ML18101A410: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:e Public Service Ele_ctric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station December 14, 1994 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk SALEM GENERATING STATION LICENSE NO: DPR-70 and DRP-75 DOCKET NO: 50-272 and 50-311 UNIT NO: 1 and 2 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT NO. 272/94-016-00 This Licensee Event Report is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of Code of Federal Regulation 10CFR50. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B). Issuance of this report is required within thirty (30) days of event discovery.
{{#Wiki_filter:e PS~G Public Service Ele_ctric and Gas Company           P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station December 14, 1994 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Attn:           Document Control Desk SALEM GENERATING STATION LICENSE NO: DPR-70 and DRP-75 DOCKET NO:           50-272 and 50-311 UNIT NO:           1 and 2 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT NO.                           272/94-016-00 This Licensee Event Report is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of Code of Federal Regulation 10CFR50. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B).                     Issuance of this report is required within thirty (30) days of event discovery.
FW:vs C Distribution LER File 941??10159 941214 .A-o-.... , C.-( ( , ..
FW:vs C         Distribution LER File 941 ??10159
PPR ADOCK
              .A-o-....   , 941214 C.-( ( ,.. ~Y"l**jlr''I PPR*
* PDn s The power in vour hand.( 95-2189 REV 7 92 NRC FORM 366 . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVED BY OMB NO. 3150-0104 (5-92) EXPIRES 5/31/95 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (MNBB 7714), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (3150-0104), OFFICE OF (See reverse for required number of digits/characters for each block) MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 20503. FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) PAGE (3) Salem Generating Station -Unit 1 05000 272 1 OF5 TITLE (4) Non-Compliance With Control Room Area Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Manning Requirements EVENT DATE (5) LER NUMBER 16 REPORT NUMBER (7) OTHER FACILITIES INVOLVED 18) SEQUENTIAL REVISION FACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER MONTH DAY YEAR YEAR NUMBER MONTH DAY YEAR 05000 NUMBER 11 16 94 94 16 00 12 16 94 FACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER ----05000 OPERATING 1 THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1 o. CFR §: (Check one or more 111 MODE (9) 20.402(b) 20.405(c) 50.73(a) (2) (iv) 73.71 (b} POWER 20.405(a)(1  
ADOCK   OJJJ~L~~
)(i) 50.36(c)(1) 50.73(a)(2)(v) 73.71(c) LEVEL (10) 100% 20.405 (a) (1) (ii) 50.36(c)(2}
PDn s
50.73(a)(2)(vii)
The power i~ in vour hand.(
OTHER I-20.405(a)
95-2189 REV 7 92
(1 )(iii) x-50.73(a) (2) (i) 50.73(a) (2) (viii) (A) (Specify in Abstract below and in Text, NRG 20.405(a)(1)(iv) 50.73(a) (2) (ii) 50.73(a}(2}(viii)(B)
 
