Instructor resumes were reviewed by the Committee staff.
Implementation schedules for providing qualified SCE instructors were evaluated. Although the current staff of contract instructors is adequate, staffing with SCE raining instructors will improve the training program by providing plant specific insight and actual on-tne-job experience. The POPRC recognizes the complement of training instructors will be ic. proved when the four SCE instructors preser.tly in shift operations return to the training department. ; ES-6 , - t
. J
Conclusions None Recommendations
> The administrative training requirements contained in the SR0 training program should include the delineation of job responsibilities for other operator classifications.
Stress management training for R0's should be upgraded to equal that for SR0's. 1.3.4 Operator Feedback, Task D Objective The objective of Task 0 was to obtain feedback through a comprehensive questionnaire given to shift plant operations and training personnel. The POPRC also reviewed the scope of the interviews being conducted by an outside consultant. The intent of this ta.sk was to gain operator feedback in order to iaentify problem areas for the purpose of evaluating their impact on readiness and to recommend corrective action.
.1 Questionnaire A questionnaire was administered to 104 (83%) Unit 2 and 3 operations and training personnel on January 12 and 14. The job titles of these individuals were divided into two categories: (1) Operators, who comprised 84% of the sample, and (2) Supervisors, who comprised 16% of the sample.
The 72 job attitude responses were grouped into four categories: Training, Communications, Operations and Job Satisfaction. 6 Conclusions
- 1. Supervisors have adeauate technical experience but minimal supervisory experience.
- 2. The amount of operations experience is comparable to industry averages.
- 3. Operators feel they have the skills and knowledge required to perform their jobs well.
- 4. Operators feel opportunities exist to learn new and challenging work.
?
l ES-7
- 5. Both supervisors and operators felt the people on shift work well as a team.
- 6. Operators were slightly dissatisfied with working hours and conditions.
- 7. Inadequate communications with management is a significant area of job dissatisfaction among operators and supervisors.
.2 Interviews Prior to the efforts of this Committee, Station Management had received reports of increased stress and lowering of morale.
Station Management then retained an outside consultant not associated with POPRC to conduct individual interviews with operations personnel. These interviews attempted to identify the factors underlying the problems reported. This effort was started prior to November 15, 1982. Recognition by Station Management of a potential problem is seen as a conscientious, progressive effort to implement corrective action to improve the overall effectiveness of operations personnel. Conclusions None Recommendations Provide additional supervisory skills training to operations supervi sors. Institute a program to improve communications within the Operations Department. 1.3.5 Review and Evaluation, Task E Objective , The objective of Task E was to process and evaluate the conclusions and recommendations identified in Tasks A, B, C and D. A general conclusion is reached for each of the 4 categories identified in the November 15, 1982 letter. Finally, an overall conclusion of this effort is provided. i i ES-8 ,
.1 Summary of Cenclusions The conclusions of Tasks A, B, C and D are summarized below into four categories. The categories correspond to the items addressed in the November 15, 1982 letter.
A. Readiness of Plant Operations Personnel Based on parameters evaluated in this special review, plant operations personnel are ready to conduct intended full power operation and startup testing of San Onofre Unit 3. This conclusion is supported by the following findings noted previously:
- 1. Present staffing levels for five shift operation are adequate.
- 2. The schedule for implementing six shift operation is acceptable.
l
- 3. Sufficient numbers of personnel are being trained to meet current staffing goals and to compensate for anticipated attrition.
- 4. Relevant average experience of the staff is 3.5 years for operators and 5 years for supervisors at San Onotre which is adequate overall.
- 5. Future plant staffing is being pursued from a variety of sources.
- 6. Overtime has been decreasing since May 1982 to an average enount of 4% per month for December 1982.
Adequate controls are now in place to keep planned overtime near present levels.
- 7. Turnover has decreased steadily since 1979 to a present level of 11.2% which compares favorably with an industry average of 12.6%.
B. Past Performance Compliance history and adherence to procedures indicates a need for continued emphasis in this category. Thi s conclusion is based on the following findings:
- 1. Adequate corrective measures are now underway.
, However, results must be monitored on a continuing basis.
ES-9
i
- 2. Data to date does not show a problem with adherence to procedures on Unit 2 based on a review of the SALP reports.
C. Operator Training The training programs are acceptable and compare favorably with other PWR training programs. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
- 1. The individual training program documents were reviewed and the programs were found to be acceptable.
- 2. The Saddleback Community College Program is an innovative program that shows great promise.
l
- 3. The content of the programs compares favorably with other utility programs but a need for additional training was noted in certain non-technical operator training areas, e.g., stress management.
D. Improving Overall Effectiveness Generally, the plant operating staff is experienced and motivated. Communications with management needs to be imp roved. This conclusion is supported by the following l findings: ; 1
- 1. Supervisors have adequate technical experience but minimal supervisory experience.
- 2. The amount of operations experience is comparable to industry averages.
- 3. Operators feel they have the skills and knowledge required to perform their jobs well.
4 Operators feel opportunities exist to learn new and challenging work.
- 5. Both supervisors and operators felt the people on shift work well as a team.
- 6. Operators were only slightly dissatisfied with working hours and conditions.
- 7. Inadequate communications with management is a significant area of job dissatisfaction among operators and supervisors.
ES-10
Based on parameters evaluated in this special review, the plant operations personnel are ready to conduct full power operations on Unit 3. The staff is capable, experienced and adequately trained.
.2 Recommendatiojn The POPRC recomnends the following items receive management attention and further action:
A. Adherence to procedures should be continually emphasized. B. Implement the planned computer-based surveillance program for both units to improve adherence to surveillance schedules. C. The administrative training requirements in the SR0
- training program should include the delineation of job responsibilities for other operator classifications.
D. Stress management training for R0's should be upgraded to equal that for SR0's. r E. Institute a program to improve communications within the Operations Department. F. Provide odditional supervisory skills training to operations supervisors. l l l
- ES-11
- 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
On November 15, 1982, Southern California Edison (SCE) committed to establish a committee to perform a review of the staffing and training of operations personnel at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Urit 3. This report details the results of the Plant Operations Personnel Review Committee's (P0PRC) review including conclusions and recommendations on how SCE management can assist in improving the overall effectiveness of the Unit 3 operating stLff. The review was conducted by developing an action plan structured into five major tasks. The major tasks (A, B, C, D and E) were designed to verify the operational readiness of the plant operating staff by (a) reviewing staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rates; (b) reviewing past performance; (c) reviewing operator training; (d) obtaining operator feedback; and (e) summarizing conclusions and proposing recommendations. The action plan provided a basis for evaluating the readiness of plant operations personnel in terms of these parameters. The POPRC is composed of four professionals independent of SCE operating staff and used the service of a nationally known consultant. The services of appropriately qualified non-members were used as necessary to provide the desired technical expertise. The POPRC had the capability, experience, and technical expertise to be responsive to the concerns detailed in the scope of this report. The POPRC was qualified to perform this evaluation for Southern California Edison. The POPRC was composed of the following members: Title Member Manager of Personnel and Employae Relations E. J. Bresnahan (Chairman) Manager, Nuclear Depar tment L. Bernath San Diego Gas & Electric Manager, Quality Assurance J. M. Curran
- Manager, Nuclear Training Division H. L. Mathis Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Safety D. F. Pilmer (Alternate Chairman) 1-1
Consultant to POPRC: Vice President, Management Analysis B. C. Rusche Company During this effort, over 100 documents were reviewed. More than 5 man-months have been expended in the total program effort. 1.2 SCOPE The scope of this effort was to conduct an independent review of the operational readiness of the plant operating staff of San Onofre Unit 3 in terms of certain defined parameters. This review included the administering of questionnaires to all levels of the shift operating staff. The review focused on licensed and non-licensed shift operations personnel and to the Operations Department interface with other station and general office departments. The operator training portion was limited to a review of those activities affecting Units 2 and 3. The POPRC reviewed and evaluated the:
- 1. Readiness of plant operations personnel to conduct intended operation and testing, including the adequacy of staffing levels and the effectiveness of measures to control and reduce required overtime.
- 2. Past performance in plant operations and adherence to procedures and administrative controls.
- 3. Adequacy of the cperator training program, including a comparison with other PWR training programs.
- 4. In performing the review and evaluation the POPRC considered how company management can assist in improving the overall effectiveness of the plant operating staff.
