ML20140E541

Forwards EA Worksheet for Plant Use of Overtime Violation

ML20140E541
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/19/1996
From:	David Lanyi NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Boland A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20140E502	List: ML20140E497 ML20140E508 ML20140E514 ML20140E519 ML20140E524 ML20140E530 ML20140E536 ML20140E541 ML20140E557 ML20140E573 ML20140E580 ML20140E590 ML20140E594 ML20140E620 ML20140E652 ML20140E659 ML20140E667
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704290023
Download: ML20140E541 (12)

Text

- . -. . - . . _ _ - . ~ ~ ~ .. - . . - . .

i

! From: David Lanyi j A) 7_e_ : 7.2

To

ATB l Q.nne 3ob n1; # Rd : 122 Date: 7/19/9610:51am

Subject:

St. Lucie Overtime EAW Attached is the EAW for the St. Lucie use of overtime violation i

CC: BXU i

e j

4 i

4 i

i J

i I

se 4

4 l

s> ,

• J

\

l I

9704290023 970423 '

PDR FOIA l BINDER 96-485 PDR .

i

i-ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET Failure to Maintain Overtime Within Guidelines PREPARED BY: Mark S-. Miller DATE: 7/3/96 NOTE: The Section Chief of the responsible Division is responsible for preparation of this EAW

. and its distribution to attendees prior to an Enforcement Panel. The Section Chief shall also be responsible for providing the meeting location and telephone bridge number to attendees via e-

mail [ENF.GRP. CFE, OEMAIL. JXL. JRG. SHL. LFD: appropriate Ril DRP. DRS: appropriate NRR. NMSS].

, A Notice of Violation (without "boilerplate") which includes the recommended severity level for the violation is required. Copies of applicable Technical Specifications or license conditions

, cited in the Notice or other reference caterial needed to evaluate the proposed enforcement '

action are required to be enclosed.

J

[ This Notice has been reviewed by the Branch Chief or Division nirector and

, each violation includes the appropriate level of specificity as to how and

. when the requirement was violated.

Signature Facility: St. Lucie

Unit (s): 1&2 Docket Nos: 50 335, 50 389 License Nos: DPR 67. NPF 16 l

Inspection Report No

96 09 l

. Inspection Dates: June 9 - July 6,1996 j -Lead Inspector: Mark Hiller

1. Brief Summary of Inspection Findings: A review of overtime over a one month period indicated that 56 individual deviations from TS required overtime guidelines occurred. The deviations were not approved by plant 4

management, as required by TS. The deviations were ccmmitted by 5 l individuals. The number of examples of the proposed vi~olation indicates particularly poor performance by the licensee in this area.

4 b

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE Y --

.- . - - - - = _ - _ _ - - - . - . _ - - _ . - -.

w. ~

2.  : Analysis of Root Cause: Failure, on the part of the individuals

! , involved, to recognize the need for approved deviation requests,

! failures, on the part of plant managertent, to conduct effective reviews of overtime usage.

With regard to the differences between gate logs and timesheets, comments were also received indicating that., while management had stated that overtime guidelines should not be exceeded, an unexpressed pressure was perceived to meet outage schedules which led to work performed "off the clock " Additional comments were received which indicated that all of the parties interviewed were motivated by a desire to see jobs through to completion, with several stating that their own. expectations

for their performance factored into decisions to work extra hours. ,

t

3. Basis for Severity Level (Safety Significance): No operational event or  ;

! challenge to a safety system has been identified as a result of the ~

violation identified. This is proposed as a SL IV violation, Supplement i 1. D.3, a failure to meet regulatory requirements that have more than minor safety significance.

4. Identify' Previous Escalated Action Within 2 Years or 2 Inspections?

EA 96-249 10 CFR 50.59 Deficiencies. Supplement 1, 7/96. (

EA 96-236 Configuration Management Programmatic Breakdown,pending)

Supplement 1, 7/96 (pending)

EA 96-040 Boron Overdilution Event. Supplement 1, 1/22/96 EA 95-180 Inoperable PORVs due to Inadequate PMT, Supplement 1, 8/4/95 L 5. Identification Credit? No Consider following and discuss if applicable below:

o Licensee-identified a Revealed through event a NRC-identified a Mixed identification a Missed opportunities  ;

Enter date Licensee was aware of issues requiring corrective actions

6/6/96 Explain application of identified credit, who and how identified and l consideration of missed opportunities:

The issue of excessive overtime was identified by the licensee's OA organization in an audit conducted for the period of May 9 through 18.

l The NRC identified the issue in an audit conducted for the period of May 13 through June 13. The NRC was unaware of the licensee's audit. On June 6. 0A discussed the issue with the Plant General Manager (PGM).