Form 366A) 20.405(a)
NRC FORM 366                                           . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                           APPROVED BY OMB NO. 3150-0104 (5-92)                                                                                                                           EXPIRES 5/31/95 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS.               FORWARD LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)                                                        COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (MNBB 7714), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (3150-0104), OFFICE OF (See reverse for required number of digits/characters for each block)                       MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 20503.
(1) (v) 50.73(a}(2}(iii) 50.73(a}(2}(x)
FACILITY NAME (1)                                                                                           DOCKET NUMBER (2)                                     PAGE (3)
LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER 12) NA'frederick Wiltsee, LER Coordinator Area Code) COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH COMPONENT FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT 113) REPORTABLE MANUFACTURER REPORTABLE CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT MANUFACTURER TO NPRDS CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT TO NPRDS -SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED 114) EXPECTED MONTH DAY YEAR I YES x SUBMISSION NO DATE (15) (If yes, complete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE) ABSTRACT (Limit to 1400 spaces, i.e., approximately 15 single-spaced typewritten lines) (16} On 11/16/94 it was determined that during the last several years there were four occurrences of not meeting requirements for Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) manning requirements.
Salem         Generating         Station         -     Unit   1                                                         05000 272                               1 OF5 TITLE (4)     Non-Compliance             With       Control         Room     Area   Senior         Reactor     Operator         (SRO)         Manning Requirements EVENT DATE (5)                         LER NUMBER 16                       REPORT NUMBER (7)                     OTHER FACILITIES INVOLVED 18)
The first event was due to poor turnover of the "on duty" _SRO function, resulting in the "on duty" SRO going to the Work Control Center(WCC) immediately adjacent to the Control Room area. The remaining events occured when the "on.duty" SRO left the Control Room area for the wee. These events are attributed to personnel error by the SR Os allowing themselves to become distracted and leaving the Control Room area. In all cases the SR Os went to the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area. Corrective actions include emphasis of expectations for turnover of the "on duty" SRO function, training for appropriate personnel on reporting requirements, placing a mechanical restraint on the security badge of "on duty" SR Os to prevent leaving the Control Room area, and an administrative procedure revision to clarify reportability.
FACILITY NAME                             DOCKET NUMBER SEQUENTIAL            REVISION MONTH         DAY       YEAR     YEAR                                           MONTH         DAY   YEAR NUMBER              NUMBER                                                                            05000 FACILITY NAME                              DOCKET NUMBER 11           16       94       94     --    16             --    00         12         16       94 05000 OPERATING                      THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1 o. CFR §: (Check one or more 111 MODE (9) 1        20.402(b)                                   20.405(c)                             50.73(a) (2) (iv)                   73.71 (b}
NRG FORM 366 (5-92) e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Docket Number 50-272 Plant and System Identification:
POWER                         20.405(a)(1 )(i)                           50.36(c)(1)                           50.73(a)(2)(v)                     73.71(c)
LERNumber 94-016-00 Westinghouse
LEVEL (10)           100%       20.405 (a) (1) (ii)                         50.36(c)(2}                           50.73(a)(2)(vii)                   OTHER 20.405(a) (1 )(iii)                     x- 50.73(a) (2) (i)                       50.73(a) (2) (viii) (A)         (Specify in Abstract I-below and in Text, NRG 20.405(a)(1)(iv)                           50.73(a) (2) (ii)                     50.73(a}(2}(viii)(B)           Form 366A) 20.405(a) (1) (v)                           50.73(a}(2}(iii)                       50.73(a}(2}(x)
-Pressurized Water Reactor Energy Industry Identification System (EIIS) codes in the text as {xx} Identification of Occurrence:
LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER 12)
Non-compliance With Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SR9) Manning Requirements Event Reportability Date: 11/16/94 Report Date: 12/16/94 Page 2 of5 This report was initiated by Incident Report No. 94-368. Conditions at Time of Discovery:
NA'frederick W i l t s e e ,                                                                                           16tJ9H~J ~~~J.riel~clude Area Code)
Unit 1: Mode 1 Reactor ?ower 100 % Unit Load 1150 MWe Unit 2: Mode 6 Defueled Description of Occurrence:
LER    Coordinator COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH COMPONENT FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT 113)
As a result of Hope Creek LER 354/94-13-00 on Control Room Shift Manning, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Group (NSAG) performed an independent review to determine if instances of inadequate Control Room staffing had occurred at Salem. This review involved interviews with licensed personnel who identified four separate occurrences of not having met the requirements of Technical Specification 6.2.2.b. The review indicated the individuals were knowledgable of the "on duty" Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) responsibilities.
REPORTABLE                                                                                   REPORTABLE CAUSE       SYSTEM       COMPONENT       MANUFACTURER                                             CAUSE   SYSTEM     COMPONENT           MANUFACTURER TO NPRDS                                                                                      TO NPRDS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED 114)                                                             EXPECTED         MONTH       DAY   YEAR I YES (If yes, complete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE)                             x NO SUBMISSION DATE (15)
However, they did hot recognize the need for an incident report or' the possible reportability until after the Hope Creek LER.
ABSTRACT (Limit to 1400 spaces, i.e., approximately 15 single-spaced typewritten lines) (16}
e . * . LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT coTTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Docket Number 50-272 LERNumber 94-016-00 Page 3 of5 In the first occurrence the Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor (SNSS-SRO licensed) exhibited poor transfer of the ."on duty" SRO responsibilities, resulting in the Nuclear Shift Supervisor* (NSS-SRO licensed)
On 11/16/94 it was determined that during the last several years there were four occurrences of not meeting requirements for Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) manning requirements. The first event was due to poor turnover of the "on duty" _SRO function, resulting in the "on duty" SRO going to the Work Control Center(WCC) immediately adjacent to the Control Room area. The remaining events occured when the "on.duty" SRO left the Control Room area for the wee. These events are attributed to personnel error by the SR Os allowing themselves to become distracted and leaving the Control Room area. In all cases the SR Os went to the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area.
_leaving the Control Room area while he had the "on duty" SRO responsibilities..
Corrective actions include emphasis of expectations for turnover of the "on duty" SRO function, training for appropriate personnel on reporting requirements, placing a mechanical restraint on the security badge of "on duty" SR Os to prevent leaving the Control Room area, and an administrative procedure revision to clarify reportability.
In this case while the NSS was on the phone, the SNSS informed an unlicensed supervisor that he was goin*g to a meeting and to inform the NSS that he was in charge. Prior to being notified, the NSS went to the Work Control Center (WCC), immediately adjacent_
NRG FORM 366 (5-92)
to the Control Room area (see Attachment 1). Within minutes (1-2) of entering the WCC, the "on duty" SRO recognized his error and returned to the Control*Room area. Operations management discussed the manning requirements and the need to be more attentive to the transfer of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.
 