This report consists of an introduction and five chapters organized as follows: A. Chapter 2, Readiness of Plant Operating Personnel, focused on a review and evaluation of staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rates. Past and present data and future estimates were evaluated for the staffing, overtime and turnover rates. The intent of this task was to evaluate areas relevant to the operational readiness of plant operating personnel. i 1-2
B. Chapter 3, Past Performance, consisted of a review of station compliance history, SALP reports, an INP0 evaluation of San Onofre Unit 1 and procedural controls. The intent of this task was to review plant history concerning operator performance and adherence to procedures. C. Chapter 4, Operator Training, consisted of a review of the content of the licensed tnd non-licensed operator training programs, the requalification program, and the training steff qualifications. The training programs were compared with other PWR training programs. The Saddleback Community College Nuclear Technology Work Study Program was also reviewed relative to its potential for providing future operators. The intent of this task was to provide assurance that the training programs are adequate to meet the needs of current operators and the demands of increased staffing levels for both units. D. Chapter 5, Operator Feedback, involved the administration of a questionnaire to shift plant operations personnel and training staff. The intent of this task was to gain operator feedback in order to identify problem areas for the purpose of evaluating their impact on readiness and to recommend corrective action. E. Chapter 6, Review and Evaluation, involved processing and evaluating the assembled data and formulating the conclusions and recommendations identified in Tasks A, B, C and D. The individual conclusions were regrouped and summarized. This entire report provided the basis on which the readiness of the plant operations staff was evaluated. i l 1-3 l l
)
i
- 2. READINESS OF PLANT OPERATING PERSONNEL i l l 2.1 INICODUCTION l
This cnapter describes the review and evaluation of tne Operations Department in the areas of staffing, operator qualifications, overtime, and turnover rate. Conclusions are presented at the end of each section. l
- Section 2.2 provides information on staffing for past, present and future
! periods. The staffing levels are compared to operating license requirements and SCE comitments. Section 2.3 reviews operator education and experience. Job descriptions were reviewed by the POPRC staff and tne future need for contract personnel was assessed. Section 2.4 reviews overtime data for past, present, and future periods. Tne data was compared to operating license requirements and NRC guidelines. Section 2.5 reviews turnover rates for past, and present, and estimates future attrition periods. Inis data was compared with nuclear industry figu res. 2.2 STAFFING Inis section presents staffing data for San Onofre Units 2 and 3 for tnree different time periods; past, present and future. Staffing is t discussed only in terms of tne Operations Department Organization for Units 2 and 3 as snown in Figure 2-1. Tne Operations department coordinators are included only to tne extent that those who hold a valid license are included in tne computations where licensed operators are discussed. Non-shift positions shown in Figure 2-1 were not included in tne Committee's review. This discussion is centered on tne snift operations organization as snown in Figure 2-2. This part of tne organization is central to the review and evaluation since they are the on-snift operations personnel. 2.2.1 Staffing History Staffing of Units 2 and 3 started in July 1977 wnen 4 operators from Unit I were assigned to Units 2 and 3 to draft study guides and operating procedures. License training started in February 1978 wnen tne first group of 24 operators started license training. Control room manning started in Septemoer 1978 on the day shift only. Rotating shifts were initiated during 14ay 19/9 and simulator training started in February 1980. Twelve hour snifts were started in August 1980 to support tne start-up. Staffing continued to increase to present levals. 2-1
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERAfileG STATION UNITS a ANo 3 Figure 2-1 O P EP A t l 211_Qff3diti[1T ORGAN I ZA TM,1( ASSISTANI MANAGER, SECRETARY MANAGER OPERATIONS ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT SECRETARY SUPERINTENDENT uMITS 2/3 UNIIS2/3(SRO) l I I SUPERVISOR OF SUPERVISOR OF PLANT COOR0lNATION PLANT C00MolNATION (SRO) (SRO) l SHIFT SUPERVISOR I (SRO) SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT OUTAGE STAFFINO PROCEDUHES 00PERViSOR CONTROL SUPERVISOR SUPERV1SOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR 7
~
COORDINATOR COORDINATORS COORDINATORS NUCLEAR OPERATINO COORDINATORS SUPERVISOR (SRO IN CONTROL RM) ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT COORDINATORS COORDINATORS COORDINATORS COORDINATOR COORDINATORS OPERATIONS ASSISTANTS CLERK TYPISTS NUCLEAR CONTROL CLERK TYPIST OPERATORS (RO) l NUCLEAR ASSISTANT CONTROL OPERATORS (RO) l PLANT EQUIPMENT - OPERATORS t 4
I l Figure 2-2 SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 SHIFT MANNING TABLE HEALTH PHYSICS ~~- SHIFT SUPERVISOR SHIFT TECH TECHNICIAN ' WATCH ENGINEER , Advisory ADVISOR RAD / CHEM SENIOR TECHNICIAN REACTOR OPERATOR I I UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT SUPERVISOR UNIT SUPERVISOR OPERATING FOREMAN OPERATING FOREMAN SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR _. SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR UNIT OPERATOR UNIT OPERATOR CONTROL OPERATOR CONTROL OPERATOR REACTC'. OPERATOR 21 REACTOR OPERATOR 31
- COMMON CONTROL OPERATOR REACTOR OPERATOR 41 INSIDE ASSISTANT l *INSIDE ASSISTANT INSIDE -ASSISTANT CONTROL OPERATOR CONTROL OPERATOR CONTROL OPERATOR REACTOR OPERATOR 22 REACTOR OPERATOR 42 REACTOR OPERATOR 32 PRIMARY RADWASTE PRIMARY PLANT EQUIPMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 23 OPERATOR 43 OPERATOR 33
! SECONDARY PLANT OUTSIDE PLANT SECONDARY PLANT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 24 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 44 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 34
- May be filled by qualified non-licensed operators
~
2-3
l l l I Tne review concentrated on staffing history for 19d2 since the Unit 2 operating license was received on February 16, 1982 and tne Unit 3 operating license was received on Novemoer 15, 1982. Table 2.1 gives a monthly breakdown of staffing by classification. Staffing has increased in 1982 to the present level of 147 operators as of January 1,1983. 2.2.2 Present Levels Units 2 and 3 operators are presently on a five snift rotation. As of January 1, 1983, tnere were 126 operators availaole for shift work. Tnere are presently 18 operators plus a variable numoer of contract personnel working per snift. The present work assignments on-snift follow Figure 2-2. Besides the 16 positions shown in the figure, two additional plant equipment operators are used to run the makeup demineralizer and the auxiliary boiler. Tne remaining operators are used wnere needed. Intended staffing levels call for 1 Shift Supervisor (SS), 2 Senior Reactor Operators (SRO), 6 Reactor Operators (RO), 3 Nuclear Plant Equipment Operators (NPEO), and 4 Plant Equipiaent Operators (PEG) for a total of 16 operators per shift. It is anticipated tnat this staffing level will be met oy Decemoer 1983. To meet tnis and tne Operations Department nas oudgeted for 96 operators for shift work and 60 operators for initial training. As of Feoruary 14, 1983 tnere were 16 SR0's and 20 R0's availaole for snift work. Tnis staffing complement meets the license requirement and SCE commitment for 5 shift operation witnout the use of planned overtime. 2.2.3 Staffing Projection Six shift rotation will not De implemented until mid-19d5 due to the decision to license the common operator position as shown in Figure 2-2 and the ability to handle planned overtime. Tne intent of 6 shift operation is to have 1 shift in training and 1 tJll shift in reserve to handle vacations and other planned vacancies as they arise. Six shifts are desirable because there are 16o nours per week and the minimum number of shifts required witnout planned overtime is 4-1/6. 2-4
TABLE 2.1 1982 OPERATOR STAFFING BY CLASSIFICAT0H Title /Date 12/81 1/82 2/82 3/82 4/82 5/82 6/82 7/82 8/82 9/82 10/82 11/82 12/82 1/83 Shift Supervisor 5 5 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 Operating Supervisor 4 6 8 10 10 12 12 9 9 7 7 8 12 13 Contral Operator 10 10 10 16 16 15 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 19 y Assistant Control Operator 8 8 8 4 6 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 3 0 Plant Equipment Operators 93 98 90 87 81 79 79 92 90 90 90 90 106 109 Total 120 127 121 123 119 115 113 125 123 123 123 124 143 147 NOTE: Not all control operators or operating supervisors hold a reactor operating license. They are used in such areas as radwaste, auxiliary boilers, 0,d makeup demineralizers. 1
i 2.2.4 License Requirements The San Onofre Units 2 and 3 operating licenses call for a minimu:n of 2 SRO's, 3 RO's and 3 NPE0's per 'snif t. The present staffing level is adequate to meat tnese minimum requirements. fne requirements alica 1 SRJ and 1 RO, and 1 NPE0 to De shared Detween f ,, Doth units. As soon as staffing levels permit, it is the intent of SCE to move into 6 shift rotation and then to reduce the number of snared
- positions.
2.2.5 SCE Comnitments SCE nas committed to the NRC to have at least 3 SRO's and 4 RO's per shift between the time frame of initial criticality on Unit 3 and full power operation plus 30 days on Unit 2. 2.2.6 Conclusions Inis review determined that present staffing levels with a five shift rotation are adequate to operate Units 2 and 3 ootn in terms of actual operating needs and NRC requirements. The scneduled implementation for six snift rotation is mid-1985. Inis schedule was considered acceptaole by the P0PRC. Historically, efforts were made not to deplete the Unit 1 st3f f during initial staffing of Units 233 in 1977-78. Sufficient numbers of personnel are being trained to meet current staffing goals. Future plant staffing is being pursued from a variety of sources. 2.3 OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS This section presents education and experience data for the Units 2&3 operators. Job descriptions and responsibilities are reviewed for each classification of operator and supervisor. Contract personnel are discussed also. 2.3.1 Licensed Operator Education and Experience Of the 31 licensed operators on Units 2&3, all held a hign scnool diploma. Eignteen (56%) had attended college for at least 1 year, 12 (38%) for at least 2 years, 5 (16%) for at least 3 years and 3 (9%) nad a bachelor's degree. A larger percentage of licensed operators had college experience (68%) as compared to supervisors (38%). Tnis data snows a trend toward hiring more college educated personnel for operating positions. s 1 4 2-6
In general, supervisory personnel averaged 5 years of service with SCE. Only three supervisors and one operator had Unit 1 experience. This data verifies the conclusion reached in the staffing discussion that efforts were made not to deplete the Unit 1 staff for staffing Units 2&3. A large percentage of licensed supervisors (77%) averaged 5 years nuclear Navy experience. This percentage was even higher for licensed operators (89%). In contrast, only 1 supervisor (8%) and 4 operators (21%) had other nuclear industry experience. One operator had Unit 1 experience. Licensed operators averaged 3-1/2 years and supervisors averaged 4-1/2 years of SONGS Units 2&3 experience. This data is summarized in Table 2.2. 2.3.2 Nonlicensed Operator Education and Experience The total group of operators had a larger percentage of baccalaureate (14%) or master's degrees (2.2%) than was true for the licensed operators or supervisory personnel described in Section 2.3.1 In contrast, the total group of operators with Naval experience had decreased to 62%. Non-licensed operators did not have Unit 1 experience and very few had previous commercial nuclear, commercial non-nuclear or test reactor experience. In general, the length of service with SCE was between one and three years. 2.3.3 Job Descriptions and Responsibilities The Committee staff reviewed the job descriptions and responsibilities of each classification of operator. The various classifications are described below and should be viewed in the context of the Station Operations Department organization chart for Units 2&3 shnwn in Figure 2-2.
.1 Shift Supervisor Generally, a person in this position supervises operating activities of the assigned nuclear unit (s) on a scheduled rotating shift. He is responsible to the Units 2&3 Plant Superintendent for the safe operation of Units 2&3 under all conditions on his shift, assuring the units are operated within the requirements of license conditions, Technical Specifications, NRC orders and station procedures.
Specifically, his duties are to:
- 1. Direct and coordinate licensed and nonlicensed operating activities as required; h
2-7
TABLE 2.2 LICENSED OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS
SUMMARY
Education Experience 4 Number (average years) - College (years) Other Title Number High School 1 2 3 4 5 Navy Utilities SONGS 1 SONGS 283 l Shift Supervisor 6 6 1 1 3 (5 yrs) --- 3'(8 yrs) 6 (5 yrs) i il I } Operating Supervisor 7 7 1 1 1 7 (5 yrs) 1 (1 yr) --- 7 (4 yrs) Control Operator 15 15 5 4 1 1 14 (5 yrs) 3 (1-1/2 yrs) 1 (9 yrs) 15 (3-1/2 yrs) 4 Assistant Control-
! Operator 4 4 1 1 3 (4 yrs) 1 (1-1/2 yrs) ---
4 (2-1/2 yrs)
*As of December 1, 1982 l
4 1 M
- 2. Coordinate overall administrative, security and other activities in the absence of Plant Superintendents and Managers such as during swing and graveyard shifts;
- 3. Authorize stopping or deferring of any plant operational, maintenance or engineering activities that could compromise safe operation;
- 4. Administer assigned plant responsibilities and duties;
- 5. Take scheduled retraining courses and maintain a Senior Reactor Operator License.
.2 Nuclear Operating Supervisor The nuclear operating supervisor is responsible to the shift supervisor for supervising control room operators and activities of Nuclear Plant Operators on scheduled rotating shifts. His duties are to:
- 1. Maintain an overall perspective of plant operating conditions from the control room location;
- 2. Supervise the operation of remote or manual controls by -
nuclear power plant operators;
- 3. Supervise the maintenance of shift operating logs and records, preparation of operating reports;
- 4. Recommend to the shift supervisor or, as authorized, take action to stop or defer any plans that could compromise safe plant operations;
- 5. Take scheduled retraining courses and maintain a Senior Reactor Operator License.