Consequently the Site VP and the PGM stressed personal accountability

to their staff at morning meetings. Notwithstanding the licensee's ,

l imediate corrective actions, the NRC inspection identified 23 examples '

i of unapproved deviations from the overtime guidelines in the time period from June 7 through 13.

While the licensee's OA organization was able to identify cases of

, excessive overtime, the licensee's program for controlling overtime usage was ineffective in identifying the issue sooner. By procedure, i the licensee's management was to perform monthly reviews of overtime PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

l usage. The procedure failed to s)ecify which managers were responsible for the required reviews or how t1e reviews were to be conducted.

Consequently, opportunities to identify the problem were missed.

6. Corrective Action Credit? Yes Brief summary of corrective actions: j e Site VP and PGM discussed the problem with their staff at morning meetings stressing expectations for personal accountability in this area.

~

l e PGM issued letter to department heads on June 19 restating guidelines and restressing personal accountability and the possibility for discipline for violation of the policy.

e The Site Services Manager proposed a monthly spot check of high overtime users, comparing time sheet totals to gate logs.

e The site VP explained to site management at a morning meeting, and later reiterated to the SRI. that it is his expectation that personnel working beyond guidelines receive prior approval, receive direct management oversight to ensure that fatigue does not impede the employee's~ abilities to work safely, and that 1 employees working excessive hours receive a ride home and that i someone else drive the employee's car home.

e OA has subsequently performed an audit of overtime use in the I&C department (the group showing the most examples of the inspector's !

violation) and has found no deficiencies, indicating that  !

corrective action has been effective in the short term.  !

Explain application of corrective action credit:

The licensee's actions to date appear to have reestablished control over overtime usage.  ;

7.

Candidate For Discretion? [See attached list] [ Enter Yes or No): i Explain basis for discretion consideration:

8. Is A Predecisional Enforcement Conference Necessary? No Why:  ;

Severity of violation does not warrant conference. Additionally, no new information is predicted to be obtained.

If yes, should OE or OGC attend? [ Enter Yes or No]:

Should conference'be closed? [ Enter Yes or No]:  ;

9. Non Routine Issues / Additional Information:

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

10. This Action is Consistent With the Following Action (or Enforcement Guidance) Previously Issued: [EICS to provide] [If inconsistent. .includei)

Basis for Inconsistency With Previously Issued Actions (Guidance)

11. Regulatory Message:

A strong commitment to maintaining overtime usage at acceptable levels ,

is nece.ssary to minimize the potential for human error which might l result in challenges to s'afety.

- 12. Recommended Enforcement Action:  !

SL IV

13. This Case Meets the Criteria for a Delegated Case. [EICS Enter Yes or No]

14.. Should This Action' Be Sent to OE For Full Review? [EICS - Enter Yes or No]

If yes why:

l

15. Regional Counsel Review [EICS to obtain]

No Legal Objection Dated: -!

16. Exempt from Timeliness: [EICS) .

Basis for Exemption: l t

Enforcement Coordinator: ,

DATE:

j l

i t

i I

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE ,

I ,

L ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR DISCRETION I

o. Problems categorized at Severity Level I or II. j o Case involves overexposure or release of radiological material in excess l of NRC requirements.

l o Case involves particularly poor licensee performance.

o Case (may) involve willfulness. Information should be included to address whether or not the region has had discussions with OI regarding the case, whether or not the matter has been formally referred to 01, and whether or not 01 intends to initiate an investigation. A l description, as applicable, of the facts and circumstances that address I the aspects of negligence, careless disregard, willfulness, and/or management involvement should also be included.

O Current violation is directly repetitive of an earlier violation.

o Excessive duration of a problem resulted in a substantial increase in risk.

o Licensee made a conscious decision to be in noncompliance in order to obtain an economic benefit.