In the. remaining three occurrences the NSSs in charge became distracted by other tasks and left the Control Room area for the wee. Upon realizing their error the individuals immediately returned to the Control Room area. All the above information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed . . Analysis of Occurrence:
e                               e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number  LERNumber          Page Unit 1                   50-272           94-016-00          2 of5 Plant and System Identification:
Technical Specification
Westinghouse - Pressurized Water Reactor Energy Industry Identification System (EIIS) codes appea~ in the text as {xx}
: 6. 2_. 2 .b requires that at least one SRO shall be in the Control Room area at all times. The four occurrences being reported all relate to not meeting this manning requirement of the Technical Specification.
Identification of Occurrence:
The first occurrence was due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. The SNSS did not formally turn over the "on duty" SRO responsibilities to the NSS. The turnover was communicated to a third individual and had not been communicated to the NSS prior to his leaving for the wee. Upon discovery, the manning requirements were discussed between Operations Management and involved individuals.
Non-compliance With Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SR9) Manning Requirements Event Reportability Date:           11/16/94 Report Date:       12/16/94 This report was initiated by Incident Report No. 94-368.
All understood that actions had to be taken to prevent recurrence of a similar event. However, none were aware of an incident report requirement (including and all information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed.
Conditions at Time of Discovery:
.. e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LERl TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Docket Number 50-272 LERNumber Page 4 of5 The remaining occurrences were also due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. However in these cases the individuals had formally received the "on duty" SRO responsibilities and inadvertently left the area for the wee. As in the first case the individuals were not aware of an incident report requirement (including reportability) and all information was provided by the involved licensed
Unit 1:     Mode 1 Reactor ?ower 100 %         Unit Load 1150 MWe Unit 2:     Mode 6 Defueled Description of Occurrence:
As a result of Hope Creek LER 354/94-13-00 on Control Room Shift Manning, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Group (NSAG) performed an independent review to determine if instances of inadequate Control Room staffing had occurred at Salem.
This review involved interviews with licensed personnel who identified four separate occurrences of not having met the requirements of Technical Specification 6.2.2.b. The review indicated the individuals were knowledgable of the "on duty" Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) responsibilities. However, they did hot recognize the need for an incident report or' the possible reportability until after the Hope Creek LER.
 