.3 Nuclear Control Operator The Nuclear Control Operator is responsible to the Shift Supervisor and Nuclear Operating Supervisor for directing the activities of licensed and nonlicensed operators. His duties and responsibilities are to:
- 1. Maintain a valid Reactor Operator License and take scheduled retraining courses;
- 2. Be responsible for unit operation within the requirenents -
of the Operating License, Technical Specifications, NRC orders, approved station procedures and operating instructions; 2-9 i
l
- 3. Be responsible for and authorized to shut down the reactor if he determines the safety of the plant is in ,
jeopardy or if operating parameters exceed the reactor ! protection setpoints and an automatic shutdown has not l occurred;
- 4. Be responsible for maintaining records of all shift activities and establishing unit load as directed by the SCE system load dispatcher or as emergency conditions dictate.
.4 Nuclear Assistant Control Operator The Nuclear Assistant Control Operator is responsible to the Nuclear Control Operator for assisting in directing the activities of licensed and nonlicensed personnel.
His responsibilities and duties are to:
- 1. Maintain a valid Reactor Operator License and take scheduled retraining courses;
- 2. Be responsible for unit operation within the requirements of the Operating License, Technical Specifications, orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and approved station procedures and operating instructions;
- 3. Act as Control Operator in the absence from the Control Room of the Control Operator.
.5 Nuclear Plant Equipment Operator The Nuclear Plant Equipment Operator is responsible to the Nuclear Control Operator for following approved procedures and operating instructions.
His duties and responsibilities are to:
- 1. Be responsible for keeping the Control Operator aware of plant conditions, particularly those pertaining to safeguard systems;
- 2. Perform inspections and operate primary and secondary plant equipment;
- 3. Follow a course of study that will prepare him for hRC l
operator license certification. l 2-10
l l l
.6 Plant Equipment Operator His duties and responsibilities are to:
- 1. Be responsible for keeping the Control Operator aware of l plant conditions, particularly those pertaining to safeguard systems;
- 2. Perform inspections and operate primary and secondary plant equipment.
~
.7 Apprentice Plant Equipment Operator The Apprentice Plant Equipment Operator is a training position. He reports to the Nuclear Operating Supervisor during on-the-job training.
His responsibilities and duties are to:
- 1. Assist the Plant Equipment Operator in performing inspections and operating primary and secondary plant equipment during on-the-job training;
- 2. Follow a course of study and observation that will prepare him for advancement.
2.3.4 Contract Personnel Contract personnel are used in the Operations Department to fill vacancies in shift operations and to assist the Supervisor of Plant Coordination in planning, coordinating and auditing the Operations Department activities. Such activities include the development and implementation of symptom-oriented emergency operating procedures and instructions, equipment control and outage coordination, surveillance program, and revising operating instructions required because of plant configuration changes. It is the intent of the Station Operations Department to phase out the contract operators as more SCE personnel become qualified and licensed. Contract personnel are now used mainly in the plant coordination areas and are only used in shift operations when needed. 2.3.5 Conclusion This review determined that relevant average experience of the licensed staff is 5 years in the Nuclear Navy and at least 3.5 , years at San Onofre which is considered adequate. Commercial nuclear power plant experience is 3.5 years for operators and 5 years for supervisors which is comparable with industry averages of 2.8 years for R0's and 6.4 years for SR0's as reported in NUREG/CR-1750. 2-11
2.4 OVERTIME Overtime history was collected since the receipt of the Unit 2 operating license. The data is presented showing overtime by operator classification. Future overtime projections and license requirements are discussed. 2.4.1 Overtime History 1 Overtime data was collected for Units 2 and 3 operators for 1982. The data is graphically displayed by month and classification in Figure 2-3. The graphs show a large increase in overtime hours worked during February 1982 which coincides with the receipt of the Unit 2 operating license. By March 1982 the operators were averaging just less than 80 hours per month overtime. The overtime hours started dropping in May 1982 and have continued to decrease. Overtime distribution is shown in Table 2.3 which gives the high, low, and average monthly figures for the operations staff. 2.4.2 Present Levels The present average overtime worked by individual operators is less than 5 percent per month. The range as shown in Table 2.3 is a high of 24 hours, a low of 0 hours, and an average of 7 hours per month for December 1982. Overtime is assigned as equally as practicable. Labor contract rules are followed when assigning overtime and an operator is allowed to decline overtime under certain conditions. 2.4.3 Future Projections Operations Department management projects that planned overtime hours worked will average approximately 10% for 1983. It is the goal of the Operations Department to work a straight 40-hour a week shift. 2.4.4 License Requirements San Onofre Units 2 and 3 each contain overtime limits in their operating licenses. Unit 2 has a license condition and Unit 3 has Technical Specification 6.2.2.f. I l 2-12 1
The objective of these restrictions is to have operating personnel work a normal 8-hour day, 40-hour week while the plant is operating. Routine heavy use of overtime should be avoided. Temporary relaxed guidelines are allowed during unforseen events, extended periods of shutdown for refueling, major maintenance or major plant modifications. San Onofre has implemented this policy for all three units. Administrative procedures are in place and the number of overtime hours worked is documented. 2.5.4 Conclusions Planned overtime has been decreasing steadily since May 1982 to an average amount of 4% per month for December 1982. Adequate controls are now in place to keep planned overtime at or near present levels. Tne Station Operations Manager estimates that approximately 10% per month per operator planned overtime would be worked on the average for 1983. The POPRC found this level of overtime acceptable. I i l l 1 2-13 f{
- ~ ~~" m> . ~
z m ce ce :>- z o:C Lss g n. e.; o _8 e n. F > u
- c. O u. I o a w u o w
. ~ . ~
.:. et o o at m o z o d
A 80 -- L:I I i ', .H.,j "' .,'
- t m .
i .l I di i. U:l; l-
, p' ! .ijt ii ;
i.GP -* i , l
.I '. l' M' :iHj;j....
. hi y .
ih b ;I U 'E !.pl ^
, 4 = cr A :ji : I 'll : ,!i
~ i .! 4 !!. -
I- .. "! ! .h' l
'80 A I
il ;;i il 4, ' "Fa t' '!: .' t . , $ i .a o l -a, tl: ,i;f l +l ie , em .i t ( c0 +., +. !' > {' I
?
m- A 70 'r ;} 4 - ti !!
+"
72 ) ",- (79'-
, n y
H ". d;4 ,
. . i. . . -
11' 1. , :i
.' . t . u. t. . +.,. r "5, 70 A-n ul ce > A !:lj +l1 't +4 p; : , U; t. +i ',4 67):"p'a 'O ; j n, ,;
.y
'l i d a Hh ;t:u j nli- ;!!l: 1, t m yh, om 60 i . ,
I t- 4 lhl - 11 .i.
, 1
"!A mm A ;n '
Il!
!"'.. ' ,1 Ap i[~ ~
2
"- +
1 . n .I'
;h:
.- i '; -
i m - h . l n:n " .
, ,. !. .I k.p.:
t h' !! !! ~, ;> .:. 1.:- ,et 60 A c* o. do A 50 h' iin t. 0 , . *- a, a. : i : .
,9 ; ..t s
- l ;i:
.. 3;b , ,)e.
.q,
'n' A i
t .. t- +
-t
,o *
-- $" A hh !! l p . ; ' ,' q -i *
, .!' !P-i
! (
i "d iC,
' ]" - l !!'
4 - d hi-50 A ) 1 fi 1 W ' ' ,' '! I: {!-- o.5 80 *i -}
'l if :
i c A ' ' t.
n
- .M N IU o%a ~I
..., (40)"- l
~F
!.! d i .
n' u i o ": 40 A
- m. I ' ' '
.. q. ! i i ' D -
A 30 '- - I ,. 8 H h: ' , .',~C.. ;- : 'ni' n A
- y; ]H ,*p b*
l. t yflf 'tI
'l '
A ldd (2N)sp- I 30.
~. 20 ! -
!h (20) (33 '
h :P ^ rs A ... i
-~
i 2 0. A mm m A 10
- Hc! l.p: l.'.~ i
..I: i
' i i '
' < (23). .
(29) p b,g), . A "t; t - ' '
" ~! :1- '
4 iti U! lhi H! :D f
.\
A ?!' h f h l' N'i' 'I' ! - lC (7 )10 ^ i ! !!! m m hi' ill'*l {- -h U A ! 4 -p .'Ih1I'i II.b id! ce se 80 "4.F} dt *'l,i!! .J;iy++' 'N i I l{. i[t .ti II 'I',ii li i 'I h. O. h. uI .I+h, [. ,h .k.i .r:b ,'In 'h!f!Ojd! 'A
- t +1 fi;
}h
.c o o nj l 1: .p m
't * ' -
i 80
';I- :"-r. . , .
U ' ;: - H o n :], p .:. ..!, ' i::
'n ld."l -ti:- ;
li : ll
~,: l 1:11 it .i t r lI.ij ut '
a ;n' t m< I 70 "-
*r +
(79 '" ' 9 : .
. U ;l' '
!:', n
;.1 t , p: :q d. en l.
q
,i i
I " " i ** w ' l"I; b Y' "
,4 i: (64)'['
' H "'
j' , ' 70 m s o-
<o r 60 ll!
i t
!' 1, ,4 (68),peHi."(69)
- r, i i- <
"I ' '
~h. ;1, ,m
' ?., . .. ., .
!U
['i
.:; r, . .
h;_ h". ..@ ! n. h I!h as 60 am cr H n:
, l
r ..:' !.
1t l ..- w :l' N. 't -I HI ,in ,Hi ' h. ., t ' i T,! > I .
.l cr 50 " l DSe l :
t-J d' ' b 50 o
!M i: }g I.lt (49)'i 5 ':' ' ! I@' , 'N ! "; 4 a
o 40 .- J - i
- 45) '., ,, i,l: i. [ '
"C iW
"!Al" :n. " 340~ msi
- oo cr u uJ o
< 30' . ,,4
.Ilf d !! !'
k 1 rii H-
-t bl i
, ', : iI h '. N 32.)' ' l,
.t . - '
.- ..: t.t...
4 l - 30 3 m
! H.,. '
' ' 1- '
' ai cg '
i- i : .> ; 25 F w A. , .
' "U
,, i om m
> 20-
- 'p':,,
. ' -- ',i '
j-(25) 1 -' .m! - 20 IO
< < 10 l' '. [ '
.~
- l. (26)- -t ;
! ! (23) c ;
t IO V i i I (15) G $ v ;; i ; n j 4 ' V V 8 0. -! 8 dj , l l p l i
. t.