O Cases involves the loss of a source. (Note whether the licensee self-identified and reported the loss to the NRC.)

o Licensee's sustained performance has been particularly good, o Discretion should be exercised by escalating or mitigating to ensure that the proposed civil )enalty reflects the NRC's concern regarding the violation at issue and tlat it conveys the appropriate message to the licensee. Explain.

l l

I 1

l PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE l WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE l l

J

Enclosure 3 REFERENCE DOCUMENT CHECKLIST 4

~

[x] NRC Inspection Report or other documentation of the case:

NRC Inspection Report Nos. IR 96 09 l [x] Licensee reports: Quality Assurance Audit QSL-PM 96 08

[x]- Applicable Tech Specs along with bases:

[] Applicable license conditions-

[x] Applicable licensee procedures or extracts AP 0010119 Rev. 14 4

[x] Copy of discrepant licensee documentation referred to in citations such as NCR, inspection record, or test results >

[] Extracts of' pertinent FSAR or Updated FSAR sections for citations involving 10 CFR 50.59 or systems operability

[] Referenced ORDEPS or Confirmation of Action Letters

[] Current SALP report summary and applicable report sections

[] Other miscellaneous documents (List):

i PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

- WJTHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

08.X Control of Overtime The inspector reviewed the licensee's control of overtime for the period of May 13 through June 13. The inspector obtained gate logs for 26 individuals. The selected individuals were chosen from the licensee's maintenance, engineering. planning, and management organizations based upon their involvement in outage activities and the inspector's understanding of the activities under their cognizance. From the results obtained (which demonstrated time spent on site). the inspector reduced the inspection po)ulation to five individuals based upon indications of excessive lours. The supervisors and engineers with respon. individuals in question includedsibilit!

As acceptance criteria, the inspector reviewed TS 6.2.f, which required that the hours exbended by personnel performing safety-related functions l be limited, with an objective that personnel work a normal 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> day.

40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week while the plant was operating. The TS observed that substantial amounts of overtime might be required during extended periods of shutdown for refueling, and established guidelines for these I periods. The TS' stated" l l

"...on a temporary basis the following guidelines shall be followed:

a. An individual should not be permitted to work more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> straight, excluding shift turnover time.

b. An individual should not be permitted to work more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, nor more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period. nor more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7-day period, all excluding shift turnover time.

c. A break of at least 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> should t'e allowed between work periods, including shift turnover time. . .

. . . Any deviations from the above guidelines shall be authorized by the Plant General Manager or his deputy, or higher levels of management. in accordance with established plant procedures and with documentation of the basis for the deviation." The inspector reviewed AP 0010119.

revision 14. " Overtime Limitations for Plant Personnel." and found that the procedure appropriately implemented the TS requirements.

The inspector-found that the licensee deviated from TS guidelines for the control of overtime without the prior (or subsequent) approval from senior plant management. Of the five individuals focused on as a result of gate logs, the following information was obtained from timesheets (violations of the recuirements were cited only for excesses of requirements which hac not received approval per AP 0010119):

4 PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

. t Individual Violations of. 72 Violations of Violations of 16 1 Hour Requirement 24/48 Hour Hour Requirement Requirement  :

A 3 0 ,

0 j B 0 0 0 l C 5- 1 0 D 14 2 0 E 16 12 3  ;

Total 38 15 3 The instances identified above, in which TS guidelines were exceeded, and for  :

which the TS-required approvals for the deviations were not obtained. .

collectively represent a violation (VIO 96-09-XX. " Failure to Control Overtime").

l While violations were identified, the inspector also noted that significant l differences existed between timesheet records, which divided time between TS i 1

and non-TS categories, and gate records, which indicated total time on site.

For the 5 individuals highlignted above, nUwrous instances of differences .

between total time on site and timesheet-indicated time on site existed, with .

differences frequently exceeding one and two hours and, at times, exceeding  ;

several hours. The most time spent continuously on site was noted to be  ;

approximately 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br />.  !

The inspector discussed the results above with the affected parties to  !

ascertain the reasons for the excessive use of overtime and for the'  :

differences between gate logs and timesheets. Responses were mixed.

'Regarding the heavy use of overtime, several respondents pointed out that the project that they had been working was adversely affected by the loss of j several key personnel (one to lavoffs, one to death, and one to termination 7 for cause), which reduced the depth of knowledge on the associated job.  :

Several stated that the diverse activities on both units (due to the outage on j Unit 1 and the recent trip of Unit 2) had placed increased demands on their ,

time.

In discussing the method for completing timesheets, the inspector found that a }

lack of uniformity existed. Some respondents treated work periods (as described on the timesheet) as any work performed on a given calendar day. By applying this approach, the potential existed for the work hours recorded for -

a given day to represent a composite value of two work periods if one (or ,

more) of the work periods extended across midnight. The )otential result of '

this type of accounting was that the true length of a wor ( period, as referenced in TS, would not be accurately reflected on timesheets, confounding I the ability to maintain an accurate count of daily 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and 7-day totals. ,

With regard to not obtaining the appropriate deviation approvals for time worked in excess of the guidelines, several workers stated that they believed that obtaining a deviation provided a blanket authorization for overtime spent i on the project for which the deviation applied. The inspector noted that the .