e                         .*
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT coTTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number  LERNumber          Page Unit 1                   50-272         94-016-00           3 of5 In the first occurrence the Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor (SNSS-SRO licensed) exhibited poor transfer of the ."on duty" SRO responsibilities, resulting in the Nuclear Shift Supervisor* (NSS-SRO licensed) _leaving the Control Room area while he had the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.. In this case while the NSS was on the phone, the SNSS informed an unlicensed supervisor that he was goin*g to a meeting and to inform the NSS that he was in charge. Prior to being notified, the NSS went to the Work Control Center (WCC),
immediately adjacent_ to the Control Room area (see Attachment 1). Within minutes (1-2) of entering the WCC, the "on duty" SRO recognized his error and returned to the Control*Room area. Operations management discussed the manning requirements and the need to be more attentive to the transfer of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.
In the. remaining three occurrences the NSSs in charge became distracted by other tasks and left the Control Room area for the wee. Upon realizing their error the individuals immediately returned to the Control Room area. All the above information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed .
. Analysis of Occurrence:
Technical Specification 6. 2_. 2 .b requires that at least one SRO shall be in the Control Room area at all times. The four occurrences being reported all relate to not meeting this manning requirement of the Technical Specification.
The first occurrence was due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. The SNSS did not formally turn over the "on duty" SRO responsibilities to the NSS. The turnover was communicated to a third individual and had not been communicated to the NSS prior to his leaving for the wee.
Upon discovery, the manning requirements were discussed between Operations Management and involved individuals.
All understood that actions had to be taken to prevent recurrence of a similar event. However, none were aware of an incident report requirement (including ~eportability) and all information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed.
 
e                           e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LERl TEXT CONTINUTATION
.. Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Docket Number 50-272 LERNumber 94~016-00 Page 4 of5 The remaining occurrences were also due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. However in these cases the individuals had formally received the "on duty" SRO responsibilities and inadvertently left the area for the wee. As in the first case the individuals were not aware of an incident report requirement (including reportability) and all information was provided by the involved licensed
* individuals when interviewed.
* individuals when interviewed.
Apparent Cause of Occurrence:
Apparent Cause of Occurrence:
These are attributed to "Personnel Error", as classified in Appendix B of NUREG-1022.
These ~vents are attributed to "Personnel Error", as classified in Appendix B of NUREG-1022. A contributor to the first occurrence was poor communication of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities. The cause of the remaining occurrences are cognitive as the NSSs allowed themselves to become distracted by other activities and inadvertently left the Control Room area to go to the WCC.
A contributor to the first occurrence was poor communication of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.
All four cases involved the "on duty" SRO leaving the Control Room area for a very brief period of time. The review determined that the involved individuals did not recognize the need for an incident report due to the short time period involved, the immediate action taken to return to the area and the admistrative nature of the events. The primary causal factdr.was determined to be that the events were. not recognized by the organization as being-reportable due to their administrative nature.
The cause of the remaining occurrences are cognitive as the NSSs allowed themselves to become distracted by other activities and inadvertently left the Control Room area to go to the WCC. All four cases involved the "on duty" SRO leaving the Control Room area for a very brief period of time. The review determined that the involved individuals did not recognize the need for an incident report due to the short time period involved, the immediate action taken to return to the area and the admistrative nature of the events. The primary causal factdr.was determined to be that the events were. not recognized by the organization as being-reportable due to their administrative nature. Prior Similar Occurrence:
Prior Similar Occurrence:
Review of prior Incident Reports and LERs did not show similar occurrences at Salem. Safety Significance:
Review of prior Incident Reports and LERs did not show similar occurrences at Salem.
This is. reported pursuant to the requirements of* 1ocFRSO. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B) due to shift composition being less than the minimum required in the Control Room area. These events were of minimal safety significance since in all cases the SRO was at the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area.
Safety Significance:
... -e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Corrective Ac.ti on: Docket Number 50-272 LERNumber 94-016-00 Page 5 of5 expectations for proper turnover of the "on duty" SRO function and reporting requirements have been clarified and re-emphasized.
This is. reported pursuant to the requirements of* 1ocFRSO. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B) due to shift composition being less than the minimum required in the Control Room area.
An appropriate barrier that fits over an individuals security badge is now being used to prevent the "on duty" individual_(s) from carding out of the Control Room area. Additional training will be provided to appropriate personnel on the reporting requirements of 10CFR50.73, NUREG 1022, and Administrative Technical Specifications.  
These events were of minimal safety significance since in all cases the SRO was at the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area.
-NAP-6 will be revised for Administrative Technical Specifications, Section 6.0, events as an "Off-Normal Event" requiring an incident report. FW:vs REF: SORC Mtg. 94-094
 