4 80 y 7 0 -~- q gg) ! HH V 6 0-z< 3 I i
. : 60 3E 6 -
i l- v , n-g v 5.- l-Sb) ,'
. 50 V ce V 40' # .
l i y ac F wz i , 8+ 0 aw V - -
' i
>l i V ,
i v 3 0l' or 1 30 V E" .
,34)O - -
t v 20, g v ,jj v . (12): i j I l l3
-7 1
i
-~ ~ j ,
1 20 10 [v. ' j i h( 7) . 4(6)( p l . v i
, = m e c: :>. = a e c- s > u
< w g n. g a o a w o a w a u- m <c : O o < m o z o ,
i Figure 2-3 - - - -
4 TABLE 2.3 1982 OVERTIME OPERATIONS - UNITS 2 AND 3 (Hours per Individual per Month) HIGH LOW AVERAGE JANUARY 46 4 23 FEBRUARY 76 8 46 MARCH 96 60 78.5 APRIL 92 23 72 MAY 88 20 73 JUNE 108 48 66.5 JULY 88 8 39 AUGUST 68 9 31 1 SEPTEMBER 44 9 24 OCTOBER 49 9 23 , NOVEMBER 45 9 17 DECEMBER 24 9 7 i i a 2-15 !. l
2.5 TURNOVER RATE Turnover rates were reviewed for the past and present and were estimated for future periods. This data was compared with nuclear industry figures. 2.5.1 Turnover History
. Turnover history is presented below in Table 2.4.
TABLE 2.4 TURNOVER HISTORY UNITS 2 AND 3 Prior to Year 1979 1979 1980 1981 1982 Terminated 13 12 17 22 9* Transferred 1 5 6 3 7 Reduction 14 17 23 25 16 Number of Personnel 50 77 117 149 142 Attrition Rate 28% 22% 19.6% 16.7% 11.2%
*Two operators held a recctor operator license.
Of the operators who terminated or transferred within SCE during 1982, greater than 75% were entry level trainees. 2.5.2 Present Rate The present attrition rate is 11%. The Station Operations Manager , reported that an adequate number of trainees has been hired to compensate for this rate. The present rate is the lowest attrition rate experienced for San Onofre Units 2 and 3 since staffing commenced in 1977. This decrease is not unexpected where many new personnel are being brought into the company during initial unit manning. 2.5.3 Assumptions on Future Attrition The Station Operations Manager expects the attrition rate to drop to 10%. Since the 1982 rate was 11% it seems that adequate measures are now being taken when compared with nuclear industry 4 2-16 e c,r- g . - -
t turnover rates. INP0 turnover data for 1980 and 1981 is shown in Table 2.5. Nuclear power industry turnover rates were 13.8% for 1980 and 12.6% for 1981. These percentages are comparable to Station figures. Sufficient numbers of personnel are being enrolled in training to compensate for anticipated attrition. 2.5.4 Comparisons with Nuclear Industry Rates San Onofre Units 2 and 3 turnover rates were compared with INPO nuclear industry figures released in January 1983. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 show that SCE compares favorably with industry averages. . Total SCE attritior, for all nuclear personnel is 12% as compared to 12.6% for the industry. These figures tend to confirm the validity of the assumptions made on future attrition rates. TABLE 2.5 TURNOVER RATES,1980 AND 1981 Turnover Category 1980a 1981b Change Intrautility C 4.3% 4.6% +0.3% Interutilityc 4.1% 2.6% -1.5% Exit Industryc 5.4% 5.4% 0 Total 13.8% 12.6% -1.2% a 1980 data are taken from Table 5 (page 15) of "A Survey of Occupational Employment and Training in the Nuclear Power Industry," INP0, September 1981. b 1981 data are taken from Table 7 (page 20) of "1982 Survey of Nuclear-Related Occupational Employment in U.S. Electric Utilities," INPO, December 1982. c See Table 2.6 for definitions of these terms. 2.5.5 Conclusions Turnover rates have decreased steadily since 1979 to a present level of 11.2% which compares favorably with an industry average of 12.6%. Adequate provisions have been made to train replacements to offset anticipated attrition of 10%. 2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS None. f 4 2-17
? I l
wo ooo coo o Me coo o oo o eco o ooo'ood'o 'odo o od' 6 406 o' o enn-aNoon e4kh 6 a how = men va \ dd
- N =&=----- ddidad dddi
~~ d di4
= - -
d mid 4 i W ~~ - N"
~
Owo and '8 8888888 seaa , , , t,, ,, e
. 4 I
- w
. . A4 sanacoes-52En eene - om> a e-w disonn444 odes & 64d 4 d44 to 46 S
~
i13 e5m k JgwI. g g w I l 8 t i l l 1 8 l l f t i .
> w I l l I g il I l e-C
. .a um- -
2Pz ,- g e *;h $$, .. ee -a, d .'.i do T a . no . ns. 4 n-e en
- enddeinda casd a did 4 non E- en 5d W"z 1
=4 H- 3k"m l-l
^
E.tBm : coo coo e e
*E W-
...I ..I ooo 3 . .. o ao o ooo o ooo coo Efl. EM w 4
- o. oco o. oo .
3 o oco... o 4
.o ikk --
m ..
.g 6 .s o maosa-, e -ase
~; = wee n one G.
- z w,4 66ede44ae 64dd a sad d and ni-6 i 15 E 2 e .u . u u
= e
,.u .- . .u 8
. u u
.c . u8 u
~ . .o
> .u .. . .u a .
.u . 3 ... u .,
u c m e .
. .u-c .~
.s u.u
.u..- .
m a
..u..
.sw 6e
..c r o e s e - .u. .~.o.o.
-e >=.
& = .=
- 3. - 1 4
a". m, ~I..84.e6 m2 I3 '
- 6. a 1 2 a" .3 ". .' "eEm. L .E .g .EeT .e
.- .m = o - - ,. -. ao <
5 -. u. . . -...
. . > o. . . , . ...o - . .. -z- - .u -.s -zs.
- w. ..
-B.--c..
3 u . o o ,.s,.- u.z-5-
<u n
.a
.c a.
o .x u : 3 H c < ,. i a1wCGC5ffd2E .o
=
Edf5 !E 5 Ed $8 Ss3 f5 i 2-18
i W O O O OOO OO O O EO
- N d O d ddd dd 6 d ' ' aN t e=
1 0 3 to 4 e e m>O*h hw N 9 h m a d' N M
= d N N 9' S N==N' wwww W N E hlN
= =
w o 1
= N g
=
a em
. e eC e
o e =. a e S
, =e a e3
*
- O ou u == =e eo I W ga = ww i u I I I l 4 I i 8 8 I l l 6 I e . == g e i a aO a e ue a e a 1
i E. e
=e e
eT 4 e e == 1 a a. p3 i e t == e l s e b e3 4
= a. e m
* * > 4 > 4> e O S * * *p C
el d 3 e N. t'l O
. M.TThh NO4h9.
T4
- e. 4. m mem
. O. B8 *. e ==
u C* o=
== w e e 3 = = =
3 . C C e == p e a. m W = b e3 w =e a e a a
== = ee i 2 a. I I = e e 64 0 m al '
m o a me I UI miW 80 3 m e
= v i e I i I 8 i i I e I I e i e . =* wC
. O m aa e g e == 1 W ew a e s. ea j 3m 3 e e
< - - e .e e u=e.
~ = C = == e3 Z =a == e u n.
g a b 3 me
- m e =
d s N e N M4N44 -N D C e see 3 t e C 8 es e .2 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . e e 3e 3 4 u C O = b. eaaNO Nm a = 0 CeN. s e u C pe
* =
C == g a 3 e a. E ) w i N
- 2 e C C e C E == =e me e w e e o a .e . .e ,
u. fg b a-el O O O OOO OO O O EN e I O e e C g 03 =e4 . 1 .8 . . . . . . . 4 3 a , e = e Ce 6 1 O. O O OOO OO O O eO == = 3= l 3 m e u = e ee C 3
- e Cm e C 3 o e a
=4 m C3 r e e o
== e Dee E n. C .
- si g 8 mz w s. e U2 el 6 ge e e 3 a.4 u m e e m>WGw & w e m
- e*
- e o O. O.
. m m ==M.aee4 g e e e ea et a . .
. . . . . =e 2 CI 3 T. M ("I t'3 m t'l M 4m == a Iw > Cw
= 8 o e e e C m9 8. eC
- e e a. C a ee C == ee e O & 3 e Ep
= -e e b b o e wo e a. o
== e eC 3 ee e 6 mo a3 e E 4 eg a w .e e e OC e e e s. e me e C e e a. == g ==
C e & 4 l W as & e =e g == a. e 3 ( =e u u E e o eb e us
- 8. a. 6 == me W a. 8. e > eW e o e e C C e i se g e a eg w b
- A == A h 8. U C C a W u e u .,3 e e 3e n. C .
e e oC e s. e = C e C 3 .Ceo C C Ce e
>=
- t= 0 e == . m ==
yu 0 a == == * * =
- C C a. u 9e W C C C& C =* O C 8. C
- 3
- E o beC e = g =* g=* = W e e U eg ge 2 3 C =b C e == e 3 eo e- == e. N =* e Ce O e g ===e > -e m C a. a. a. e 2 u *
- u== e a. == G C S ==
- e=*
cec
= > > k m. == = C uu o e a. e o e o m ( C e C e 3 C se 3, e a. 3p a n. 3 =*
C cec C9 E A u u e. e e# 2 as e eue J e C 4
- E ==
O u 3 s. M e& e = 9 == 8 = e 8 4 u o e e O e a e5 3 C a. p a == u u e e e == == mo
= eCeoeC 2 > c e e e,e e C C E = == C a. = w wCe se e me C se 9 eueeeu
( e* 9 C =* C e ( u C 3 = u C
* = * == u a e e. g W e
e 5 e* 3 C
- e
* =* $
W 3 as a u 3 == .J e,e u e u =e mee E u $ e & I m e. C E T J T =e g ,l ( e G = E = p C we p =a p= m W e ) se C 3 g e =e O =e =e I u e
- 8. 3 C & A e a. m C e= a. e as e i q k ) O > .8 =e>C *= **# a. e
- W e e I. a. =e G. E WC E G ( =8E =8 O ** O 2 E Ee u & J =* ese 4 e e e O E J ..
