ML20125A400
| ML20125A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1978 |
| From: | Harpster T, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125A399 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7809050148 | |
| Download: ML20125A400 (4) | |
Text
(
(
l l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CTTICE OF INSFECTION AND EN70RCEMENT j
l REC 10N 111 1
Report No. 50-358/78-11 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CrtR-88 l
t I
Licensee:# 01acinnati ces and Electric Company l
138 E. 4th Street 1
l Cincinnati. Chio 65201 j
Tacility Names William A. Zia=er Nuclear Fever Station l
Inspected Att William A. Zim=er Site j
t inspection conducted: May 23-26 and June 22-23, 1978 RFW W i
Inspector:
T. L. Harpster b Il- ?#
l t
R FW =?h l
Approved by:
R. F. Warnick, Chief 7-I/=_7A l
j Reactor Frojects Section 2 l
Inspeetten Sustary
_Inspectien en May 23 *6_and June 22-23. _1978_ _(Report _No. 50-358/78-111 Areas Insreeted_:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant procedures.
t operational and corporate staffing. The inspection involved 56 i
inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Resulto:
No itses of noncompliance or deviations were identified. One j
t unresolved ites identified regarding staffing.
j l
i l
l
\\
1 l
l l
f l
l 1
13OgoGol'/ES i
L If g:).
t.
c c
DETAILS 1.
Personnel Contacted E. Borgmann, Vice President Enginee'rirg S. Salty, Manager Electric Production J. T1yms, Kanager Licensing and Environmental Aff airs R. Dirr, Principal Hechar.ical Engineer H. Brink = ann, Lead Project Engineer C. Beringhaus, Principal Electrical Engineer K. Chitkara, Principal Nuclear Tual Croup Engineer J. Schott, Station Superintendent W. Schwiers Principal QA and Standards Engineer The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including scabers of the General Engineering Department and the Reactor Operations staff.
2.
Staffing Oper,a t iecal _ _St a f f ing a.
The inspector reviewed qualifications of personnel assigned to selected positions within the operating organisation to ensure thats the organizational structure is in accordance with the Tinal Saf ety Analysis Report (TSAR): key, staff positions are filled or will be filled prior to operating license issuance and the qualifications of personnel assigned to these positions meet the mininum requirements established in the TSAR and ANSI 18.7-1971.
(1) The reactor engineer does not meet the sintmum requirements for this position as stated in the TSAR and ANSI 18.7.
The reactor engineer is currently augmenting his caperience by participating in startup activities at the Hatch Nuclear Station.
This item is considered to be unresolved.
(2)
The position of r.aintenance supervisor is vacant as a result of a staff resignation.
The licenses is presently attempting to fill this position.
(3) The licensee is increasing the sise of the station engineering staff.
Two engineers have been hired: one has resigned addittunal engineers are being sought.
-2=
t 0
0
i..
c c
1 (4) presently, the QA/QC staff consists of one station quality engineer whose responsibilities include development of the QA program and taplementing procedures for preoperational l
testing, startup and operations.
Three additional positions have been proposed, but are unfilled for this area.
I The inspector discussed selected inspection findings with Mr. E. gorgsann, Vice President Engineering and other corporate i
and station sanagement personnel.
The inspector emphasised that while minimum regulatory staffing requirements were satisfied
, (with the exception of the reactor engineer), the following observations were potential probles areas which could affect the licensee's ability to adequately conduct the preoperational and startup test programs, and which would influence subsequent power operations.
l l
(1)
The size and limitad experience of the plant staff would l
not be adequate to cope with the additional staf fing problems created as a result of the normal attrition of
[
personnel during the startup and test programs.
(2) gecause of the heavy reliance on contracted technical support, such of the base line knowledge and experience r
gained as a result of participation in the i
startup and test program would leave with the contracted support personnel.
f (3) operations! QA/QC controls would not be developed, implemented, and refined in time to be effective during the test and
[
startup programs.
i b.
_ Corporate Staffint j
l l
The inspector interviewed selected annagement personnel at the corporate office to ascertain whether adequate technical suppert was available to support startup and test program activities and subsequent power operations at the Zimmer site.
l The inspector discussed the following observations with both l
corporate and station management.
(1)
Fersonnel from the mechanical and electrical sections do I
not have the " plant system" knowledge that will be required to support subsequent plant operations.