,. . 112 Control Equipment Room ATTACHMENT 1 WORK CONTROL 112 Computer *. Room 112 Contra / Room CENTER Ill Computer Room-fl 1 "'Control I Room SNSS/NSS Office Ill Control Equipment Room}}
e                           e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number LERNumber          Page Unit 1                   50-272       94-016-00           5 of5 Corrective Ac.ti on:
Management~s    expectations for proper turnover of the "on duty" SRO function and reporting requirements have been clarified and re-emphasized.
An appropriate barrier that fits over an individuals security badge is now being used to prevent the "on duty" individual_(s) from carding out of the Control Room area.
Additional training will be provided to appropriate personnel on the reporting requirements of 10CFR50.73, NUREG 1022, and Administrative Technical Specifications. -
NAP-6 will be revised for Administrative Technical Specifications, Section 6.0, events as an "Off-Normal Event" requiring an incident report.
FW:vs REF:   SORC Mtg. 94-094
 
ATTACHMENT 1 WORK CONTROL   CENTER 112 Computer           Ill Computer
                        *. Room                     Room-112 Control ~;:=:=(':l.
112 Contra /           fl 1 "'Control I   Ill Control Equipment Room        Room                    Room Equipment Room SNSS/NSS Office}}

Latest revision as of 05:49, 3 February 2020

LER 94-016-00:on 941116,determined That During Last Several Yrs Requirements for CR Area SRO Manning Not Met on Four Occurrences.Caused by Personnel Error.Training Initiated for Appropriate Personnel on requirements.W/941214 Ltr
ML18101A410
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 12/16/1994
From: Hagan J, Wiltsee F
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
LER-94-016-01, LER-94-16-1, NUDOCS 9412210159
Download: ML18101A410 (7)


Text

e PS~G Public Service Ele_ctric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station December 14, 1994 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk SALEM GENERATING STATION LICENSE NO: DPR-70 and DRP-75 DOCKET NO: 50-272 and 50-311 UNIT NO: 1 and 2 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT NO. 272/94-016-00 This Licensee Event Report is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of Code of Federal Regulation 10CFR50. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B). Issuance of this report is required within thirty (30) days of event discovery.

FW:vs C Distribution LER File 941 ??10159

.A-o-.... , 941214 C.-( ( ,.. ~Y"l**jlrI PPR*

ADOCK OJJJ~L~~

PDn s

The power i~ in vour hand.(

95-2189 REV 7 92

NRC FORM 366 . U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVED BY OMB NO. 3150-0104 (5-92) EXPIRES 5/31/95 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS. FORWARD LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE INFORMATION AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH (MNBB 7714), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (3150-0104), OFFICE OF (See reverse for required number of digits/characters for each block) MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 20503.

FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) PAGE (3)

Salem Generating Station - Unit 1 05000 272 1 OF5 TITLE (4) Non-Compliance With Control Room Area Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Manning Requirements EVENT DATE (5) LER NUMBER 16 REPORT NUMBER (7) OTHER FACILITIES INVOLVED 18)

FACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER SEQUENTIAL REVISION MONTH DAY YEAR YEAR MONTH DAY YEAR NUMBER NUMBER 05000 FACILITY NAME DOCKET NUMBER 11 16 94 94 -- 16 -- 00 12 16 94 05000 OPERATING THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1 o. CFR §: (Check one or more 111 MODE (9) 1 20.402(b) 20.405(c) 50.73(a) (2) (iv) 73.71 (b}

POWER 20.405(a)(1 )(i) 50.36(c)(1) 50.73(a)(2)(v) 73.71(c)

LEVEL (10) 100% 20.405 (a) (1) (ii) 50.36(c)(2} 50.73(a)(2)(vii) OTHER 20.405(a) (1 )(iii) x- 50.73(a) (2) (i) 50.73(a) (2) (viii) (A) (Specify in Abstract I-below and in Text, NRG 20.405(a)(1)(iv) 50.73(a) (2) (ii) 50.73(a}(2}(viii)(B) Form 366A) 20.405(a) (1) (v) 50.73(a}(2}(iii) 50.73(a}(2}(x)

LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER 12)

NA'frederick W i l t s e e , 16tJ9H~J ~~~J.riel~clude Area Code)

LER Coordinator COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH COMPONENT FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT 113)

REPORTABLE REPORTABLE CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT MANUFACTURER CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT MANUFACTURER TO NPRDS TO NPRDS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED 114) EXPECTED MONTH DAY YEAR I YES (If yes, complete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE) x NO SUBMISSION DATE (15)

ABSTRACT (Limit to 1400 spaces, i.e., approximately 15 single-spaced typewritten lines) (16}

On 11/16/94 it was determined that during the last several years there were four occurrences of not meeting requirements for Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) manning requirements. The first event was due to poor turnover of the "on duty" _SRO function, resulting in the "on duty" SRO going to the Work Control Center(WCC) immediately adjacent to the Control Room area. The remaining events occured when the "on.duty" SRO left the Control Room area for the wee. These events are attributed to personnel error by the SR Os allowing themselves to become distracted and leaving the Control Room area. In all cases the SR Os went to the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area.

Corrective actions include emphasis of expectations for turnover of the "on duty" SRO function, training for appropriate personnel on reporting requirements, placing a mechanical restraint on the security badge of "on duty" SR Os to prevent leaving the Control Room area, and an administrative procedure revision to clarify reportability.

NRG FORM 366 (5-92)

e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number LERNumber Page Unit 1 50-272 94-016-00 2 of5 Plant and System Identification:

Westinghouse - Pressurized Water Reactor Energy Industry Identification System (EIIS) codes appea~ in the text as {xx}

Identification of Occurrence:

Non-compliance With Control Room area Senior Reactor Operator (SR9) Manning Requirements Event Reportability Date: 11/16/94 Report Date: 12/16/94 This report was initiated by Incident Report No.94-368.

Conditions at Time of Discovery:

Unit 1: Mode 1 Reactor ?ower 100 % Unit Load 1150 MWe Unit 2: Mode 6 Defueled Description of Occurrence:

As a result of Hope Creek LER 354/94-13-00 on Control Room Shift Manning, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Group (NSAG) performed an independent review to determine if instances of inadequate Control Room staffing had occurred at Salem.

This review involved interviews with licensed personnel who identified four separate occurrences of not having met the requirements of Technical Specification 6.2.2.b. The review indicated the individuals were knowledgable of the "on duty" Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) responsibilities. However, they did hot recognize the need for an incident report or' the possible reportability until after the Hope Creek LER.

e .*

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT CLER) TEXT coTTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number LERNumber Page Unit 1 50-272 94-016-00 3 of5 In the first occurrence the Senior Nuclear Shift Supervisor (SNSS-SRO licensed) exhibited poor transfer of the ."on duty" SRO responsibilities, resulting in the Nuclear Shift Supervisor* (NSS-SRO licensed) _leaving the Control Room area while he had the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.. In this case while the NSS was on the phone, the SNSS informed an unlicensed supervisor that he was goin*g to a meeting and to inform the NSS that he was in charge. Prior to being notified, the NSS went to the Work Control Center (WCC),

immediately adjacent_ to the Control Room area (see Attachment 1). Within minutes (1-2) of entering the WCC, the "on duty" SRO recognized his error and returned to the Control*Room area. Operations management discussed the manning requirements and the need to be more attentive to the transfer of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities.