E 9U)9E92 2 W e e o e u e8= 9 =* u A E ( W W C C C v G. A 1. =e CD3 ee & > a a a *
- IL me *= =* W u C3 W ** T. W E2 O O e A u 9 O
@ a= O e en w w w 2 2-19 -
- 3. PAST PERFORMANCE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the review of available plant history concerning operator performance and adherence to procedures and administrative controls. This review determined if there was a need to improve procedural compliance of operators based on past performance. Section 3.2 reviews the two most recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports for all three San Onofre units. The findings in the reports are compared with Unit 1 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) findings. The SALP report is an integrated NRC staff effort to collect the available observations on an annual basis and evaluate licensee performance based on those observations. The objective of SALP is to improve the NRC Regulatory Program and licensee performance. Section 3.3 also reviews the SALP reports for information on adherence to procedures and compliance with surveillance requirements. A computer-based surveillance scheduling program is discussed. Section 3.4 provides reconuendations for this chapter. 3.2 COMPLIANCE HISTORY The SALP reports were reviewed for Units 1, 2 and 3. These reports are based on the Regional Performance Evaluation Reports issued by the NRC Region V SALP Review Board. Each report covers roughly a one-year period from July 1 to June 30. The reports for each unit are discussed separately. A comparison of the SALP findings is made with the 1981 INP0 evaluation of Unit 1. Finally, conclusions are presented for this topic. 3.2.1 SALP Findings
.1 Unit 1 SALP reports were issued for Unit 1 on April 26, 1982 and October 18, 1982. The periods covered for each report are from May 16, 1980 to June 30, 1981 and from July 1,1981 to June 30, 1982, respectively.
The review of this Committee centered on plant operations although the reports were reviewed in their entirety. In the I area of plant operations the first report noted that personnel staffing needed improvement, particularly for plant operators, in order to support training and to minimize the use of overtime and to support a good mental attitude of 3-1
p licensee employees. Extensive overtime was required of the operators which resulted in very long working hours and gradual attrition. Strong points noted in the first report include a thorough revision of all operating and emergency procedures to reflect actual practice and ANSI N 18.7 requirements. Shift supervisors were exceptionally cognizant of their safety 4 responsibilities. The training program has steadily improved l to an above average level. Supervisory and management . response to revised regulatory requirements has been positive. During this first period the NRC gave Unit 1 operations a satisfactory grada, f The second report noted that the licensee's management appears to be involved and concerned with nuclear safety.
.However, during this period, licensee resources were not
^ effectively used. Only minimal satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety was achieved. In addition, several significant operational errors were made which j demonstrated an occasional casual approach to procedural l comaliance. Recently, licensee management has vigorously empr asized procedural compliance by operating personnel. SCE took issue with the report in their December 3,1982 response stating that the occurrences identified were not causally linked to operator action or performance. SCE also 4 took issue with the phrase "an occasional casual approach to procedural compliance" as being unfounded. The report did note however that SCE management has vigorously emphasized
, procedural compliance by operating personnel. The NRC gave 1
Unit 1 a slightly unsatisfactory grade for this period. J I The choice of words used by the NRC to describe procedural compliance caused the POPRC to consider whether any carryover from Unit 1 to Units 2 and 3 on this issue was evident. None was found on the basis of the limited operational data
- available from Units 283.
The POPRC having reviewed the Unit 1 reports felt that a conclusion should be made on procedural compliance even though perceptually there is a disagreement on the extent of the problem.
.2 Units 2 and 3 SALP reports for. Units 2 and 3 were issued on the same dates as Unit 1. The periods covered for each report are from June 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981 and from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982, respectively.
3-2 i _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ - ~ . . .
1 In the area of plant operations the first report noted that l the operating staff appeared to be well qualified and l motivated. Additions to the operating staff were needed to increase depth. No items of noncompliance or deviations were found. The second report noted that four items of noncompliance were identi fied.
"The licensee appears to be taking satisfactory corrective !
actions in response to these problems."
"In addition to these difficulties the licensee has had difficulty in providing sufficient qualified operators. This has resulted in the extensive use of overtime. Some improvement in this area has occurred as evidenced by the change from three to four shifts on June 28, 1982. In this area, the shortage of Senior Reactor Operators (S.R.O.'s) has prevented the manning of the training department with four Unit 2 licensed S.R.0. 's as planned. Contractor S.R.0.
" equivalent" licensed personnel are being used on a temporary basis in the training department."
" Procedural compliance has been a problem during this period. Increased management emphasis has resulted."
"During this period of initial startup, many procedures were used for the first time. Thus, procedure problems were expected. In the area of procedure upgrade the licensee has shown a marked improvement."
The NRC rated operations as satisfactory for both periods. 3.2.2 INP0 Findings on Unit 1 INP0 conducted its first evaluation of Unit 1 during the weeks of November 30 and December 7,1981. In the area of operations organization and administration INP0 noted that Operations Department staffing is not sufficient to ensure timely and effective performance of all normally assigned responsibilities, including training and retraining. The then current four-shift staffing resulted in excessive overtime. SCE acknowledged the problem and stated that efforts have concentrated on achieving six-shift operation in 1983. Fi ve-shi f t operation was planned for the end of 1982. This finding pointed out that the staffing problem exists for all three units and is being corrected with the implementation of six-shift operation in 1983. j 3-3 i
3.2.3 Conclusions Insufficient data was available to discern any pattern on which a conclusion could be reached due to the limited amount of operational data available from Units 2 and 3. 3.3 PROCEDURAL CONTROLS The SALP reports discussed earlier were again used to determine if a problem existed in this area. The two areas discussed in this section are adherence to procedures and meeting surveillances. These areas were noted in the SALP reports for Units 2 and 3. The P0PRC decided to review the report findings and SCE responses. l l 3.3.1 Adherence to Procedures As noted in Section 3.2.2.2, procedural compliance was a problem during the most recent SALP evaluation period. Procedure problems were expected when procedures were used for the first time during initial startup of Unit 2. Increased management emphasis resulted and to date a problem with adherence to procedures on Units 2 and 3 is not evident. 3.3.2 Meeting Surveillance Requiements The most recent SALP report identified four major weaknesses in the Technical Sp5cification surveillance program; l "o Inadequate management control procedures for assigning and accomplishment of surveillance requirements. o Inadequate identification of surveillance :cqu,*ements necessary to support changes in operating modes, o Inadequate surveillance testing procedures. o Inadequate system to control and schedule surveillance performance." The SALP report discussed the surveillance program as follows:
"These adverse findings further highlighted the weaknesses identified in the licensee's procedure review system and resulted in an additional cperating license condition to assure that the licensee would establish surveillance procedure adequacy and performance prior to changing operating modes.
The licensee's corrective actions included a massive reexamination of the system to control and comply with Technical Specification surveillance requirements. These corrective actions appear to have been effective with the exception of controlling and scheduling surveillance performance. l 3-4
Several event reports have resulted fro.a the failure to comply witn Technical Specification limiting conditions for operation and surteillance requirements. These indicate tne need for increased management attention to assure that surveillance are appropriately seneduled and performed as required by Technical Specifications." SCE's response in the December 11, 1982 letter stated tnat additional Station Orders and procedures have Deen prepared which implement the surveillance program. To assure the adequacy of procedures, all surveillance procedures for Unit 2 (and for Unit 3 as it proceeds tnrough mode changes) are reviewed by tnree organizations, (the Corporate Nuclear Engineering Staff, Quality Assurance and an independent consultant), independent of the review by tne cognizant Station organization. 3.3.3 Computer-Based Surveillance Scheduling A specific plan and schedule has been developed for the full implementation of tne " San Onofre Maintenance Management System" (SOMMS) at Urit 2 and at Unit 3 as the startup program proceeds. S0 MMS will bring together tne plant data base, surveillance plan, preventive maintenance planning, and the execution of surveillance activities into a single conerent computer-based system. 3.3.4 Conclusions Adequate corrective measures are now underway. However, results must be monitored on a continuing basis. Data to date does not snow a problem with adnerence to procedures on Unit 2 based on a review of tne SALP reports. 3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS Adnerence to procedures should be continually emphasized. Implement the planned computer-Dased surveillance program for both units to improve adherence to surveillance senedules. 1 T 3-5
( l
- 4. OPERATOR TRAINING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The contents of the operator training programs were reviewed and tvaluated. The intent of this task was to provide assurance that the respective programs are adequate to meet the needs of current operators i and demands of increased staffing levels on Units 2 and 3. Section 4.2 discusses the review of the following current training programs: cold license, hot license, requalification, simulator requalification, the Saddleback Community College work study program and plant equipment operators. Section 4.3 discusses the review of the following proposed programs: non-licensed operator, reactor operator, senior reactor operator, and shift .upervisor. The training programs were compared with other PWR training programs in Section 4.4. A training schedule for 1983 is presented in Section 4.5. The training staff is reviewed in Section 4.6. Section 4.7 provides a discussion on previous NRC evaluations of the ' training programs. Conclusions and recommendatior,s are presented in Section 4.8. 4.2 CURRENT TRAINING PROGRAMS 4.2.1 Cold License The cold license training program has been completed, as prescribed in the Final Safety Analysis Report for SONGS Units 2 and 3. The program incorporated the regulatory requirements and guidelines for licensing of both operators and senior operators for plants in a cold startup status. Southern California Edison personnel developed a cold license training program of 90 4-hour lectures covering the various plant systems. An additional 20 weeks of training was supplied in: physics, chemistry, thermal hydraulics, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation systems. This training program fulfills all of the NRC requirements for reactor operator training. In addition, Combustion Engineering supplied the following training: A. Five weeks training in the above listed areas. B. Two weeks intensive and detailed information in heat transfer, fluid flow, and thermodynamics. C. Four days of intensive and detailed information in mitigating core damage. 4-1 I
(
- 9. Simulator training based on the following scnedule:
5 weeks - Inexperienced personnel 3 weeks - Ex-Navy Nuclear Personnel i 2 weeks - Previous NRC SR0/R0 license 4.2.2 Hot License The not license training program closely parallels tne cold license training program and was in1plemented for those operator and senior operator license candidates wno were scneduled to license after Unit 2 acnieved 20% power. fne significant difference is an added segment of ooservation training while the plant is at power. The on-tne-joo training segment is supervised of the Operations Department. Inis training program covers four basic areas: Administrative Procedures, Normal and Emergency Operating Instructions, Surveillance Procedures, and Practical Factors. Procedural walk througns and practical factors outlined iri tne program are used. 4.2.3 Requalification The licensed operator requalification training program was formulated to meet tne requirements of Appendix A of 10 CFR 56. It also includes tne requirements of NUREG-0737 and nas oeen approved by the Operator Licensing Branch of the NRC. The program is conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 2 years and upon conclusion snall De promptly followed, pursuant to a continuous scnedule, by successive requalification programs. Tne requalification program includes a series of preplanned lectures that are presented on a regular basis. Also included is an on-the-job training program to make operators aware of procedure changes, design changes and license cnanges. All records of the requalification program, including completed written exams, evaluations, attendance records and documentation of special training in deficient areas are maintained. 4.2.4 Simulator Requalification Tne simulator requalification program is supportive of the licensed operator requalification training program. It meets tne requirements of 10 CFR 55, Appendix A and includes the new requirements for annual and semi-annual control manipulations as delineated in NUREG-0737. 4-2
f This training is a 5-day program with each day consisting of approximately 4 hours of classroom followed by 4 hours of control ! room operations. Station procedures and Technical Specifications are used. Students are evaluated on their ability to utilize ; orocedures during normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions. 4.2.5 Saddleback Community College The Saddleback Community College work study program is a pilot program which was implemented in 1982. It provides college credit courses covering academic and technical subjects which are prerequisites to the licensing process. Graduates receive an Associate Degree in Nuclear Technology from the college and join SCE on a full-time basis as a Nuclear Plant Equipment Operator. The objective of this pilot program is to supply SONGS with qualified personnel by recruiting people from the local community. The goal is to replace losses due to attrition and to retain graduates in the employ of SCE. The program is designed to supplement SCE's anticipated need for new operators. 4.2.6 Plant Equipment Operators There are 3 classifications of non-licensed operators at San Onofre. The Apprentice Plant Equipment Operator (APE 0) training program lasts 4 months and covers such areas as plant familiarization, communication skills, science and engineering fundamentals, and plant specifics. After completing formal classroom training there is a 2-month on-the-job training phase. The APE 0 can qualify for the Plant Equipment Operator (PE0) position following completion of the on-the-job training phase. PE0's have 3 options in their career path. They may qualify for the nuclear PE0 (NPE0) positions, transfer to non-nuclear SCE power plants, or to a non-operations position within the company. NPE0's are in training to receive their reactor operator licenses. 4.3 PROPOSED PROGRAMS Revised training programs have been drafted which reflect the changes to content and format which are anticipated as a result of the INP0 $ accreditation process. Programs included are: 1 I 4-3
4.3.1 Non-licensed Operator The proposed non-licensed operator training program will provide the academic and systems trainicg that is currently afforded in the APE 0 training program. Format and curriculum tave been expanded and the on-the-job training segment has be.en lengthened. i The career path options remain unchanged. ! 4.3.2 Reactor Operator An NPE0 will be the entry level position for this program which is designed to culminate with the issuance of an NRC Reactor Operator (RO) license. At the time of licensing, each candidate will be required to have a minimum of 3 years of power plant experience, one of which is nuclear. ! Formal classroom training is approximately 15 months long covering the same areas described in the non-licensed operator training program but in more depth. The classroom training is followed by 1 on-the-job training, simulator training, and a series of exams and review sessions to prepare for the NRC license exam. . 4.3.3 Senior Reactor Operator The Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidate will be required to have at least 4 years of power plant experience, 2 of which are nuclear. If the candidate does not have a B.S. in Engineering or a related science, he will be required to have at least 1 year of experience as a licensed R0. The training program covers such areas as supervisory skills, radiation science, plant specifics, and simulator training. Thereafter, at least 3 months will be spent in on-the-job training before taking audit exams and participating in review training prior to the NRC exam. . 4.3.4 Shift Supervisor The training program for the Shift Supervisor (SS) will consist of on-the-job training and SCE certification. The trainee will spend 1 approximately 3 months in on-the-job training. Thereafter, oral exams will be taken and if successful the candidate will be certified by SCE Nuclear Operations management. l In addition to the Committee review of the training programs, an independent evaluation was completed by staff members of an outside i consulting firm, Management Analysis Company. Review comments include: ' 1 4-4
- 1. OveralI, the programs are good.