(2)
There is presently no personnel in the electrical group with expertise in the plants complex instrumentation and l
control systems.
h as en l
(
l v
(-
(
t.
i (3)
There is no corporate health physics expertise to backup the
[
site.
(4) The Nuclear Fuel Croups participation in the startup and
, test activities has not been resolved.
The inspector commented that the corporate technical staff needs to gain a baseline familiarity with the facility systems to be able to adequately aussent the site personnel'a expertise and to provide for the resolution of test deficiencies, analysis of transients and operational anomalies, design changes, etc.,
during the startup and test programs and subsequent plant i
operations.
c.
_Staffint Meetint l
A meeting has been scheduled for July 13, 1978, in gathesda, Maryland to discuss apparent weaknesses in the utilities organizational staffing.
The meeting vill be attended by cincinnati Cas and Electric Company management, NRC Division of Project Management, and the of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III.
l l
I 3.
Flant Procedures The inspector reviewed draf t and approved administrative control procedures to determine the adequacy of management controls in implementing and maintaining a viable procedure systeal and to confirm that the scope of the plant procedures system is adequate to control safety related operations within applicable regulatory j
requirements.
The inspector provided comments to the appropriate station staff me=bers based on his review. Additional proced0res will be reviewed as they become available.
4.
HAnalement InterVipVs The inspector met with licenses representatives during the course of the inspection to summarise the scope and findings of the inspection.
l.
e g
'd THE CINCINNATI OAS Ss ELECTRIC COMPANY e.= e i= = oi t
[
May ze, le7e d.A.U**.C."
James *0. Reppler Director Dnited ' states Muelear Regulatory Commission
- Reglen III Top Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn,.2llinois 40137
[
Dear Mr. Repples a I
'I as writing you concerning our telephone conversation of May t
14 during which you indicated that Region !!! wished to int'erview.
some of our people further with regard to certain statements made to the Advisory Committee en peactor Safeguards (ACRS).
These l
. statements apparently toneerned our statfing plan and some con-filet between the statements made and our actual staffing inten-tions.
Obviously, I was quite concerned and looked into the matter promptly. The facts in this matter 'from our standpoint are 1
as follows:
I i
i Following the subcommit inspector, along with his super $ee meetin(, Mr. Rarpater, your visor, Mr. Warniek, telephoned Mr..
l James R. Behott, our plant superintendent, and voiced his feelings t
to the effect that CGet's plans with respect to backup personnel should be clarified at the full ACAS meeting.
Mr. Schott advised Mr. Barpater that he had not seen the transcript but indicated that he had not tried to mislead anyone with his testimony.
After Mr. Rarpster's call to Mr. Schott, we reviewed'the l
transcript of the ACRS subcommittee meeting pf February 27 and concluded that we agreed with Mr. Schott's testimony toneerning backup espability.
Apparently any problem stems from the discus =
sion of beekup to operating personnel between Subcommittee Chairman tender Ind Mr. Schott. In essence, Mr. Bender was trying to assure himself that adequate backup would esist for each key supiervisor. The maintenance supervisor was used as the esemple in the discussion watch was prompted in part by the f act that our former maintenance superviser had resigned.
What Mr. Schott stated was that backup espability would be assured at the second line supervisory level and would be full.
time.' Our intention is to have a dedicated backup for each of the l
following sectione s operating, paintenance, I a C, red-chem, i
. technical, and training.
It was not our intention, however, to l
.5 t 093 l
Abia 4 4 mv.@
m
(
' age 2
- May 18,1979 James R. K?ppler P
necessarily give these backup personnel the title of " Assistant",
per.se.
Both CG&E and Mr. Schott personally believe that'*our inten-tions were clarified at the full committee s.eeting by describing the roles of the maintenance engineer and the other supervisors, including their support. This was done through the use of a view graph and Xerox copies of the plant organization chart which were distributed to members of the committee.
It was not until your call that anyone at CG&E had knowledge that this matter had'not been fully resolved to Mr. Barpster's satisfaction.
I hope this letter now resolves this matter to the satis-faction of Region III.
Bowever, in the event you wish to discuss the subject further with our personnel, we will be pleased to cooperate. As you know, the pre-hearing conferences are scheduled for May 21-23 with the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on June'19.
For this reason, timely res'olution of this apparent misunderstanding is essential.
r.
Very truly yours,
^ - -,# ;-w E. A..Borgmann
. Senior Vice* President e
vu O
O g
9 e
e e
4 e
'v" m
O l
P f
f 'i.:..
s I
+