In the. remaining three occurrences the NSSs in charge became distracted by other tasks and left the Control Room area for the wee. Upon realizing their error the individuals immediately returned to the Control Room area. All the above information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed .

. Analysis of Occurrence:

Technical Specification 6. 2_. 2 .b requires that at least one SRO shall be in the Control Room area at all times. The four occurrences being reported all relate to not meeting this manning requirement of the Technical Specification.

The first occurrence was due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. The SNSS did not formally turn over the "on duty" SRO responsibilities to the NSS. The turnover was communicated to a third individual and had not been communicated to the NSS prior to his leaving for the wee.

Upon discovery, the manning requirements were discussed between Operations Management and involved individuals.

All understood that actions had to be taken to prevent recurrence of a similar event. However, none were aware of an incident report requirement (including ~eportability) and all information was provided by the involved licensed individuals when interviewed.

e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LERl TEXT CONTINUTATION

.. Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Docket Number 50-272 LERNumber 94~016-00 Page 4 of5 The remaining occurrences were also due to not having an SRO in the Control Room area. However in these cases the individuals had formally received the "on duty" SRO responsibilities and inadvertently left the area for the wee. As in the first case the individuals were not aware of an incident report requirement (including reportability) and all information was provided by the involved licensed

  • individuals when interviewed.

Apparent Cause of Occurrence:

These ~vents are attributed to "Personnel Error", as classified in Appendix B of NUREG-1022. A contributor to the first occurrence was poor communication of the "on duty" SRO responsibilities. The cause of the remaining occurrences are cognitive as the NSSs allowed themselves to become distracted by other activities and inadvertently left the Control Room area to go to the WCC.

All four cases involved the "on duty" SRO leaving the Control Room area for a very brief period of time. The review determined that the involved individuals did not recognize the need for an incident report due to the short time period involved, the immediate action taken to return to the area and the admistrative nature of the events. The primary causal factdr.was determined to be that the events were. not recognized by the organization as being-reportable due to their administrative nature.

Prior Similar Occurrence:

Review of prior Incident Reports and LERs did not show similar occurrences at Salem.

Safety Significance:

This is. reported pursuant to the requirements of* 1ocFRSO. 73 (a) (2) (i) (B) due to shift composition being less than the minimum required in the Control Room area.

These events were of minimal safety significance since in all cases the SRO was at the wee immediately adjacent to the Control Room area.

e e LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TEXT CONTINUTATION Salem Generating Station Docket Number LERNumber Page Unit 1 50-272 94-016-00 5 of5 Corrective Ac.ti on:

Management~s expectations for proper turnover of the "on duty" SRO function and reporting requirements have been clarified and re-emphasized.

An appropriate barrier that fits over an individuals security badge is now being used to prevent the "on duty" individual_(s) from carding out of the Control Room area.

Additional training will be provided to appropriate personnel on the reporting requirements of 10CFR50.73, NUREG 1022, and Administrative Technical Specifications. -

NAP-6 will be revised for Administrative Technical Specifications, Section 6.0, events as an "Off-Normal Event" requiring an incident report.

FW:vs REF: SORC Mtg.94-094

ATTACHMENT 1 WORK CONTROL CENTER 112 Computer Ill Computer

  • . Room Room-112 Control ~;:=:=(':l.

112 Contra / fl 1 "'Control I Ill Control Equipment Room Room Room Equipment Room SNSS/NSS Office