- 2. Tne technical and practical training curricula appear complete.
- 3. Tne non-technical training curricula are less tnan complete. Stress ;
management training for RO's snould De upgraded to equal that for ' SRO's. Administrative training requirements contained in tne SRO training program snould include the delineation of joo responsibilities for otner operator classifications. 4.4 COMPARIS0N WITH OTHER OTILITY PROGRAMS Ine SCE training programs were compared with four otner utilities: GPU (Inree Mile Island), Commonwealth Edison (Zion), Nortneast utilities (Millstone 2), and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee). Tne requalification program was compared with tne regulatory requirements and IN00 guidelines. Tne content of tne training programs compares favoraoly witn other utility programs and the programs meet regulatory requirements. 4.5 SCHEDULES The training schedule for licensing operators is satisfactory. Tne projected licensing dates will allow the Operations department to adopt a six-shift manning senedule by mid-1985. Figure 4-1 snows tne current training senedule for 19d3. NRC examinations are planned for June and November 1983. 4.6 INSTRUCTORS The current staff of contract instructors is adequate to meet the projected training needs. Staffing with more SCE training instructors will improve the training program by providing plant specific insignt and actual on-the-jon experience. There are three SCE instructors currently enrolled in training. Two are scheduled to license in Novemoer 1983 and the otner in April 1984. One of tne four SCE licensed instructors originally in shift operations is scheduled to return to an instructor status in August 1983. Tne remaining tnree instructors are scheduled to return in mid-1984. Tnere are currently 17 instructors (4 SCE,12 Comoustion Engineering, 1 Associated Technical Training Services) on site. The POPRC staff reviewed the instructors' qualifications and summarized the data:
- 1. Ten instructors (59%) had a college education (9 Baccalaureates, 1 Masters).
- 2. Ten instructors (59%) had previous utility experience.
4-5
- 3. Eight instructors (47%) had Nuclear Navy experience.
- 4. Five instructors (29%) nave held or hold reactor operator or senior reactor operator licenses.
4.7 EVALUATION OF TRAINING PRACTICES Ine current programs nave been evaluated by inspectors from NRC Region V and by examiners from the Operator Licensing Brancn during routine audits. The onsite resident inspectors have also evaluated the programs as required by tneir inspection modules, including the observation of lesson presentations for hot license and requalification training programs. In each instance, tnere were no items of noncompliance. Consistently, the NRC personnel made positive coimients regarding the training programs and lesson presentations.
4.8 CONCLUSION
S AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The training programs are acceptaole and compare favoraoly witn otner PAR training programs. Inis conclusion is supported by the following findings:
- 1. Tne individual training program documents were reviewed and the programs were found to be acceptable.
- 2. Ine Saddleback Community College Program is an innovative program that shows great promise.
- 3. Tne content of the programs compares favoraoly witn otner utility programs out a need for additional training was noted in certain non-technical operator training areas, e.g., stress management.
Recommendations The administrative training requirements contained in the SRO training program snould include tne delineation of joo responsibilities for otner operator classifications. Stress management training for RJ's snould be upgraded to equal tnat for SRO's. l 4-6 ,
Figure 4-1 SONGS p uMUS 2$3 TRNNiHG SCHEDLtl_E 19 8.3__
#D M# JAN FEB F\AR APR MAY J11N Jul AUG SEP OCT WOV J C, B 6/83 3 - - - - - - - PB ASE 6- - - - - - -[MacI C 11 / 8 3 8 sliFr '-- PHASE'l- - - '_P%SE_ _d E ^- PH ASE (o- - --{NRCl d D1 it/83 12. -PH ASE 3- - - ^ --PB ASE tt- - - ^ R}SE ^- PHASE 6- - - -1NRc I -
- - - - - - - -ON SM1Fr- - - - - - - ^- - P R ASE l- - - - - ^- PHASE- ^ nase D2 : 4/e9 l 1 \ ,
14 .5- -
!E 10/39l13
- - - -P H A SE. 3 - - - - - ^ - - - - - -ON Swr- - - - - - - - - ^ vyse i281-1 3/35 16l !
- -on sat FT- - - - - ^ - - PH HSE 3- - - - ^- ON SHI FT- -
282.-l,eve 5 \B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - oN swr- - - - - - - - - - - - ^ SjsE A282-lf N A , 24 -AP EO TRNH\MG-- ^ - O UT- - ^ - - - - - - -oM SB ) FT- - - - - - - - -
(-
- 5. OPERATOR FEEDBACK
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates operator feedback obtained from a questionnaire administered to on-shift plant operations and training personnel. A discussion is presented on the interviews presently being conducted by an outside consultant. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of plant operations personnel are presented. Section 5.2 provides background information on the need for operator feedback. The interviews are discussed in Section 5.3. The reasons for not conducting additional interviews are also noted. Section 5.4 presents a detailed discussion on the questionnaire which includes sample, content, method, and results. The conclusions are presented in Section 5.5. Recommendations for improving operations are provided in Section 5.6.