AP was not specific'as to whether a deviation request was required for each PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE  :

[

i f

planned deviation from the guidelines or whether it applied to the job which c was described on the request. The inspector discussed this issue with the

Plant General Manager, who stated that it was his expectation that a deviation i

request be filed for each alanned deviation of the guidelines (the implication i i being that a series of worc periods for which each period led to violations of ,

one or more guidelines should each be docamented on separate requests). The ,

inspector had requested any deviation _regeests associated with the personnel- '

audited for the saDject time period. Two were identified which addressed ,

L themselves to 3 of the personnel. The deviations covered by these deviation

. requests were not twsidered in the summary table above.

l' AP 0010119 required that department heads perform a monthly review of assigned i

overtime to assure that excessive overtime was not assigned. The inspector  !

l questioned the licensee as 'to how those reviews were executed. . . . .  ;

, Independent of this inspection (and unknown by the inspector), the licensee's  :

OA organization performed an audit of overtime usage for the period from May 5  !

i through.18. A population of 100 plant )ersonnel was selected at random for -

l the audit. 0A reviewed gate logs for t1e sam)le )opulation and applied l

criteria which assumed a one half. hour lunch areat and accepted turnover -

periods to reach the following criteria for determining whether guidelines had j

. been <:xceedea: j b  !

I e No more than 17.5 nours in 1 day.

i e No more than 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> in a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period -

! e No more than 82.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in a 7 day period e . An 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> break between work periods. ,

OA determined that 13% of their population exceeded the criteria at least once F and that 8% exceeded the criteria at least twice. 0A informed management of their findings in this area on June 6. As a result, the Site Vice President and the PGM discussed the problem with plant. staff at morning meetings to ,

stress expectations for personal accountability in this area. On June 19. the  ;

PGM issued a letter to department heads restating the overtime guidelines and i stressing personal accountability on the issue. The inspector noted that. '

with respect to immediate corrective actions, 23 examples of unapproved -

deviations existed in-the inspector's sample from June 8 through 13.  :

As a result of this inspection the inspector concluded the following:

e: Overtime usage for the period May 13 through June 13 has exceeded TS guidelines for a number of personnel.

e The licensee failed to effectively control overtime as required in AP ,

0010119. revision 14. " Overtime Limitations for Plant Personnel " in that deviation requests were neither prepared nor approved for the i majority of deviations identified.

e AP 0010119 was unclear in its expectations, both for when a deviation request was required and for who was responsible for reviews of overtime usage (and how it was to be executed).

t PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE i WiTHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE i

s.

o- The requirement for monthly reviews of overtime usage, detailed.in AP

, -0010119, was ineffectively implemented.

e Personnel have, at times, worked hours which were not recorded on timesheets.

PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

. . . - - . - _ . - . - - - - - . . . . - - - - . - - . . - - - . - ~

4 I

PREDECISIONAL

.. DRAFT INFORMATION NOT FOR DISTRIBilTION NOTICE OF VIOLATION Florida Power & Light Company Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 .

St. Lucie 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF I During an NRC . inspection conducted on June 9 through July 6,1996. violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General  ;

Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (60 FR 34381:

June 30, 1995). the violations are listed below:

A. Technical Specification 6.2.f. requires that the hours expended by personnel performing safety-related fWtions be limited and that during extended periods of shutdown for refueling, the following guidelines be 3 observed:

a. An individual should not be permitted to work more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> straight, excluding shift turnover time. ,

l

b. An individual should not be permitted to work more' than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> l in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, nor more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> l period, nor more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7-day period, all excluding shi ft turnover time.

The Specification further required that any deviations from the above i guidelines be authorized by the Plant General Manager or his deputy, or higher levels of management in accordance with established plant procedures'and with documentation of the basis for the deviation. -AP 0010119. revision 14 " Overtime Limitations for Plant Personnel."

implemented this requirement and arovided an administrative vehicle for the approval of deviations from tie specified guidelines.

Contrary to the above, during the period from May 13 through June 14, l 1996, five individuals who performed safety related functions were found to have contributed to 38 deviations from the 72-hour-in-any-seven-day-l period requirement.15 deviations from the 24-hour-in-any-48-hour requirement, and 3 deviations from the 16-hour-in-any-24-hour-requirement without obtaining authorization from the Plant General l Manager, his deputy, or higher levels of management.

l l

C T O51\00CUMfNT\SHELL\RPT5 HELA WP Report printed 8.57 am. Tuesday, January 14,1997 11 l