5.2 BACKGROUND
The objective of the questionnaire process was to gain operator feedback in areas affecting operator effectiveness. Recommandations are made that will assist in creating and maintaining a highly motivated and dedicated nuclear work force. The pressures associated with the startup and operation of Units 2 and 3 can cause an increase in mental and physical fatigue, stress, and lowering of morale of the shift operations personnel. Oral and written feedback received by the Station Operations Manager convinced station management to retain the services of an outside consultant. It was perceived that there was some dissatisfaction with overall working conditions of the shift operations personnel. Coincidentally, on November 15, 1982, SCE committed to establish a committee to conduct an independent review of the overall readiness of the plant operating staff of San Onofre Unit 3. This commitment was made after the NRC expressed concern about the comments that were volunteered by the San Onofre operators to the NRC examiners. The commitment made by SCE included the conducting of interviews or other appropriate means to gain operator feedback. 5.3 INTERVIEWS Station Management hireu an outside consultant, Corporate Systemics Incorporated (CSI), to identify the factors underlying the dissatisfaction among the shift operations staff and to provide i recommendations to resolve the root causes of concern. Interviews were , conducted on a volunteer basis among shift operations personnel at Units 2 and 3. 5-1
The POPRC was briefed by CSI on their present efforts. The interviews are seen as a conscientious, progressive effort by Station Management to implement corrective action to improve the overall effectiveness of operations personnel. In-house SCE expertise and outside consultants, (MAC and CSI) were utilized to determine whether additional interviews conducted under the auspices of the committee were necessary or advisable. A decision was made not to conduct additional interviews since a duplication of effort would result in most areas. In addition, the reliability of the data would be questionable since interviewing operators after having been already interviewed by CSI would probably skew the findings in the negative direction. The questionnaire was determined to differ in scope and format such that reliable data could be obtained. The findings of the questionnaire were determined to provide sufficient information on which the POPRC could base its review and subsequent recommendations. 5,4 QUESTIONNAIRE An attitude survey was administered on January 12 and 14,1983 to 104 ! SONGS operations personnel for Units 2 and 3. The questionnaire was designed to assess the perceptions of operators and first-line ! supervisors concerning operational readiness and general job satisfaction. While participation was voluntary, approximately 90% of the personnel on-shift during this period agreed to participate. It was believed that this method would provide the most complete and objective data upon which the POPRC could base their review of operators' opinions and concerns. 5.4.1 Sample 104 Individuals from all five shifts and the Nuclear Training Division completed the questionnaire. Operators comprised 84% of the sample, while first and second level supervisors comprised the remaining 16%. A total of 16 respondents held Reactor Operator licenses (15 operators, 1 supervisor) and an additional 14 individuals held SR0 licenses (2 operators,12 supervisors). The majority of respondents (72%) had less than 3 years service with SCE, however the group averaged 5.3 years nuclear operations experience. As might be expected, supervisors had considerably more operations experience (9.6 years) but appeared to have only between 1 and 3 years supervisory experience. Experience results compare favorably with operator responses to a job satisfaction questionnaire at 9 sites reported in NUREG/CR-1750 in which 97 R0s reported an average of 2.8 years of experience and 125 SR0s reported an average of 6.4 years. i 5-2
Questions concerning previous work experience indicated that approximately two-thirds of the sample had previous Navy experience. Naval background was more frequent among supervision (82%) than among operators (62%). Relatively small percentages of the total group had previous comercial nuclear, commercial non-nuclear, test reactor, or SONGS 1 experience. 5.4.2 Questionnaire Content The questionnaire was developed to assess attitudes concerning operational readiness and job satisfaction. Specific areas addressed include: o Demographic Information o Job Characteristics o Training o Communications o Working Conditions and Environment o Management Effectiveness o Policies, Procedures and Organization In addition to satisfaction ratings in the above areas, individuals were asked to rank the most important factors of the job related to retention and turnover. Finally, open-ended questions were provided to allow for free response feedback in areas not specifically covered in the rating items. 5.4.3 Method On January 12 and 14, 1983 the questionnaires were administered to 104 respondents by an SCE industrial psychologist. All individuals were told the purposes of the POPRC and the reason for the questionnaire. Participation was strictly voluntary. 104 out of 114 individuals attending the sessions agreed to participate. All individual responses were guaranteed to be confidential. The questionnaire was administered during a break in scheduled training or over a two-hour period immediately preceding or following the operator's shift. Throughout these sessions the Industrial Psychologist was present to answer questions and receive feedback from the participants. Specifically to ensure confidentiality, respondents sealed questionnaires in unmarked envelopes upon completion. 5-3 ,
.. . .. . .' ... __..__...._._.C
5.4.4 Results 5.4.4.1 Questionnaire Operations personnel were asked to rate 20 job characteristics on a 9 point scale from 1-extremely dissatisfied to 9-extremely satisfied. Characteristics to be rated covered four general categories including working conditions, training, opportunity for advancement and management effectiveness. Since the ratings had a standard deviation of 1.5 or greater, ratings of 3.5 or below were considered to be substantially dissatisfied, while ratings of 6.5 or greater were considered to be substantially satisfied. High mean satisfaction ratings were obtained for job security (7.2), co-workers (7.1) and the opportunity to do challenging work (6.8). Low satisfaction was expressed concerning communication with management (3.3). Essentially neutral ratings were obtained for work hours, working conditions, work variety, opportunity to advance, job responsibility and authority, and recognition for work. Out of the 20 job characteristics rated, only three showed significant difference between supervisors and operators. Operators were significantly less satisfied with salary, while supervisors were significantly more satisfied with their opportunity to use their current knowledge and skills and their opportunity to supervise others. 5.4.4.2 Retention and Turnover Factors Operations personnel were asked to indicate the five most important factors which led them to stay in their present jobs. Rankings were combined in order to determine an overall importance weight. Table 5.1 presents the most important retention factors in descending order of importance. Job security, the opportunity to do challenging work and salary were expressed as the most important factors which led operations personnel to remain in their present jobs. Co-workers and the opportunity to learn new knowledge and skills were also significant factors. It is . interesting to note that while operators listed salary as an I important retention factor, they also gave it a mean satisfaction rating below neutral. In contrast, all other key retention factors received mean satisfaction ratings of 6 or above. 5-4
TABLE 5.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF 20 JOB CHARACTERISTICS FOR RETENTION (N=104) Order of Importance Importance Job Characteristic Weight
- 1 Job Security 288 2 Opportunity to do Challenging Work 220 3 Salary 214 4 People You Work With 163 5 Opportunity to Learn New Knowledge and Skills 127 6 Job Responsibility and Authority 81 7 Use of Knowledge and Skills You Presently Have 70 8 Opportunity to Work Independently 65 l 9 Opportunity to Advance 63 )
10 Work Variety 45 11 Fringe Benefits 37 12 Recognition for Your Work 26 , 13 Skill Level of Co-Workers 17 14 Working Conditions 16 15 Work Hours 15 16 Confidence anr1 Ability to Deal with Unplanned or Unusual Operating Conditions 14 17 Opportunity to Manage Others 13 18 Adequacy of Training and Preparation for Operation 11 19 Clarity and Availability of Procedures 6 20 Communication with Management 2
- Importance weights were obtained as follows: 5 points were assigned for a number 1 ranking, 4 points for a 2 ranking, 3 points for a 3 ranking, 2 points for a 4 ranking, and 1 point for a 5 ranking.
5-5
Supervisors and operators ranked the job characteristics quite similarly as retention factors. Supervisors, however substituted " job responsibility and authority" for "the opportunity to learn new knowledge and skills." This question replicated a question in the NUREG/CR-1750 survey which also found salary and job security to be important retention factors. SONGS personnel, however, ranked the opportunity to do challenging work and the opportunity to learn new knowledge and skills much higher than did operators at the 9 plants surveyed by Analysis and Technology, Inc. Operations personnel were also asked to indicate the five most important factors which would lead them to decide to leave SCE. Table 5.2 presents the most important turnover factors expressed by the respondents in descending order of importance. Salary, work hours, the opportunity to advance, communication with management and working conditions were the overriding factors expressed. All of these factors were rated slightly below neutral on the satisfaction scale, with the exception of communications which was rated as " Dissatisfied." Although supervisors and operators listed the same four factors as most important to turnover, supervisors ranked communication with management as their number one concern, while operators ranked it fourth. Rankings on the other factors were essentially the same. 5.4.4.3 Job Attitudes Operations personnel were asked to rate 72 statements of job attitude on a 9-point scale ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 9-Strongly Agree. Statements were phrased both positively and negatively to avoid response bias. The 72 job attitude ratings were grouped into four ' categories: Training, Connunications, Operations, and Job Satisfaction. Where necessary, s: ales were adjusted so that a ' statement which was phrased negatively could be appropriately combined with a positively phrased statement. The resulting scale indicates that high scores reflect positive attitudes while low scores reflect negative attitudes. t 5-6
TABLE 5.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF 20 JOB CHARACTERISTICS FOR TURNOVER Order of Importance Importance Job Characteristic Weight
- 1 Salary 271 2 Work Hours 220 3 Opportunity to Advance 186 4 Communication with Management 172 5 Working Conditions 150 6 Fringe Benefits 60 I 7 Recognition for Your Work 55 8 Opportunity to Learn New Knowledges and Skills 51 9 Job Security 40 10 Work Variety 33 11 Opportunity to do Challenging Work 31 12 Clarity and Availability of Procedures 27 13 People You Work With 26 14 Job Responsibility and Authority 21 15 Adequacy of Training and Preparation for Operation 21 '
16 Skill Level of Co-Workers 20 17 Opportunity to Work Independently 20 18 Opportunity to Manage Others 17 19 Use of the Knowledge and Skills You Presently Have 15 20 Confidence ar.d Ability to Deal with Unplanned or Unusual Operating Conditions 11
- Importance weights are sample-size dependent; hence they should be interpreted only in a relative sense within the table.
t i 5-7
Means, standard deviations, and the range of scores for each category appear in Table 5.3. Strongest contrasts were seen between Training which received a positive rating and Communications which received a negative rating. Somewhat neutral ratings were associatad with Operations and Job Satisfaction. A marked similarity was found in the ratings of operators and their supervisors, perhaps reflecting a group socialization , process among individuals who share the same shift. - Despite the overall similarity of responses, ten significant differences were found betweer, supervisors and operators in the 72 items. While supervisors were significantly more likely to indicate that their jobs were a source of personal frustration, and that the amount of work they were expected to do was unreasonable, supervisors were also more likely to indicate that their salaries adequately reflected their skill and level of responsibility and that they were satisfied with their progress in the organization. Operators were significantly more likely to indicate that they would like to be promoted to a higher level of responsibility and authority, that they would like better equipment and tools to work with, and that there was little incentive to perform better on one's i job. In contrast, they were also more likely to indicate that they would still choose a career in commercial nuclear power, if they were starting over. Much of the information derived from the above analysis ; reflects more on general issues of job satisfaction than on specific issues of operational readiness and effectiveness. As a result,10 specific items were identified which give a clear picture of the perceptions of operations personnel. Ratings for these statements are presented in Table 5.4. The ratings indicate very positive perceptions of their own skill levels as well as the technical competence of their , supervi sion. A sense of shift teanwork was also conveyed. For statements 2 and 6, over 707. of the respondents rated the statements 7 or above. For statements 1, 5 and 10, over 707, of the respondents provided ratings of 6 or above. Lowest ratings were found in the operators' perception of procedural compliance. While operators were somewhat neutral about the need for more training, supervisors felt that more training , would help them perform more efficiently and competently. In j combination with statement 6 concerning the perceived technical competence of supervisors, it is assumed that training in supervisory / management skills is desired. 5-8 !
,/
TABLE 5.3 MEAN RATINGS OF JOB ATTITUDE STATEMENTS , BY CONTENT CATEGORIES STANDARD TOTAL GROUP 11, MEAN DEVIATION MINIMUM MAXIMUM Training 101 5.7 0.8 2.6 7.5 Communications 85 3.8 1.0 1.4 6.2 Operations 94 4.7 0.7 2.6 6.4 Job Satisfaction 70 4.3 0.7 2.8 6.2 SUPERVISORS Training 14 5.4 0.9 4.0 7.1 Communications 13 4.0 0.7 3.1 5.2 , Operations 14 4.6 0.7 3.6 6.0 Job Satisfaction 5 4.2 0.6 3.2 4.8 i
-0PERATORS i Training 87 5.7 0.8 2.6 7.5 i
Communications 72 3.8 1.0 1.4 6.2 ; Operations 80 4.8 0.7 2.6 6.4 Job Satisfaction 65 4.3 0.8 2.8 6.2
- l l
f 5-9 i l i _ _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _
TABLE 5.4 AGREEMENT RATINGS FOR 10 JOB ATTITUDE STATEMENTS i Mean Rating Total Statement Group Supervisors Operators !
- 1. I have a clear understanding of my l job responsibilities 6.2 5.9 6.3
- 2. I feel I have the skills and knowledge required to perform my current job well 6.8 6.4 6.9
- 3. The people I work with are really interested in doing a good job 5.3 5.3 5.2
- 4. The necessary training has been provided for me to perform efficiently and competently 4.7 4.1 4.9 .
l
- 5. The personnel on my shift have sufficient experience and training to operate the unit safely 6.4 5.6 6.5
- 6. My supervisor is technically competent 6.9 6.7 6.9
- 7. Adequate authority is given to me to do my job 5.4 5.4 5.4
- 8. Employees are expected to meet high standards of job performance 5.4 6.1 5.3
- 9. Actual work practices conform to clearly established procedures 4.3 4.4 4.3
- 10. The people on my shift work well as a team 6.5 6.9 6.5 I
O 5-10
5.4.4.4 Open-Ended Questions Responses for several open-ended questions were analyzed for content. Summaries of the responses appear in Table 5.5. In response to the question, "If you could change one thing about your job in order to perform more effectively, what would it be?", the most frequent responses were: provide regular working hours (20%), improve communications patterns (19%), and improve working conditions (11.5%). In response to the question, "What, if anything, should be done to reduce the number of people who leave this organization?", the single most frequent response was pay a salary commensurate with responsibility and cost of living (41%). Other frequent responses were: establish an open, visible career pattern (12.5%), increase management's sensitivity to the problens/ perceptions of line staff (11.5%), management should use input from line staff (11.5%) and treat employees with respect (10.6%). The final question, "What can be done to ' improve the way the organization uses employees' skills, knowledge, and abilities?", had two main responses: bridge the communication gap (21%) and use interdepartment training to maximize employees' skills (18%). 1 4 5-11
TABLE 5.5 OPEN ENDED ATTITUDE SURVEY QUESTIONS Question I: If you could change one thing about your job in order to perform more effectively, what would it be?
# of Responses (N = 104) %
- 1. Provide regular working hours. 21 20.0%
- 2. Improve comunication patterns. (Quality Circle Idea). 20 19.2%
- 3. Improve working conditions. 12 11.5%
- 4. Provide tools and equipment needed for the job. 10 9.6%
- 5. Provide parking which is more accessible to job. 8 7.7%
- 6. Reduce security. 6 5.8%
- 7. Provide opportunities to use theoretical knowledge on the job. 6 5.8%
- 8. Hire more ccmpetent, permanent employees as opposed to contract employees. 5 4.8%
- 9. Introduce the idea of working as a team. 5 4.8%
- 10. Put emphasis on the Quality of the job as opposed to Quantity: Accuracy as opposed to Speed. 4 3.8%
- 11. Establish a central data gathering system to track changes in design, operations, and procedures. 4 3.8%
- 12. Create an environment where people enjoy their work and are adequately compensated for it. 3 2.9%
- 13. Provide efficient, reliable, scheduling. 3 2. 5
- 14. Reduce work load. 3 2.9%
i
- 15. Provide professional management from the plant superintendent level and higher. 2 1.9%
5-12
Question I (continued) ,
# of Responses (N = 104) %
- 16. Reduce the problem of information overload. 2 1.9%
- 17. Clearly delineate the responsibilities of each watch and watch-station. 2 1.9%
- 18. Reduce the " Red Tape" between support departments. 2 1.9%
- 19. Restructure the " Station / Operator" Department. 2 1.9%
- 20. Get rid of excess employees (terminate). 2 1.9%
- 21. Provide competent and effective management. 2 1.9%
- 22. Distribute work equally among employees. 2 1.9%
- 23. Protect the equipment. 1 .96%
- 24. Prioritize job functions. 1 .96%
- 25. Replace the Training Department 1 .96%
- 26. Provide more mobility within the security system. 1 .96%
- 27. Better planning at various levels of management. 1 .96%
- 28. Provide SR0 foreman for each unit and shift. 1 .96%
- 29. Terminate the Quality Assurance Department. 1 .96%
- 30. Speed up the Operator Training Program. 1 .96%
- 31. Restructure the organization implementing a rigid structure with competent managers. 1 .96%
i t 1 5-13 ! 4 e m am i ssi --m.- i im- i -i ii
Question II: What, if anything, should be done to reduce the number of people who leave this organization?
# of Responses (N = 104) %
- 1. Pay salary commensurate with responsibility l and cost of living. 43 41.3%
- 2. Establishment of an open, visible career pattern. 13 12.5%
- 3. Increase management's sensitivity to the problems /
perceptions of line staff. 12 11.5%
- 4. Management should use input from line staff. 12 11.5%
- 5. Treat employees with respect 11 10.6%
- 6. Give positive feedback to employees for a job well done. 9 8.7%
- 7. Increase benefit package to include housing and transportation allowances. 5 5.0%
- 8. irovide incentives for educational pursuits. 4 3.8%
- 9. Develop a reward system (profit sharing) that is tied directly to employee performance / achievement. 4 3.8%
- 10. Do not force employees to work overtime. 4 3.8%
- 11. Reduce preferential treatment among certain groups. 4 3.8%
- 12. Provide appropriate training for employees. 4 3.8%
- 13. Establish credibility with employees: Management should keep promises. 3 2.9%
- 14. Hire more employees and reduce overtime. 3 2.9%
- 15. Different Union P.epresentative. 3 2.9%
- 16. Put an end to " crisis management" by transfering identified managers to less sensitive locations. 2 1.9%
) 17. Tighten up on maintenance and safety procedures. 2 1.9%
- 18. Buy down interest rates on housing for employees. 2 1.9%
i I 5-14 1
Question II (Continued)
# of Responses (N = 104) %
- 19. Four-day work weeks. 2 1.9%
- 20. Terminate incompetent employees. 2 1.9%
- 21. Implement a merit system. 1 1.9%
- 22. Earlier licensing of personnel. 1 .96%
- 23. Implement a Quality Circle Program. 1 .96%
- 24. Establish better communication between management and union. 1 .96%
- 25. A more realistic understanding of working conditions before being hired. 1 .96%
- 26. Select persons with good judgment to do the hiring. 1 .96%
\ 5-15 ;
f l Question III: What can be done to improve the way the organization uses employees' skills, knowledge, & abilities?
# of Responses (N = 104) j'
- 1. Bridge the communication gap. 22 21.0%
- 2. Make an assessment of each employee's skills and utilize them via interdepartmental training and experience designed to maximize the competency of the employee. 19 18.0%
- 3. Provide effective evaluation and training. 6 5.8%
- 4. Provide training, in effective management skills, for management personnel. 5 5.0%
- 5. Reduce paper work. 4 3.8%
- 6. Promote from within. 4 3.8%
- 7. Recognize that employees possess skills, knowledge, and abilities. 2 1.9%
- 8. Provide an objective appraisal of employees skill, knowledge, and abilities at entry and for promotion. 2 1.9%
- 9. Provide an avenue to resolve problems promptly. 2 1.9%
- 10. Provide positive incentives. 2 1.9%
- 11. Utilize the skills of employees to train less advanced peers. 2 1.9%
- 12. Establish a merit system. 2 1.9%
- 13. Design the job to create specialized tasks / job functions. 2 1.9%
- 14. Change some administrative procedures. 2 1.9%
\
f I 5-16
5.5 CONCLUSION
S The conclusions on operator feedback are summarized below in four categories corresponding to the items discussed in the November 15, 1982 letter. A. Readiness of Plant Operations Personnel
- 1. Supervisors have adequate technical experience but minimal supervisory experience.
- 2. The amount of operations experience is comparable to industry averages.
- 3. Operators feel they have the skills and knowledge required to perform their jobs well.
- 4. Operators feel opportunities exist to learn new and challenging work.
- 5. Both supervisors and operators felt the people on shift work well as a team.
- 6. Operators were only slightly dissatisfied with working hours and conditions.
B. Past Performance None C. Operator Training Ncae D. Improving Overall Effectiveness Inadequate communications with management is a significant area of job dissatisfaction among operators and supervisors. 5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS Provide additional supervisory skills training to operations supervisors. Institute a program to improve communications within the Operations Department. I i 5-17
1
- 6.
SUMMARY
OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS j Summary of Conclusions The conclusions of Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 are summarized below into four categories. The categories correspond to the items addressed in the November 15, 1982 letter. A. Readiness of Plant Operations Personnel Based on parameters evaluated in this special review, plant operations personnel are ready to conduct intended startup testing and full power operation of San Onofre Unit 3. This conclusion is , supported by the following findings noted previously:
- 1. Present staffing levels for five-shift operation are adequate.
- 2. The schedule for implementing six-shift operation is sati sf actory.
- 3. Sufficient numbers of personnel are being trained to meet current staffing goals and to compensate for anticipated attrition.
- 4. Relevant average experience of the staff is 3.5 years for operators and 5 years for supervisors at San Onofre which is adequate overall.
- 5. Future plant staffing is being pursued from a variety of sources.
- 6. Overtime has been decreasing since May 1982 to an average amount of 4% per month for December 1982. Adequate controls are now in place to keep planned overtime near present levels.
- 7. Turnover has decreased steadily since 1979 to a present level of 11.2% which compares favorably with an industry average of 12.6%.
B. Past Performance , Compliance history and adherence to procedures indicates a need for continued en'phasis in this category. This conclusion is based on the following findings:
) 1. Adequate corrective measures are now underway. However, '
results must be monitored on a continuing basis. 6-1 .
- 2. Data to date does not show a problem with adherence to procedures on Unit 2 based on a review of the SALP reports.
C. Operator Training The training programs are acceptable and compare favorably with i other PWR training programs. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
- 1. The irdividual training program documents were reviewed and the programs were found to be acceptable.
- 2. The Saddleback Cor:vaunity College Program is an innovative program that shows great promise.
3 The content of the programs compares favorably with other utility programs but a need for additional training was noted in certain non-technical operator training areas, e.g., stress management. D. Improving Overall Effectiveness Generally, the plant operating staff is experienced and motivated. Communications with management needs to be improved. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
- 1. Supervisors have adequate technical experience but minimal supervisory experience.
- 2. The amount of operations experience is comparable to industry averages.
3 Operators feel they have the skills and knowledge required to perform their jobs well. 4 Operators feel opportunities exist to learn new and challenging work.
- 5. Both supervisors and operators felt the people on shift work well as a team.
- 6. Operators were slightly dissatisfied with working hours and conditions.
- 7. Inadequate communications with management is a significant area of job dissatisfaction among operators and supervisors.
Based on parameters evaluated in this special review, the plant , operations personnel are ready to conduct full power operations on Unit 3. The staff is capable, experienced and adequately trained. 6-2
7 Recommendations The POPRC recommends the following items receive management attention and further action: A. Adherence to procedures should be continually emphasized. B. Implement the planned computer-based surveillance program for both units to improve adherence to surveillance schedules. C. The administrative training requirements contained in the SR0 training program should include the delineation of job responsibilities for other operator classifications. D. Stress management training for RO's should be upgraded to equal that for SR0's. E. Institute a program to improve communications within the Operations Department. F. Provide additional supervisory skills training to operations supervisors. i 6-3 . a
i
- 1. Letter from R. Dietch, objectives of this repi
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulator Recommendations Concers NUREG/CR-1750, January
- 3. " Final Safety Analysis Units 2&3," Amendment .
- 4. "1981 Evaluation - San Institute of Nuclear Pi
- 5. "1982 Survey of Nuclea:
Utilities," INP0 Repor1
- 6. Letter from Zack Pate, Reference 5 and SCE spi
- 7. Code of Federal Regulat
" Operator's Licenses,"
- 8. Letter from R. H. Enge' Systematic Assessment i 1982.
- 9. Letter from D. M. Ster Systematic Assessment i October 18, 1982.
- 10. Letter from D. M. Ster Systematic Assessment i October 18, 1982.
- 11. Letter from Robert Diet Response to SALP Repor1 1982.
- 12. Letter from Robert Diet Response to SALP Report, 1982.
3 i
.._ . .}}